Hansard Transcript 1988-Jun-15 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Miss Martel: Something very special is happening in Sudbury this summer. From July 26 to July 31, our city will be the proud host of the second world junior track and field championships. Hundreds of young athletes from 150 participating countries will descend on Sudbury to compete in this first-class sporting event. The skill and commitment of these young athletes, after months of intense training, will provide for competition of the highest calibre. The junior games promise to be a forum for great achievements and excellence in sportsmanship.

Without a doubt, Sudbury has risen to the occasion with determination and style. In recent months, many events have been staged to promote interest and excitement in the games. The corporate challenge, involving 45 teams representing local businesses, was a huge success. Ben Johnson was welcomed to the city in March to kick off an invitational indoor track and field meet. An international symposium on athletics will be held in Sudbury just prior to the beginning of the games. On July 22, the flame from the Olympic torch will be transferred from inside Science North to the nickel torch outside, to kick off the opening ceremonies of the World Juniors Festival.

Hundreds of volunteers have worked long and hard to prepare the city for this event. Hundreds more will join the ranks in the final days before the games begin. They and the organizing committee deserve every credit for their dedication. This is an event not to be missed and that is why we are inviting every member of the Legislature to come and celebrate with us this summer. We are proud to be hosting the world junior games and we expect them to be a success in every way.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: This morning, the standing committee on regulations and private bills approved special legislation that would give two more municipalities, the town of Markham and the city of Etobicoke, the right to control smoking in the workplace. I will assume that the government will allow these bills to pass, as it did the precedent-setting Bill Pr25 respecting the city of Toronto.

Upon passage of these bills, three municipalities in Ontario will have the ability to control smoking in the workplace. This afternoon, I will be introducing a bill which will allow the remaining 800 municipalities to be afforded similar protection, should they desire it. This legislation is based on Bill Pr20, the Town of Markham Act, which was recently introduced by my colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens). Not only will this bill allow for more municipal workplace-smoking bylaws to be implemented, but it will also make very clear that all municipalities have indeed the jurisdiction to control smoking in public places.

It costs approximately $5,000 for each municipality to go through the special private bill process. Would it not make more sense to pass one bill for all municipalities and thereby save unnecessary expense? More important, this legislation will give all nonsmoking workers across Ontario the opportunity to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those working in Toronto and soon to be effective in Markham and Etobicoke.

MORQUIO SYNDROME

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to provide you with an update on Brent MacKay of Kitchener, the little fellow who went to Towson, Maryland, last week for lifesaving surgery on his spine. I am happy to report that Brent’s operation was a resounding success and that he is expected to fly home today via air ambulance. In fact, the operation was so successful that Brent is returning home two days earlier than originally scheduled. Furthermore, I want to extend our best wishes to Brent on his 10th birthday, which is today, and wish him a happy birthday.

Brent was born with Morquio syndrome, one of a number of rare genetic bone disorders known collectively as mucopolysaccharide disease, or MPS. It is a rare, debilitating disease that affects the young. His very life was threatened before last week’s neck-fusion operation. Without this operation, his chances of reaching adulthood were very slim. Brent now is able to enjoy a normal life and is expected to live at least 25 years. His community, schoolmates at A. R. Kaufman School and the Victoria Hills Neighbourhood Association have all rallied around our young friend to provide him both financial and moral encouragement.

I want to wish Brent every chance of success in the future and express my hope that one day a cure will be found for this disease.

WORLD JUNIOR TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr. Laughren: I would like to join my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) in extending an invitation to all MPPs and all of their constituents to come to Sudbury from July 26 to July 31 this summer. Sudbury is the location of the second world junior track and field championships. Those of us who represent the Sudbury area are proud of the effort our community has put into the preparation of these games. Sudbury has arranged a large assortment of social activities for the athletes, both at the athletes’ village and in the community at large.

The stadium at Laurentian University has been expanded to seat 15,000 spectators. Ticket packages are available for the full week and for the weekend. Tourists who come to Sudbury will be pleasantly surprised with the large number of opportunities to enjoy themselves. Science North has become northern Ontario’s number one tourist attraction and an entire day could be spent experiencing that facility alone.

There are, of course, boat tours on the largest city-contained lake in North American, Ramsey Lake, just one of the 30 lakes within Sudbury’s city limits, and there are more than 90 lakes in the immediate area. For those who want to experience the night life, there is harness racing at Sudbury Downs and, of course, a large variety of interesting night spots in the city. For those who wish to continue on a more extended holiday in northern Ontario, there is the exquisitely beautiful Lake Temagami area with the Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park to the northeast. During the summer, all of northern Ontario becomes an ideal location for a camping holiday.

USE OF GILL NETS

Mr. Pollock: The Progressive Conservative Party believes that changes are necessary in the regulation and management of Great Lakes fisheries to ensure that both commercial and sports fishing industries remain viable in Ontario. The Ontario government must not continue to ignore the social and economic benefits that both industries bring to this province. Furthermore, it has become readily apparent that the fishing industry on Lake Huron has not received the attention it deserves from the ministry.

We therefore advocate a stepped-up program which would see the commercial gill-net fishery on Lake Huron bought out and an acceleration of the Ministry of Natural Resources stocking program take place in the lake.

1340

This policy is a continuation of the former government s buyout policy, which was in operation in the commercial fishery industries in Georgian Bay in the early 1980s. We remain deeply concerned about the fishing industry in Ontario and cannot help but feel that the time for action is now.

Similar programs to encourage the change from gill nets to trap nets have worked successfully in the United States and in Ontario. Such a program for Lake Huron would clearly enhance the tourist industry and the recreation opportunities in the area. It is time further initiatives were undertaken.

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA

Mr. Velshi: I rise on this occasion to express my deep dissatisfaction with the decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada to consider extending to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the title of Honorary Bencher. Surely, this outstanding law society can find more worthy recipients for this honour than a head of a government who just happens to be in Toronto for the upcoming economic summit.

Mrs. Thatcher has opposed our own Prime Minister in his attempts to encourage Commonwealth economic boycotts of South Africa at the last Commonwealth conference in Vancouver. I am appalled that the most important Commonwealth trading partner with the regime in South Africa is the one and only Commonwealth country that continues to oppose sanctions against this oppressive regime, thereby tacitly aiding and abetting its evil policy of apartheid.

I call upon the members of the Law Society of Upper Canada not to entertain such a motion until a more suitable candidate can be found.

TRAVEL ASSISTANCE FOR ATHLETES

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and concerns the confusion and financial hardship caused by reduction of the Wintario hosting and travel budget for the Ontario Equestrian Federation, with virtually no advance notice.

To learn that this budget has been cut by 50 per cent is devastating for the federation, especially now when all of that organization’s programs are already under way. To host an event, the site must be prepared one year in advance, and to receive news that a budget has been reduced by 50 per cent at such a late date means the organizers, who use private funds for site preparation, will take a financial bath. To receive news of a 50 per cent cutback is distressing enough, but the minister could have at least given the federation one year’s notice to allow the organization enough time to try to solicit alternative funding.

The Wintario travel assistance funding is used by grassroots young riders from such communities as Elliot Lake, Timmins, North Bay and Thunder Bay, and because of the minister’s cutback they will not be able to travel to their championships. His ministry talks about the importance of developing the grassroots level of athletes in Ontario and then turns around and deprives them of that development. I have to wonder why these cuts were not announced at least one year in advance of their taking effect. I also have to wonder why the minister is cutting this Wintario hosting and travel budget.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements. Statements by the ministry? None. Then I cannot ask for any responses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: As we approach a convention, that kind of applause is most welcome.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That’s about it.

Mr. B. Rae: That’s about it. Nothing from the Treasurer.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Ever heard one-hand clapping?

Mr. B. Rae: Against a cheek. It is called a slap in the face.

Mr. Speaker: A question would be in order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), who is not here. I have been told that she is coming. In that case, I will ask my first question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. B. Rae: We have now the report of Professor Rosehart, who reported to the minister in September 1987, and we have the report dated June 1988, which I think is the longest time taken on record in the province to write a press release. It has taken this long for the government to respond by way of press release to the Rosehart report.

The Rosehart report could perhaps best be summarized by the opening words of a song I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources is well acquainted with, The Teddy Bears’ Picnic, “If you go down in the woods today, you’re sure of a big surprise.”

The question I have for the minister is this: Despite the rather candy-coated press release which is put out by the government, Professor Rosehart, in fact, speaks in ways that are very critical, and I quote: “If the present course continues, we are pessimistic about any significant progress.” Those are his words.

We have had Dr. Baskerville. We have now had Professor Rosehart. Can the minister tell us when the Ministry of Natural Resources is finally going to get down to the job of actually counting the trees and telling us what the situation is in this province with respect to our forestry resource?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As the honourable leader knows, the report has also said that, for the purposes that it was undertaken, it provides very valuable information as to the inventory across the province.

There have been those people, particularly in the official opposition, who have asked for something more significant as it relates to a complete inventory on the ground. While the member can appreciate that there has been a great deal of new initiative taken by bringing in Dr. Baskerville and the kind of people he has described in that report -- Dr. Rosehart and those people who have a true interest in where we are going in forestry -- I would like to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am intent on doing what needs to be done to be certain that we have a continued supply of wood and forests for the people of Ontario for the many uses to which they are put.

To talk about taking actual inventories, I am examining doing that right now. I am not suggesting that we could do it on a province-wide basis to start with, but I am very anxious to look at what might be done. For instance, the model management unit at Temagami might be a very good place to start. I am thinking of doing that very thing.

Mr. B. Rae: It is incredible to me that we would now have a minister who has, if I may say so, several reports before him, all of which have indicated that there is a problem, that there is a desperate need to have a completely accurate assessment of exactly what we have, what is left and what is growing.

Why would the minister not have embraced right away, in September, nearly 10 months ago, the recommendation of the Rosehart committee that the government first of all triple the budget -- very specific numbers given, very specific tasks given -- and establish the natural resources information service which would have the clear mandate within his ministry to tell us what is growing, where it is growing, how it can be harvested and how it can be used? This information is vital to the conservation of a resource which is the basis of our northern economy.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: While I accept the Leader of the Opposition’s assessment of the Rosehart report, I must put on the record that the Rosehart report also says that the committee found that Ontario’s forest resources inventory is sufficiently accurate when used for the purposes for which it was set up.

In looking at the whole examination of that circumstance of the forest inventory across the province, it seems that there is credit given that is adequate for the purposes at that point. It is not to take away from the suggestion I have made to the leader that I am very much prepared to look at that model management unit that we are setting up. We will have the committee set up under Dr. Daniel in a short time, maybe to do a pilot project in that area to see where we go from there.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister explain why it took 10 months for this report that was submitted on September 9, 1987, to be released, and can he confirm that Dr. Rosehart says that the forest resources inventory is adequate, as the minister has said, for the purposes it was intended, but is not adequate for on-the-ground forest management, because it can be out as much as 20 per cent?

If the minister is prepared to now initiate this kind of an approach, tripling the budget for a forest resources inventory in the Temagami area, why did he not release this 10 months ago and have the information so that we could have used it in trying to resolve the Temagami dispute?

1350

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Going back to the comment that the member’s leader made about initiatives that were taken for the first time by this new government in Ontario when we brought in Dr. Dean Baskerville from the University of New Brunswick to look at the whole problem that might exist in the forestry industry, it had never been done before. The member knows that the initiative was an important one and that many of the comments and directions that were given by Dr. Baskerville have been taken into account and already initiated.

By another committee, we are looking at the best use of our wood products. We are looking at many of the areas that were neglected before. I must tell the Leader of the Opposition and the critic that I am very much intent on going forward with the kind of direction we have been given by very able individuals.

Mr. Wildman: You’re cutting the funds this year, not increasing them.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The fact of the matter is that I will not, and cannot, as the member knows, make a commitment about funds. What I have said is that we are prepared to look at something that he has been advocating and that I am accepting and doing it as a start in the Temagami area.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. B. Rae: I see the Minister of Housing is here. I would like to address a question to her. The minister may be aware of the questions that we have been raising in the House over a number of days about tenants who have been evicted in order to create empty buildings which are then either demolished or converted into condominiums. We have given examples over the last number of months, in fact: at 114 Vaughan Road, 20 Peppler Street in Waterloo, and 500 and 520 to 524 Kingston Road here in Toronto.

I would like to raise with the minister another example in the city which she and I both represent, the city of York. It is at 10 Tichester Road, where the minister perhaps has been made aware of the fact that the landlord some time ago appointed a member of the Vagabond motorcycle club as the superintendent of the building. It surpasses fiction, but this is like something out of The Bonfire of the Vanities.

The minister must be aware of what is going on, of buildings that are being made empty by subterfuges such as this, the kind of intimidation and fear which she must be aware of. Can she tell us why she is not talking to her House leader to bring in an amendment right away to the Rental Housing Protection Act to make sure that just because buildings are vacant does not mean they can be converted into condominiums?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I understand the concerns about vacant buildings under the Rental Housing Protection Act, and that is one of the reasons we are looking at that act and at protecting people more adequately. That is the reason we extended the act, to give us the time to do a comprehensive review to make sure that the act that replaces it to deal with rental housing protection matters answers some of the concerns that the member has raised.

Mr. B. Rae: Tenants are being intimidated and evicted from buildings, and this building is now empty as a result of the appointment of the member of the Vagabond motorcycle club, who told other tenants that the vacant units there would provide room for about 100 of his friends and would be a great place for parties.

This subterfuge, this incredible way of using the act in order to intimidate people -- and as a result, miracle of miracles, the building is now empty, which I am sure is no surprise to anybody in those circumstances -- is what is going on. It can happen all summer.

The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) talked yesterday about a world-class city. This is happening in this world-class city. It is not because of world market conditions; it is because the laws are too weak. Why does the minister not change the law now so that, at the very minimum, people are not evicted out of fear and intimidation, forced out on to the street with nowhere to live, and buildings are not converted into condominiums? Why does she not at least change that part of the law?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I understand the concerns raised and I understand that there are problems with the Rental Housing Protection Act. That is precisely the reason we have to look at all the details in it and the whole question of rental housing protection in a new way. That is the reason we are working on that right now. I will be taking very, very seriously all the concerns that have been raised. We will try to come up with the package that deals with all those concerns and protects rental housing in the most appropriate way we know how.

Mr. B. Rae: I think a government that leaves tenants out on the street and tells them it is going to look at a problem, when it has had two years to study the problem, is guilty of negligence that is almost criminal in terms of what it is doing to people who are rendered homeless by what has happened. I really do think that.

The minister must realize that people are being made homeless by this kind of activity. People are making tons of money out of these buildings, converting them, going before the Ontario Municipal Board and asking for demolition orders because the buildings are vacant, not telling the 0MB how it is the buildings became vacant.

What is stopping the minister from introducing this one, simple change? The city council at York has asked for the change. They specifically said, “Give us a change that allows us to refuse conversions to buildings that are vacant,” because of the way in which these buildings are being made vacant. Why does the minister not bring in that change --

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

Hon. Ms. Hošek: My approach to this problem is that it has various components and we must look at all of them together. That is the reason we are working so expeditiously to get some answers on this issue and we will see them as soon as we possibly can.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Solicitor General and it relates to the decision made by the Metro executive committee yesterday to pursue what I am sure the minister has read about, a zero-tolerance policy with respect to drug pushers and users in Ontario and as it relates to Metro specifically.

I think she will also be aware of the fact that President Reagan’s goal in the upcoming summit, among others, is to get as many countries as possible to join in the war against drugs, which of course is an international problem.

Since the drug problem is of concern to us in Ontario and certainly throughout the country as well, will the Solicitor General commit her government, and more particularly her ministry, to supporting the Metro initiative and in fact initiate on behalf of the province a zero-tolerance program throughout the province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia raises a very important issue of drugs in our society. Of course, it is one that has been of importance to the police forces of this province for a long time, and indeed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police also.

Drug problems have to be addressed on various different levels, the RCMP having the primary responsibility for keeping them outside of the country, which also affects us here in the province. The Metro efforts will be done by Metro and will be suitable to the problems in Metro, in so far as it has full responsibility for setting its own priorities and its own programs as long it is meeting the legislative responsibility of providing policing.

I certainly commend them and we will co-operate in any way we can with them, but it is their program. I commend them for doing it. We will co-operate. On our own level, we will continue to examine closely anything new and creative we can be doing in drug programs by the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. Brandt: I find that response rather inappropriate in light of the extent of the problem that exists here in this province, not only in Metro Toronto but in other parts of the province as well. I would suggest to the minister that any additional funds that might be spent on new officers or expanding programs with respect to this drug problem could well be made up in savings in medical costs and savings in some social costs as well.

I would like to point out to the minister that on September 10 an article appeared in the Kingston Whig-Standard which stated that in eastern Ontario alone the usage of cocaine had increased in the last three years by some 900 per cent. That is really quite a startling figure when we look at the number of people who will be exposed to those particular harmful drugs.

Rather than the passive response that the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Please put your question?

Mr. Brandt: -- has provided the House today, and I am sure members on all sides of the House fully recognize that the local police forces, as well as the RCMP --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

1400

Mr. Brandt: I am getting to my question, Mr. Speaker.

Would it not seem reasonable and realistic for the OPP, through the minister’s good offices, to expand its programs, to take the initiatives that are necessary and, to the extent possible, bring a halt to this tremendously critical problem?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I have said, the OPP is already spending $2 million directly in drug prevention programs. They stress very strongly that no matter how much money they spend on that level, the most important tool that has to be used for fighting drugs in this province, as anywhere else, is the education of young people and influencing them away from drugs.

I see that the emphasis presently being placed among the police forces in this province, which I am encouraging, is one of involving themselves with the community and community policing. This includes involving police in the schools and the schools with police programs in order to educate young people and to prevent the use of drugs.

As for any programs to prevent drugs from coming in, I am sure the federal government is putting a great deal of emphasis on this at this point, and we will continue to emphasize drugs as a priority with the OPP. I would add as well that I believe drugs are probably even more of a problem --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. There may be further information. I am sure there will be a supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: I have to point out to the minister that cities are also part of the province. They need the co-operation of her ministry.

The minister is well aware that drug arrests by the OPP have increased dramatically over the past couple of years as a direct result of more attention being paid to the problem. She is also aware that there has been no expansion of that particular budget. I would suggest to her that the province has got to play a leading role in this particular problem. She has to take on more of the responsibility. I would urge the minister to look carefully at her programs and to direct more of her resources towards stopping what is becoming an absolutely overwhelming problem for local police forces to cope with.

I ask the minister again, is she prepared to work co-operatively by expanding her budget to assist both the RCMP and local police forces in coming to grips with a problem that is perhaps society’s most serious and critical problem of this day and age?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I said yesterday, we do not fund direct programs in municipal policing, and I am quite sure the municipalities do not wish us to get into setting their priorities for them. I am sure they will set them as they see fit, as indeed Metro is now doing. In the ways that we can co-operate with them, we will, but it is not my intention to interfere with them.

On the other hand, I am meeting with and speaking to the chiefs of police of municipalities next week, and I will pose to them the question the member has posed to me, whether there is anything that they sense we should be doing to assist them that we are not doing. I will be glad to put that to them.

As far as the RCMP is concerned, I suggest the member talk to the people in Ottawa. We do not fund the RCMP.

MINISTRY’S INTERNATIONAL OFHCES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who I am sure would want to respond to a question on this bright, sunny afternoon.

It relates to a comment made by the soon-to-be-former deputy minister in the minister’s department, who was quoted in the Financial Post as saying with respect to Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology foreign offices, “They’re no longer dumping grounds for unwanted bureaucrats.”

In light of that quote, does the minister agree with his deputy minister, someone whom we both know and admire well? Does he agree with that quote and does he in fact hold to the view that MITT offices, prior to his arrival, were a dumping ground for some of these unwanted bureaucrats?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I welcome the question from the leader of the third party. I just want to inform him of my personal policy: I do not comment on remarks about previous administrations, previous deputies and things of that kind.

Mr. Brandt: That is certainly a gentlemanly attitude to take that is not shared by some of his colleagues in cabinet -- namely, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), who sits right behind him and comments frequently on former happenings within his own ministry.

My staff did some research on this question, trying to determine who these unwanted bureaucrats might happen to be, and it is interesting to note that of the 14 offices in operation in the fall of 1986, six of the senior representatives are still in the same offices. Of the remaining senior representatives, only three have left government employ, including Adrienne Clarkson, while the rest are still working for MITT.

If these people the minister’s deputy was speaking of were unwanted, rather over-the-hill bureaucrats of some kind or another, why would his deputy even deem to make these kinds of comments, knowing full well that most of those people are still on his staff?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I should tell the leader of the third party that in the relatively short time I have been in the ministry and with the relatively limited exposure I have had to our representatives in various parts of the world, in every single case the people I have met have been very professional, very competent, and I am delighted to be associated with them.

Mr. Brandt: Now the truth unfolds, finally. In light of the discussion we are having about some of the minister’s senior civil servants, I would like to suggest to him that we in this party have some serious concerns about his track record with respect to trade. At the moment, he has no assistant deputy minister of trade and he has not had for almost two years. There has been no agent general in Paris for almost a year and he has closed two offices in the United States.

Could the minister tell us when the new assistant deputy minister of trade will be appointed, as he has indicated that is one of the key priorities of his government, and precisely how much has MITT spent in advertising and consulting fees searching for candidates for that position?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to inform the leader of the third party that although I do not have the exact figure of the cost, the advertising and interview process has been completed, the prospective candidates have all been interviewed, and that decision will be forthcoming very shortly.

With regard to the other situations he referred to, I can assure him again that the position in Paris, the agent general, will again be filled shortly. It is a matter of making sure we get the right person of the right calibre and the right qualifications and we want to do it in a careful way so that the interests of Ontario can be well served.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in regard to the studies and draft studies which have been prepared by the government about the impact on Ontario of the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.

Can the minister explain, if he is really interested in enabling Ontarians to make wise judgements on the impacts of these policies, why the government has not released the following studies: Investment in Canada-US Free Trade: A Recommended Approach for Ontario, dated August 1987; Services Trade in the Canada-US Trade Negotiations, September 1987; as well as the Structural Adjustment and Bilateral Free Trade study of the previous year; and Government Procurement in Canada-US Free Trade Negotiations, three drafts of which were prepared last year.

1410

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure the member will know that all of these submissions which were prepared were done at various stages of the free trade negotiations. We have been releasing those reports as they have been completed, as they have been revised to actually reflect the reality of what the final terms of the agreement are. If there are any others to be released, they will be released in due course.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps the minister could explain the criteria for determining if they are to be released. While doing that, could he explain why the studies on the effects of investment in Ontario -- Canada-US Investment Negotiation, September 1987; two studies on Changing Investment in Canada in a Canada-US Trade Agreement, September 1987; and Negotiating National Treatment and Investment in a Canada-US Trade Agreement, October 1987 -- have not been released?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I repeat, those studies were done and are in draft form. When they are completed and reflect all of the agreements which have been finalized, the decision will be made as to when they are to be released.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Deputy Premier. There is a great deal of public concern over the unfair treatment that Cambridge Memorial Hospital and its administrator, Don Robertson, have received from the Ministry of Health.

The Deputy Premier said yesterday that the decision as to whom the hospital board employ is entirely theirs. Will he now tell this House that the board of Cambridge Memorial Hospital has the authority to make the ultimate decision regarding the future of the hospital and its administrator without fear of any type of retaliation, monetary or otherwise, from the Ministry of Health?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Eves: Our information is that the Deputy Minister of Health indicated to at least one if not several members of the board of Cambridge Memorial Hospital that the Ministry of Health would not assist with any additional funding with respect to Cambridge Memorial’s deficit unless Mr. Robertson was removed from his position as administrator one way or another.

Does the minister approve or condone such action by the Deputy Minister of Health? If he does, he should say so. If he does not, will he undertake to set the record straight not only with respect to Cambridge Memorial but with respect to the other 221 hospitals in this province? Will that information be communicated through the Deputy Minister of Health to Cambridge Memorial Hospital this afternoon?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No. I want to say further that the honourable member is aware that the funding of hospitals has been substantially enlarged this year. He knows that we have a substantial increase in our tax base and a large degree of economic growth. Fully 40 per cent of those additional dollars have been allocated to the medicare program, and particularly the hospitals.

Under those circumstances, I have asked the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to use her planning authority to see that the hospitals, as far as is possible, live in a budget situation where they meet their commitments for budget balance. We think that is essential. As far as that goes, this is the requirement.

The Minister of Health has said repeatedly, and the member has pointed out that it has been said to the House on many occasions, that we expect the hospital program to be organized on a basis of central planning and the kind of fairness and equity that will provide good service to all parts of the province. As far as that is concerned, that is the basis of our funding, and nothing else. Any employment that takes place at the local level is completely the responsibility of the local board.

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Attorney General. The mindset about smoking in Canada has changed dramatically over the last many years for many different reasons.

There has been some concern expressed by various store employees in my riding over minors purchasing cigarettes. With all the various campaigns stressing the harm that is done by smoking, as well as the various bylaws in place to make our environment smoke-free, these employees feel there should be some bylaw or legislation in place to prevent minors from purchasing cigarettes.

Could the Attorney General explain the legislation in place to prevent stores from selling cigarettes to minors? What steps would he advise the employees to take in following the direction outlined in that legislation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question.

I was looking up the name of the act. There is an act in Ontario called the Minors’ Protection Act which forbids the sale or giving of cigarettes, cigars, tobacco or any form thereof to persons under 18 unless that person is purchasing tobacco for a parent or guardian with a written order or request. The honourable member will know, therefore, that if a purchase is made or if a sale is made in contravention of that act, the vendor or the purchaser is liable to be prosecuted.

Mr. Mahoney: By way of supplementary, could the Attorney General advise on how we might send a message to the community that it is not legal for a minor to buy cigarettes and, indeed, as a result of that, it is not legal for people to sell to minors?

This may upset the members of the opposition, but it is a matter of some concern to my constituents.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you want to waste your time, we will just wait once more.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I congratulate the honourable member for his supplementary. It seems to have created enormous excitement in the tobacco lobby in the third party; but all the joshing they produce aside, I am sure the member represents, as I think all of us do, a very real concern, that is shared even by mature and habitual smokers, that young people particularly should not be encouraged to adopt this filthy habit.

The question of how the message can effectively be brought to vendors of cigarettes is always a difficult one, but I draw some confidence from the fact that recent litigation and certainly recent publications have gone to great pains to emphasize to young people the very real physical dangers of smoking. I presume also that vendors are aware of the provisions of the law, are aware of the risk of prosecution, remote from day to day though it may actually be, and as an act of good citizenship, if nothing else, would at this stage see to it that this entirely salutory law is enforced in their precincts.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will be aware that he has received a great amount of correspondence from certain condominiums, such as Islington 2000, concerning the problem of appealing their assessment; that the 21 days is completely inadequate in this modern age for condominiums to take advantage of the appeal process. I am wondering if the minister has considered the views expressed in those letters and if he is willing to change the 21 days to a time more reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are looking at this particular area of the 21 days to 28, and we will have something to report on that very soon.

Mr. Philip: Did I hear the minister say he was thinking of changing it from 21 to 28, or did I mistake what the minister was saying?

Does the minister not agree that the 21 days was put in at a time when there were local courts of assessment, when condominiums did not exist? Will he not agree, in the case of condominium owners who must hold board meetings and often consult with whoever is representing them, then make an assessment as to whether they will take a chance on investing in an appeal, that it is completely unreasonable and that in fact he is denying them any appeal process by limiting it to the 21 days?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The condominium owners have been consulted on this. We are still considering this. We are looking at it, and I hope we will have something to report very soon.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister knows that Ontario’s farm economy is still in difficulty. Given the state of the rural economy, can the minister tell us why he has reduced Ontario family farm interest rate reduction benefits by 60 per cent without even warning farmers or farming organizations that he would do so?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This must be about the third or fourth time I have responded to the same question from the same member. The farmers were given ample notification about the OFFIRR program. It is a scheduled program --

Mr. Wildman: That’s not right.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yes, it is right. The press release that went out -- and I happen to have the press release here someplace -- specified that this was a three-year program, a scheduled program, 100 per cent coverage the first year, 70 per cent the second year and 40 per cent the third.

Mr. Wildman: But then you changed it to 100 per cent the second year.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Then I changed it the second year. Why? Because the federal Minister of Agriculture has not addressed the Farm Credit Corp. problem. Waiting for the federal minister to change the role of the Farm Credit Corp., I extended it to 100 per cent; but the farmers knew it was a scheduled program due to be phased out in three years and that the last year was 40 per cent coverage. It is no surprise to the farmers.

1420

Mr. Villeneuve: In spite of what the minister has just said, I am going to quote from a letter that was sent with the OFFIRR cheques last year. This was prior to September 10. This paragraph reads as follows: “By extending the program and providing enhanced benefits, it is my sincere hope that more farmers will be eligible for greater interest rebate assistance in the upcoming years.”

Does that sound like a 60 per cent reduction? With what is the minister going to replace that reduction? What is the ministry’s program?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just so the Minister of Agriculture and Food does not have to --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Breaugh: You’re not going to let him off.

Mr. Speaker: No; the member does not want a response, so new question.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Some time ago I was contacted by the Ottawa and District Association for the Mentally Retarded regarding the Audrey Henson case. Miss Henson is a 62-year-old lady living in a group home operated by the Guelph Association for the Mentally Retarded. Apparently, a Divisional Court ruled that some $82,000 held in trust for her under her father’s will is not a liquid asset. Therefore, she should be entitled to payments under the Family Benefits Act.

I understand that the ministry is appealing this decision, which could affect thousands of estate plans for handicapped people in this province. May I ask the minister whether he can inform this House of the status of this lawsuit and what the reasons are for the ministry’s position?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The difficulty that we have in our ministry is that our family benefits legislation, like our general welfare legislation, is based on needs. In other words, if resources available to a person are less than what he requires to meet his ongoing needs, they are supplemented by those two pieces of legislation. If a person already has resources, then he cannot qualify for assistance under the two pieces of legislation.

Miss Henson is the beneficiary of an $82,000 trust fund, and it was the decision of the ministry that she had that as a resource. The difficulty that we, as a ministry, have to face in Ontario is that we have an agreement with the federal government that when assets exceed $3,300, one cannot qualify for a benefit. We believe that the very basis of our legislation is in question here and, therefore, we have a responsibility to appeal to a higher court to be sure that the decision is the best one under the conditions that are present at the current time.

Mr. Daigeler: I thank the minister for this information on the Henson case itself. He is raising the whole question of the liquid assets and the amount that is available to individuals without being disqualified from the benefits under the Family Benefits Act.

May I ask the minister whether he or the federal government is taking a look at the limits, which are presently stated at $3,000, and whether he is reviewing that amount in light of inflation and the general increase in cost of living?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I met with a group of parents of adult developmentally handicapped people. They asked me a similar question. I indicated two things to them. First, I would ask the Social Assistance Review Committee if it would take this question under consideration and include it in its report. My understanding is that it is doing that.

Second, we have approached Ottawa to ask if it would agree to raise the ceiling. Ontario is now at the maximum of that ceiling. If the federal ceiling is raised, we will accept that new maximum. We are also awaiting the results of the review committee’s recommendations to take that into consideration as well.

ENSEIGNEMENT EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE / FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

M. R. F. Johnston: J’ai une question pour la ministre des Collèges et Universités. Le gouvernement semble être d’accord avec I’idée que la gestion française de l’éducation primaire et secondaire est essentielle pour éviter l’assimilation des Franco-Ontariens et pour améliorer l’éducation des jeunes Franco-Ontariens. Il y a, au Québec, trois universités de langue anglaise et plusieurs collèges d’enseignement général et professionnel de langue anglaise. La ministre est-elle en faveur de la création d’une université de langue française dans notre province?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I can tell that the honourable member was sufficiently impressed by the fact that I was able at least to listen to questions in French in our debate last night in Sudbury to have provided a question for me in French today, but I will respond in English.

He raises a question which was raised again yesterday, and I would answer to the House as I answered last night. The current policy of our government is to proceed to the implementation of Bill 8 through the extension of French-language programming in our colleges and universities. We have task forces in both the colleges and the universities that are proceeding with recommendations both on French-language courses and on the designation of specific institutions. That is our plan at the present time and that is the plan we are proceeding with.

M. R. F. Johnston: Un congrès du Parti libéral à Ottawa a adopté récemment une résolution en faveur de la création d’un collège de gestion française. La Fédération des élèves du secondaire franco-ontarien, l’Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario et le Conseil de l’éducation franco-ontarienne sont tout à fait d’accord. La ministre est-elle en faveur de la création d’un collège de gestion française dans l’Est de l’Ontario, oui ou non? Et quelle démarche peut-elle faire aujourd’hui pour relever ce défi?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: The concern that the honourable member raises, specifically in relation to French-language colleges, is one which I have certainly heard and have been listening to from the time that I came into the ministry. It is one which would represent a change in direction from the current policy, which I just enunciated in my response to his first question. It is one to which, in fact, we are giving some serious thought as to whether or not it does warrant a change in direction. At all times we are open to hearing the expression of concerns of our constituent communities, and the francophone community in Ontario has made that concern quite clear.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Jackson: I have a question to the minister responsible for women’s issues. Yesterday his interministerial task force on sexual assault held its first meeting, and today I brought with me into the House a series of recommendations from the Stopping Rape II forum, which was held earlier this year.

Eleven of the recommendations in that report deal with ways in which municipal planning and zoning can take into account safety features in the fight against sexual assault. Four of the recommendations deal with ways in which our public transit systems can be safer for women and children in Ontario.

Will the minister agree to expand the scope of his interministerial committee to include representation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Transportation so that these two ministries can also participate in the solutions and the proactive plans to combat sexual assault?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is an important question, and I know that we are debating important matters here in question period. I thought I might just take the opportunity while I have the floor to advise my colleagues in the House that, as we debate these matters, at Exhibition Stadium the Blue Jays are trouncing the Cleveland Indians nine to one and Stieb is pitching a one-hitter. There are 40,000 people watching that game.

1430

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: To me, it is very good news.

I was at the conference my friend refers to, the second conference held at city hall, and frankly I am surprised my friend the member for Burlington South was not there, because he purports to have a very keen interest in this issue.

What he is suggesting is that we incorporate two other ministries into this interministerial initiative. I will take those recommendations, look at them seriously and examine what he has to say about perhaps including them. I understand why those recommendations were made and I am certainly willing to look at them.

Mr. Jackson: I am surprised and shocked that the minister is more interested in responding to a Blue Jays’ game than he is in taking these matters seriously.

The fact of the matter is, if the minister --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: You couldn’t get tickets. That’s what you’re upset about.

Mr. Jackson: No, the problem is that I was in Sudbury for a debate with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod). I would have been there, but I have four critics’ roles to worry about.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Overwork; too much work.

Mr. Jackson: Will the minister stop being flippant about the matter of sexual assault in this province?

During the debate in this House on my private member’s resolution last week, which dealt with the issue of --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sometimes, by editorial comment prior to questions, noises are created. I did not hear a supplementary. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Jackson: I am working on my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps if I were talking about Blue Jays’ games there would be more silence in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. You may ask your supplementary about the Blue Jays, if you wish.

Mr. Jackson: Last week, in this House we were debating a private resolution which had to do with this government’s accepting input from the victims of sexual assault. The government chose to vote against that resolution. The minister’s parliamentary assistant, during that debate, stated as follows. “An interministerial approach to an issue such as sexual assault will facilitate input from the public through consultation with the ministries represented on the committee.”

Can the statement made by the minister’s parliamentary assistant be understood as a commitment that the interministerial task force will avail itself of public input, specifically from victims of sexual assault in this province?

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have had two minutes to place your supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure what the member for Burlington South has against baseball. I simply wanted to share a little bit of good news, in anticipation of answering his question. I am not sure why he is so upset. I think it is great news.

But on to his supplementary --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: He struck out.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Someone suggested that the member for Burlington South struck out. The fact is that he is suggesting that last week’s debate during private members’ hour was, in some respect or other, the government response to his resolution.

He knew quite well, and in fact informed me before the debate, that he did not anticipate that the standing committee that he was proposing study the resolution would ever get to the topic. He just wanted the resolution passed.

I tell him that within this government, within the Ontario women’s directorate, we are taking this issue very seriously, and it is the first time that has happened in the history of this province.

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for --

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Rotation.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Fleet: Thank you. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I will wear a brighter tie next time.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

Mr. Fleet: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last December I questioned the minister about problems experienced by travellers and by the travel industry. Shortly after that, he took action with new regulations regarding information which travel retailers and wholesalers must provide to consumers.

There are concerns about this regulation among some of the small business people in the travel industry, both in my riding and elsewhere in the province. Specifically, section 31 of the regulations stipulates that every travel agent must advise each individual consumer, travelling either individually or with a group, of the relevant laws and customs of the country or countries to which they are travelling.

This is a very onerous requirement and the phrase “relevant law or customs” is somewhat vague. Could the minister indicate what, if anything, he intends to do about this difficulty.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable member for his question. I had an opportunity late last week to have quite a substantial session with the Alliance of Canadian Travel Associations, ACTA, which represents the whole spectrum of the industry, perhaps including some of the honourable member’s constituents. ACTA put forward in the discussions a very positive tone and made some very useful representations. The honourable member is correct in that the wording of section 31 of the regulations has, in the view of the travel industry, brought about some confusion as to the precision that is wanted.

I share their concerns about the potential vagueness, and the alliance made a number of very useful suggestions. I expect that in the not-too-distant future we will be working on and bringing forward some additional wording that will give the kind of precision we need without in any way taking away the important rights that the regulation is meant to bring to consumers in the province.

Mr. Fleet: I am delighted that the minister is taking these concerns seriously, but there is also a related problem for travel wholesalers. Each travel wholesaler must verify that accommodation is in the condition that it was represented to be in to the consumer before the consumer departs on a trip. This produces a problem for wholesalers because they may frequently be unable to control all of the representations that are made to the consumer and, as a result, it may create an unfair legal liability for wholesalers.

Is the minister considering this matter as well; and if so, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Perhaps those discussing this matter with the honourable member are members of ACTA, because this is another area that ACTA raised with me last week. I can indicate to the honourable member that what we wanted to do in terms of bringing about consumer protection was prevent a situation where unsuspecting consumers went on trips and arrived at hotels which were either under construction or under major renovation. I underline the word “major.”

Again, ACTA has, on the part of its wholesalers -- and it represents small wholesalers -- raised a concern that those wholesalers may be unduly burdened by the regulation. I believe that we can work on some wording, and ACTA shared its view with me, which will again protect the important new rights being given to consumers in the regulation without in any way placing an undue burden, particularly upon small wholesalers. I expect to have some changes to come forward within the not-too-distant future.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. It appears that Beaches-Woodbine is about to lose 102 units of affordable housing at 500-504 Kingston Road due to the inadequacies of the Rental Housing Protection Act. I drew the situation to her attention in a letter dated March 15, 1988, and asked her to investigate the unethical and possibly illegal methods used by the owner and his agents in seeking to obtain vacant possession of the properties in order to convert them into a rest home not subject to any rent controls.

The minister may be aware that the city of Toronto’s committee of adjustment has now approved the rest home plan but has added a proviso that “this approval does not constitute an approval under the Rental Housing Protection Act.”

Did the minister in fact investigate the situation last March -- when she might have been able to put a stop to the tenant harassment which has routed out the tenants -- and will she now instruct her enforcement officers to indicate to the city of Toronto whether these --

Mr. Speaker: The first question has been put carefully.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I did instruct my officials to follow up on that case, but I must say that I do not have the exact details of what happened after that. Let me get back to the member with more details about that building.

1440

Ms. Bryden: I would like the minister’s officials to rule whether this building is subject to the Rental Housing Protection Act, in which case city of Toronto approval will be needed for any conversion. This is only one of many attempts by developer-owners to use loopholes in the Rental Housing Protection Act to convert affordable housing to nonregulated housing in order to recoup their speculative investments in properties. This property has gone up by 114 per cent in eight months.

Will the minister put a stop to this kind of blockbusting and tenant intimidation by amending the Rental Housing Protection Act to protect all vacant buildings from conversion and hire extra staff to actually enforce the act?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Rental Housing Protection Act is meant to protect buildings against conversion out of rental housing stock. It is clear to me that the law is not by any means perfect. That is precisely the reason we are looking at changing it in all the ways that people have raised in this House and outside this House. We take those concerns very seriously. We believe a comprehensive new way of approaching this needs to be worked out. That is the reason we are doing it, and the process is under way now. All the concerns that the member has raised will be put into the discussion process so that we can come up with a better law.

MINISTRY ANNUAL REPORTS

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), but since he has left us early, it is equally appropriate to the Solicitor General. Between her and the Attorney General, they have the responsibility to uphold the laws of this province, to enforce them with impartiality. Between the two ministries, they represent the foundation of law and order in the province.

Under section 6 of the Ministry of the Solicitor General Act and under section 7 of the act governing the Attorney General’s ministry, the ministers are required by law to submit an annual report after the close of each year. They are required by law to table that report if the House is in session, and if it is not to table it at the ensuing session. The last annual report from either the Ministry of the Solicitor General or the Ministry of the Attorney General was released in 1985-86, over two years ago. Can the minister tell us why she is ignoring her statutory obligations?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I know that the annual report is in preparation, if not already prepared. I can only account for the present year. I do not know the details. I will be glad to find out for any previous time; I will be glad to get that information and let the member know, which I am sure is the real point of what the member wants. He would like to know when we are going to produce an annual report, and I will be glad to find out exactly when he can expect it and deliver it to him.

Mr. Harris: What I would really like to know is how the two ministries responsible for enforcing law and order in this province can carry on in violation of both their own acts. The minister knows the problems we have been having with getting order paper questions answered. They are ignored. The freedom-of-information requests have been ignored, in violation of the act. Some members who have been able to get information have been charged for it -- money out of their own pockets.

We had the Thom commission report that took nine months to translate, but we are told Meech Lake can be done in five days so that we can facilitate the government business. Now, the two ministries responsible for law and order are in violation of their own statutes. I guess what I would like to know from the minister is when her policies are going to match the rhetoric of this free and open government.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I can speak for myself in saying that the member gets the promptest answers to questions that I can imagine. They are hardly asked before I am signing official answers and submitting them to the table here.

As far as the annual report is concerned, I have already spoken to that. I will get the information for the member and make sure that a report is produced in an appropriate time frame, as it should be.

As for all the other comments, such as withholding of freedom-of-information requests, etc., if the member has any complaints against my ministry, I would be glad to know of them so that I can find out about them, because I have received no such inquiries or complaints up to this time.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Miss Martel: I have a petition which is signed by 31 residents in the riding of Sudbury East. They are petitioning the government against Sunday shopping, which they believe should remain in provincial jurisdiction. I have signed my name to it, and I agree with them.

Mr. Black: I have a petition signed by 88 members of Trinity United Church in Huntsville which reads as follows:

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

“We are opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping.”

I am pleased to add my name to this.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

That is signed by 400 residents of the Durham region.

Mrs. Stoner: I, too, have a petition signed by 400 individuals.

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

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

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

I am signing that as well.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr20, An Act respecting the Town of Markham;

Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. McClelland from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 100, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Poirier) and the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items number 33 and number 34.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the estimates as they are presented to the House be referred to and considered in the committees as indicated in the allocation statement printed in the Orders and Notices paper today, and that the supplementary estimates, as they are tabled in the House, be referred to the same committees to which the main estimates have been referred for consideration within the times already allocated to the main estimates and that any order for concurrence in supplementary supply be included in the order for concurrence in supply for that ministry.

Motion agreed to.

1450

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY-LAW AUTHORIZATION ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill 157, An Act to authorize Municipalities to pass By-laws respecting Smoking in the Workplace and in Enclosed Public Places.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a brief explanation?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, I do: This morning, one of the committees of this Legislature passed a bill similar to this one for two municipalities in Ontario, the city of Etobicoke and the town of Markham. It is my desire that all other municipalities in the province will not have to go through the same process, at a cost of approximately $5,000 for each municipality. Why not make the same rights available to all nonsmokers across the province of Ontario? Why not give all municipalities the right to control smoking in the workplace?

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member is now debating. Do you wish to explain it? That is explained. It sounded to me as if the member were debating it.

329931 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

Mr. Black moved first reading of Bill Pr72, An Act to revive 329931 Ontario Limited.

Motion agreed to.

VDT OPERATORS’ SAFETY ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 158, An Act for the Protection of Video Display Terminal Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just a few words of explication, if I may, Mr. Speaker: This is a bill I introduced in 1981, setting up standards for the ergonomics of video display workers, guaranteeing them regular inspection of the machines and trying to eliminate all low-frequency emissions that might come from those machines. As a result of some studies that have been released recently, I thought it was only appropriate and timely that I reintroduce it today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY / CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved resolution 12:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing July 1, 1988, and ending October 31, 1988, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Briefly, once again, this routine motion comes forward at regular intervals, and the amount of money that is expected to be spent during the period is $11.3 billion. As usual, this divides out to about $100 million a day.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate?

Mr. Swart: The first thing I would like to do is thank the House leaders, particularly the government House leader, for bringing forth this supply motion at this time so that I could make my final speech in this House on the general issues. I realize that it has pushed the government order of business back a bit and, therefore, it is a special kindness because I am going to get out of here on June 30 regardless of how long the rest of the members remain.

I hasten to add that I am availing myself of this opportunity not because I intend to leave some comments of import for posterity in this province or suggest major future directions for the assembly or for members of this House. All the members know me well enough to know that even if I was presumptuous enough to try to do that, I do not have the articulation or the wisdom to do so. It is always well to level when you start.

On a recent Mediterranean cruise, there was a notice that came over the loudspeaker that Dolly Parton had fallen, had injured herself and, if there was a doctor on board, would he please go to stateroom 403. There was a dentist on that cruise. He had a “Dr.” in front of his name and he thought, “Ah, this is my chance to get close to Dolly Parton.” So in he went and he was physically examining Miss Parton when another doctor came in, and he knew that the other doctor would know he was not a medical doctor. The first chance he got, he whispered to him: “Look, I have to tell you. I’m not really a medical doctor. I just wanted to get close to Dolly Parton and that’s the reason I’m in here.” The other doctor said: “Well, let’s keep quiet about this. I’m only a doctor of divinity.”

So it is well not to pretend you are something that --

Mr. Reville: What did you say, Mel, when you went in?

Mr. Swart: I said, “Excuse me, I was here first.”

Mr. Speaker: I am sure this deals with the government motion.

Mr. Swart: Instead of trying to leave anything for posterity or pretend that I can do something that I cannot, I want to express some fundamental beliefs that I hold and share some concerns and views with this House.

The first thing I would like to do, of course, is to pay tribute to my colleagues in this Legislature and the others who have served over the 13 years that I have been here.

It is the case, and should be, that we have differences of opinions rather frequently and we hold them strongly enough, I guess, that at times we become kind of angry with other persons’ views. But in fact we are neither discharging our responsibilities conscientiously nor being honest with ourselves if we do not vigorously put forward our particular side of the issue.

It is also true, though, that we recognize individual human worth in opponents and can have great respect for them even though we strenuously disagree. I wanted to say that, not so much for the people of this House but perhaps for the people outside of this House, because just last week a man came up to me who had sat in the gallery here two or three days before and had witnessed some pretty heated comments. Then he told me that an hour or so later he was outside and he saw the two people on the opposite sides of this House who had been in these heated comments laughing and joking together. He said to me, “Boy, how phoney those people are.”

I want to say to the people who have that impression, as I said to him, that their arguments were not phoney and the friendliness that they had between each other was not phoney. There has to be this kind of a relationship if democracy is going to function in this Legislature and other parliaments, or for that matter even in municipal councils.

I want to say here too, and again not so much to the members of this House as to the public, that the abilities and the industry, the character and the decency of members of this House compare favourably with the citizens of this province generally. I have come to know most of them over the years, and I stand by that. I guess after saying that I will not be heckled during the rest of my speech.

1500

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Just playing to the members.

Mr. Swart: That is possible.

In spite of that generally high quality of members, the image of politicians is really not great. Someone once said that if Christopher Columbus was alive today, he would be a politician, because when he left Europe he did not know where he was going; when he got here he did not know where he was; when he got back he did not know where he had been; and he did it all on other people’s money. Of course, the polls show that kind of image is held rather widely about politicians.

I am not sure whether it was Gallup, but one of the pollsters a couple or three years ago took a poll and asked the public to rate some 15 categories of professions. The politicians came in third from the bottom, I think it was, in that poll as far as respect of the public goes.

Maybe there is some truth to this public perception of politicians, because I do not think we, as politicians, always practise the best characteristics we may possess as individuals. We promise as parties. We promise one thing before an election, and then we do the opposite afterwards. That is another way of saying we shake hands before an election and shake the faith afterwards. Generally, governments do all the unpopular things in the first year or two of their term, and in the last year or two they give out all of the goodies and do not do things that are unpopular, even if they are desperately needed.

I like to think that the New Democratic Party, the party to which I belong, is a bit different. Certainly it is true that we have taken some stands which were very unpopular, whether it was in regard to the War Measures Act or when we took the side of the Canadian-Japanese citizens of this nation during the last war when their land and their properties were being expropriated. But I guess all political parties in government succumb to these failures to some extent. I must say that the government we have in Ontario today is not innocent in these matters.

It can be said, of course, with some validity that the electorate is to blame. After all, they do vote for the governments that do these things. If they want to stop it, they could just simply never re-elect a government that breaks its promises. But the public sometimes has a fairly short memory, and that is why governments and politicians engage in some of the things that I have mentioned.

There is one area which is of some principle to me and of some personal interest as well. It is the issue of official bilingualism and French services for the francophone population of this province. Let me admit that substantial progress has been made by this government and, for that matter, by the previous Conservative government. In spite of some doubt of its popularity, that is the provision of French services, there has been real progress made. I give credit to both those governments for making that kind of progress. I personally think, however, as does my party, that it has not gone far enough or fast enough.

Au nom de mes concitoyens franco-ontariens, je fais de nouveau appel à ce gouvernement concernant leur statut en lui demandant de déclarer cette province officiellement bilingue. Cette reconnaissance leur revient à juste titre en raison du fait qu’ils en ont été les découvreurs, que plusieurs d’entre eux s’y sont établis comme défricheurs et qu’aujourd’hui, nos Franco-Ontariens jouent un rôle important dans tous les domaines d’activité de cette province.

De plus, nous voulons que l’Ontario, en se déclarant officiellement bilingue, devienne le plus bel exemple de la grande identité canadienne, pour ainsi contrecarrer l’influence culturelle grandissante de nos voisins du Sud et devenir un modèle à suivre pour les autres provinces. Ce n’est qu’alors que la véritable identité canadienne, stimulée par l’épanouissement de la francophonie ontarienne, deviendra une réalité, à partir des côtes de Terre-Neuve, en passant par les rives du Saint-Laurent, jusqu’aux Grands Lacs, pour parcourir les vastes plaines de l’Ouest et atteindre les côtes de la Colombie britannique, après avoir admiré les vallées verdoyantes et les cimes blanches et majestueuses des montagnes Rocheuses.

Un autre point que je désire mentionner est celui qui concerne nos personnes d’âge d’or, nos aînés. Tout en reconnaissant que plusieurs initiatives ont déjà été mises sur pied afin d’aider ce segment de notre population ontarienne, il est important de ne pas réduire, et encore plus de ne pas éliminer, l’aide financière du gouvernement à cet effet.

Il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour soulager la misère d’un trop grand nombre de personnes âgées qui, à cause du manque de ressources, n’ont pas les soins de santé nécessaires ou l’hébergement approprié. Il ne faudrait pas non plus soutirer l’aide gouvernementale à l’égard des projets déjà mis sur pied qui permettent à ces personnes de se rencontrer, de se récréer et, souvent, d’être encore utiles dans leurs communautés respectives.

En passant, Monsieur le Président, ces dernières remarques ne sont pas motivées par un intérêt personnel à la veille de mon entrée dans le groupe d’âge d’or. Je tiens tout simplement à souligner que ce qui a été commencé pour ces personnes il y a quelques années, doit se continuer et doit être encouragé.

Finalement, je profite de cette occasion pour exprimer publiquement ma reconnaissance aux dynamiques groupes de francophones du comté de Welland-Thorold, qui non seulement m’ont appuyé et encouragé lors de mes campagnes électorales, et cela dans mes défaites comme dans mes victoires, mais en tout temps m’ont reçu et accepté chaleureusement et avec empressement dans toutes leurs activités culturelles, sociales, familiales et communautaires. Et Dieu sait comment les francophones de Welland-Thorold sont actifs et participent à la vie communautaire de leur ville et de leur province, en dépit du fait que j’ai souvent massacré cette pauvre langue française.

Je tiens à remercier de façon spéciale mon bon ami de longue date M. Roger Babin et mon professeur, Mme Antonia Salmon, qui, avec une grande patience, ont tenté l’impossible en m’aidant avec mon français.

1510

Mes relations avec mes amis francophones, toujours fraternelles et amicales au cours des années, m’ont permis de connaître le dynamisme, la vitalité et la richesse de la culture et de la langue française. Aujourd’hui, je peux dire avec grande fierté que je suis un francophile convaincu et que je le serai toujours. C’est une amitié réciproque qui m’est très chère. C’est une amitié qui, au cours des années, m’a fortement réconforté et touché.

I wanted to make those few comments in French, not that I particularly wanted to grate on the ears of the francophone members of this House, although I am sure I did --

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Beautiful, beautiful.

Mr. Swart: -- and not because I wanted to make things difficult for the translator -- I am sure that is the most difficult time he has ever had in this House to date -- but because I wanted to give personal, tangible recognition to the rights of bilingualism in this chamber and the obligation I suggest we have as members to try to comprehend and speak some French. I am not a very good example of how to do it, but the principle is one to which I fully subscribe.

I want to recognize again the progress that has been made in francophone rights. Some measure of courage certainly has been shown in that area, but I am afraid that in most other areas of the administration of this province there has been no great show of courage at all.

If someone were to say to us that our purpose in government ought to be to make the lives of Ontario citizens better and happier, with priority to those who are suffering disadvantages, I think everyone in this House would agree. Nobody would disagree with that principle, yet the greatest social evil that we have in our society goes untouched by government because it might be unpopular. In fact, governments in this nation and in this province generally have contributed to the worsening of the situation. I am talking about the excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages, and I know that is a taboo subject for politicians.

It is great to talk about drinking and driving, but do not go further than that, even though that carnage from drinking and driving, as bad as it is, is only a minor part of the total damage that is done to our society. Do not ever say that the consumption must be dramatically reduced, that in fact we must deglamorize drinking, that it must pay its own way, that it must be recognized for what it is, “The world’s most widely used and dangerous drug.” Those are not my words. They come from a very recent publication of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain, and they are also the words of the World Health Organization.

The evening before last, I attended with my wife -- I thought she might be in the gallery, she is coming today, but some of my family are already there -- the appreciation night for the volunteers at Women’s Place in Welland. I listened to the director tell of the mental and physical condition of some of the women and children who come into Women’s Place. If you have any heart at all, you are almost in tears after listening to what she said.

The wife of the mayor of Welland, Vivianne Hardy, one of the finest persons I know, who was a volunteer herself for many years, said, “There’s great concern and government action against smoking -- and it is bad -- but the emphasis should be much more against drinking.” Then she said, “Seventy-five per cent of the wife and child abuse we see is the result of drinking.”

Other studies, of course, bear out that degree of problem with abuse and alcohol. I have here part of the February 1988 publication of the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation. It says here that the literature on children of alcoholics suggests one of three families currently lives with alcohol abuse by a family member. Then it says that in up to 90 per cent of child abuse cases -- sexual abuse as well as physical abuse -- alcohol is a significant factor.

Some members will know, particularly my colleague from the Hamilton area, that a 1978 study by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police revealed that 44 per cent of offenders in family violence situations were under the influence of alcohol. To put it in a broader perspective, a Gallup poll taken two years ago showed that 17 per cent of Canadian families have alcohol-related family problems. We are among the world’s leaders in the use and abuse of alcohol.

The 1983 federal government publication Perspectives on Health states: “There were an estimated 635,000 alcoholics in 1978, or one adult drinker in 20; this has more than doubled since 1965. An estimated 1.4 million persons, or one adult drinker in 10, now suffer from an alcohol-related handicap.”

This is what the United States National Council on Alcoholism said in 1979 about the impact of alcohol on crime and antisocial behaviour: It reported that in 1979, alcohol was a factor in 65 per cent of drownings, 77 per cent of falls, 65 per cent of murders, 40 per cent of assaults, 35 per cent of rapes, 30 per cent of suicides, 50 per cent of fights in the home and 22 per cent of home accidents.

To quote again from Perspectives on Health, just to put this whole thing in perspective: “A total of more than 18,000 deaths in 1978, or 10.9 per cent of all deaths in Canada in that year, have therefore been linked with alcohol consumption.” This is now approaching the number of deaths related to smoking. I want to say here, as we all know, this is a factual study; it is not Bill Temple’s statements, and God bless him for the work he did.

Reports indicate that alcohol problems are now invading the institutions of higher learning. Psychologists Stephen Wigmore and Riley Hinson of the University of Western Ontario reported in the summer of 1986 on the behaviour of 125 students -- 80 male and 45 female. Only three had not drunk in the previous month; and of the rest, 30 per cent said they skipped classes because of drinking, 40 per cent blamed drinking for lower school marks and 46 per cent drove after drinking.

The foregoing human problems related to excessive consumption of alcohol are undoubtedly the most serious. The financial costs are very real too. The myth that governments have a gold mine in liquor revenue should be dispelled. An Addiction Research Foundation study revealed that in Ontario, during 1981, alcohol was responsible for $1.6 billion spent on health care, reduced employee productivity, accident damage, law enforcement and social welfare. By contrast, provincial tax revenue from alcohol sales amounted to only $670 million. A similar study by the city of Vancouver reported that alcohol abuse costs British Columbia $2 billion a year compared to revenue of $400 million.

Let me bring this a little closer to home and up to date. The member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) was at the opening of the Newport Centre for Treatment of Chemical Dependency in Port Colborne, along with myself, just three weeks ago. The guest speaker was the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes). Unfortunately, he is not in the House at the present time or he could confirm what I said. He said that 25 per cent of all hospital beds are occupied by persons with alcohol-related problems; one quarter of our $5.5 billion for hospitals is being used for patients who are there because of alcohol-related problems.

1520

We have tremendous overcrowding of hospitals in our society. We have long waiting lists. Yet we have not heard one word in this House about this dimension of that problem. Not once has that even been mentioned in this House by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). What is our answer? As I have already said, it is silence or an increase in accessibility: proposed beer and wine in grocery stores or lengthening drinking hours; no mention of measures to prevent this massive and costly provincial and national illness, nothing whatsoever.

I tell a story on occasion about a professor who was lecturing his class on logic. He gave them a lecture of two hours and then he said, “I want to find out how well you understood my lecture on logic.” So he said: “I am going to pose a question. The question is this: If Canada is bounded on the south by the United States, on the north by the Arctic, on the east by the Atlantic and on the west by the Pacific, how old am I?” The students looked at one another and scratched their heads. Finally, one student put up his hand and the professor said to him, “Tell the class how old I am.” He said, “You are 44.” The professor said: “That is right. Now tell the class how you arrived at that logic.” He said: “It is this way: I have a brother at home who is 22 and he is only half nuts.”

On this issue of the damage that is being done to our society with regard to excessive consumption of alcohol, I think we area bit more than half nuts in not doing a single thing about it. Improvements are possible. A major reduction in the consumption of alcohol and related problems can be achieved.

Perhaps Sweden, more than any other country, can show the way. From a nation that just a couple of decades ago was known for its drinking problems, it has become a nation with some of the most sensible drinking habits of any affluent society.

Gallup’s 1985 poll reports that while 26 per cent of Canadians and 21 per cent of Americans overindulge, Sweden’s percentage is 16. The 17 per cent figure for alcohol-related family problems in Canada and 21 per cent in the United States is only 10 per cent in Sweden.

A combination of figures from the same Gallup poll and statistics from the Washington, DC, Center for Science in Public Interest show Swedish per capita alcohol consumption declined 21 per cent between 1976 and 1983, while ours remained virtually stable. The percentage of grade 9 Swedish boys and girls who acknowledge drinking once a month or more declined from 39 per cent in 1979 to 25 per cent in 1981. The Swedes’ per capita consumption of alcohol now is one third less than ours in this nation.

It is really quite a remarkable achievement that needs to be, and can be, duplicated here. It was accomplished by a comprehensive program that included steep taxes, paying the costs of the actual illnesses and problems created by alcohol, tough driving laws, limitations on accessibility, extensive education and an advertising ban. In short, they simply deglamorized alcohol consumption.

In summary, we have a massive problem and there are measures that can be taken to reduce it. I am not talking about draconian measures like prohibition; it does not work, and in any event I do not think we have the right to interfere with the wishes of the public. But we can stop advertising and replace it with educational programs, the deglamorization I talk about, and make the alcohol industry pay the costs it creates and put reasonable limits on accessibility.

On this issue, I return to the theme that I started with in talking about government: the need for leadership and courage -- leadership in proceeding with the measures and explaining why they are necessary and courage in taking on the vested, powerful corporate interests who profit immensely from the weakness of so many people.

Let me now move to my final topic, my motive for being in politics and the reason for my being a democratic socialist. I was raised on a farm near Smithville in the Niagara Peninsula. During the Great Depression we could not sell our produce. My father could not sell the produce. We fed our milk at that time to the pigs we were raising, and then could not sell the pigs. Dad lost that farm in 1933. I left school that winter at the age of 14, when we moved to Thorold to take a farm on shares, and I became a hired man on a dairy farm

I was lucky. That farmer owned a small dairy, and after a couple of years he asked if I would like to peddle milk. But my questioning of our economic and social system which had started earlier in the Depression was intensified by my new job. I went past factories, when I was delivering milk, which were shut down or perhaps only working two days a week. I would go to the doorstep of a house and there would either be a note in the milk bottle -- we used bottles in those days -- or the mother would come to the door and say, “Just leave us a pint of milk today” or a quart, even though maybe she had four children. “The welfare cheque hasn’t come in,” or “my husband’s only working two days this week.”

I started pondering these things. How was it possible that my father was throwing out his farm produce and people were hungry in our society? How was it possible that there were factories standing idle that could produce all the things that the people needed in their society? How was it possible that could happen when you had people wanting to use those tools and work in those factories and who had desperate need for the goods that those factories could produce?

I started thinking there is something wrong with the kind of economic system that we have in our society. We had everything we needed but we just could not put it together. Of course, I heard, even in those days, over and over again, the tired old excuses: “The public expects too much, you know,” or “Unions are causing it. They are pushing up wages. Mechanization” -- we did not use the word “automation” in those days; we used “mechanization.” We had power shovels. I think perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is almost old enough to remember back in those days when people were saying: “Oh, we will never have full employment again. After all, we have all this mechanization now.” The standard one was: “People don’t want to work. They don’t want to work, those people who are on welfare. They are just simply lazy.”

One of my earliest political memories was of Tommy Douglas. I remember reading this in the paper, and I remember my father talking about him. Tommy Douglas went to Ottawa and put forward all the needs of his community -- and they were even worse out in the west in his riding than they were here -- in his town and his city. There was a real desperation, and he said: “We should be doing these sorts of things for these people. We should not be tolerating this.” Some opposition member got up afterwards and said: “Well, that young member from Weyburn,” I believe it was at that time, “he doesn’t know much about economics. If he is going to do all of those things, he must think there is a money bush out there some place. Well, I challenge him to go out and find it.”

Tommy Douglas got up in reply and said: “I don’t know where that money bush is, but I know one thing for sure and that is if war is declared tomorrow you will find that money bush.” It was only two or three years after that war was declared and all the shibboleths we had been told proved totally to be untrue -- all of those things we had said about the public expecting too much, etc., etc. Not one of them was found to have any truth whatsoever.

1530

The money bush was there. We did not borrow vast sums of money or investment from outside Canada. There was no wholesale nationalization. We did not really change the system that much. Private enterprise still functioned. In fact, most companies were better off during those war years than they had been before.

Unions thrived in the country. Mechanization or automation was not an enemy, it was used to meet the needs we had at that time.

All of a sudden, everybody wanted to work. There was no unemployment; the lazy people somehow or other had all gone. And our standard of living increased, even though half of our production was being destroyed in a war.

How was all that achieved? It happened because one fundamental change was made in our society. No longer was profit the deciding factor in the economic decisions being made. There was economic planning by government. We set goals in our society. There was priority in the needs to be met and the major economic decisions were made on the basis of meeting those needs and achieving those goals in our society, and government required that the private sector fit into that framework.

I have to say that at that time, all of my questions had been answered. But if that type of economic order worked so successfully in wartime, would it not be wise to use a version of it in peacetime?

I became a staunch democratic socialist then, while I was still in the air force, and I have been so ever since.

That is the real difference between the democratic socialist party, this party that I am proud to be associated with, and those across the floor and those on my left. They believe that the major economic decisions should be left to the private sector; such things as the amount or the direction of investment, processing our natural resources here, whether plants close or sell out and whether our industry and natural resources are foreign-owned or not. They believe in leaving all of that to the private sector. Every major decision is left to the private sector, based on what is good for it.

By contrast, we in the NDP would assure that those basic decisions are made on the basis of what is good for Canada and what is good for Ontario and what is good for employment and what is good for productivity and what is good for fairer sharing, and the private sector would fit within that framework.

That is the philosophy to which I subscribe. That is democratic socialism. That is what is morally right, and that is what works.

Simply, I believe that full employment, meaningful job opportunity for everyone and greater equality in our society are achievable through democratic socialism and must be accomplished.

I want to immediately acknowledge, of course, that no systems or human institutions are perfect. I also want to acknowledge that the competitive private enterprise system provides many efficiencies and will continue to be the dominant sector in our economy. But if we wish to give this full employment, if we wish to have a fairer society, they are going to have to fit within the decision-making process of what is good for the people of this province and the people of this nation.

To those who would decry government involvement, let me say it is far less devastating and inhuman and unacceptable than having a million people unemployed. Any decent, humane society cannot tolerate unemployment. Nothing is more devastating to the individual.

I have here -- and I guess I have dozens of these clippings and reports -- a study which was done by Morten Owen Schapiro of Williams College in Williamstown and Dennis Alburgh, Industrial Relations Centre, University of Minnesota, on the effects of unemployment on individuals. I am not going to take time to read it. There was one done here in Toronto when the ball-bearing plant closed down, and it said exactly the same thing.

This points out that to be permanently without a job is as devastating for a person as a death of a close individual in the family. It is as devastating as the breakup of a family, and it substantially affects the health of the people in our society.

They point out in the final clause here: “An annual unemployment rate of 10 per cent leads to 1,280 more suicides” -- this is in the United States; the same thing holds here -- “than if you have an annual unemployment rate of six per cent.” That is the effect of unemployment in our society. Unless government members -- and sometimes I wonder if they do -- know of people or have someone close to them who has been unemployed and out of work, they cannot possibly realize how devastating that is.

Sweden has shown what democratic socialism can do. That democratic socialist government was elected in 1933 and has held power almost continuously since that time. Do members know what the unemployment rate there is at the present time? Well, I just got it. The unemployment rate in Sweden for 1987 was 1.9 per cent; and in the last quarter it was down to 1.7 per cent. In Sweden, they have not had an unemployment rate higher than four per cent in 55 years, since the democratic socialists have been in power there.

Incidentally, this report is put out by the United States Department of Labor. It is not put out by the Swedes; it is not put out by democratic socialists. The United States Department of Labor puts out this report.

The average standard of living in Sweden -- and it is always difficult to get these figures accurately, and I am not saying these are extremely accurate -- is approximately 15 per cent higher than it is in this nation. Of course, that makes sense. When you utilize the labour and the intellect of all your people, obviously you are going to have higher productivity and a higher standard of living.

I guess what is even more important than that is that the minimum standard of living in that nation is 50 per cent higher than it is in Canada.

We got some statistics from the government of Sweden. We find that in Canada the highest wage category of working people is in mining, at $759 per week. That comes from Statistics Canada. The lowest is in the retail trade at $330 a week. That spread is $429, or 130 per cent.

In Sweden, the highest wage category is also in mining, at $604 per week. The lowest is in clothing and textiles, at $432 per week, and the spread is $172; or 39 per cent compared to a 130 per cent spread in this nation.

Those are not the only benefits they have. If we look further at the details of this, we find out that if we take median earnings for all employees, males of all ages in Canada make 117 per cent of the average Canadian wage. That is $100 is taken as the median, and the average for males is 117 per cent. In Sweden, it is 105 per cent.

For females of all ages in Canada, the average is 74 per cent on a median of $100. In Sweden, it is 89 per cent. The spread between women and men there is 89 to 105, or 16 per cent. In Canada, it is 74 to 117, or 43 per cent. Those are the kinds of things they have been able to do when they have a democratic socialist government that really cares.

1540

The number of fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 employed persons, and certainly a higher standard of living, is not based on cutting down in that area. In mining the number of fatal occupational injuries in Canada is 102; in Sweden, it is 33. In manufacturing, the Canadian figure is 10 deaths and the Swedish number is six deaths. In construction, there are 30 Canadian deaths per 100,000 employed persons, and in Sweden there are seven; while in transportation there are 24 Canadian deaths and 10 Swedish deaths. In all activities combined, in Canada 11 of every 100,000 employed persons suffered fatal occupational injuries. In Sweden, it is five.

Of course, we are aware that there is far greater social security there.

No one would say that Sweden has an authoritarian government. It has in fact one of the most democratic, but it does intervene in the economy. I believe, and I think it is true, that freedom is not the absence of laws, it is not in lessening government intervention in society. Real freedom is having a government that is totally accountable to the public, of course, but it is more than that. It is the right to have a meaningful job, it is the right to full health care, to full education, to social security at every age. That is the kind of freedom I want and that is the kind of freedom I will keep fighting for.

Should all of us not think that there is something pretty seriously wrong with the system here? On Friday, June 10, Statistics Canada released unemployment statistics; 1,042,000 people are unemployed in this nation, 7.8 per cent of the workforce. I know it is not that high in Ontario, this is the national figure.

Do members know what? Unfortunately, we think that is great, that is a reduction. Society has come to the point where it thinks: “Gee, things are pretty good. We have only one million people unemployed in our society.” We can afford that, we say. We must, because we do nothing about it. We say we can afford that cost of lost production. That cost of lost production is somewhere between $25 billion and $50 billion a year, probably about $40 billion a year, because one million people are unemployed, because we are not running at full capacity.

But we cannot afford enough hospital beds. We cannot even afford hip joints or knee joints to relieve desperate suffering, or places for students in our colleges and universities. Somehow or other we say, “We can’t. We are facing” -- what was the word used by the Minister of Health -- “the irreconcilable conflict,” or something of that nature.

Mr. Pouliot: Economic realities.

Mr. Swart: We cannot afford those things. We also have in this province and in this nation, a surplus of commercial building all across this nation, high vacancy rates in commercial buildings, but we cannot provide affordable housing.

Building lot prices in this city now exceed $100,000. The average single-family home-dwelling lot exceeds $100,000. That is over $1 million a hectare. The very best land in this province for growing food is under $10,000 per hectare. Do we say something in our society? The $1 million is there because of speculation, speculation and nothing else. Is land which grows food of less value than land on which we put houses? It is a fair question. The answer is here in our society where you do not interfere.

We have a massive and growing alcohol problem that is devastating human lives. It is a lifestyle that is set by our corporations, which profit from it. Those are the values I have just listed here. Those are the values set by the corporate sector, without government intervention. They cannot blame the government.

The government has not intervened on behalf of the public. I want to say today that the cry should not be for less government intervention but for more, perhaps in a different way and from a different motive. Society expresses itself through government. Its values are largely established by government and I want those values to be what society wants, what is good for society, not what the corporate community wants for itself.

I believe that life is more than a battle of the marketplace. It is family and sharing, freedom from want and fear of unemployment, and being our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper.

Some may say that is great idealism, that it is not the real world. I want to remind anybody who says that, that health insurance was idealism, too. It was the idealism of Tommy Douglas and it became a reality. Yes, we can re-establish values and we can embody the principles of brotherhood and caring in our society if we have the will. That opportunity has been demonstrated throughout the world primarily by the democratic socialist movements. That is why, inside or outside of this House, as long as I live, I will work to bring that kind of government to power.

I am convinced that society can reach the goal of the hymn writer, often quoted by Tommy Douglas:

These things shall be -- a loftier race

Than e’er the world hath known shall rise

With flame of freedom in their souls,

And light of knowledge in their eyes.

Nation with nation, man with man,

Inarmed shall live as comrades free

In every heart and mind shall throb

The pulse of one fraternity.

Mr. Brandt: I consider it a very real opportunity to have this moment to respond to the member for Welland-Thorold on what was a very sensitive and very well-thought-out speech. As usual, I agree with a great deal of what the member for Welland-Thorold had to say in his remarks in response to the question of supply, which we have before us today. On that question of supply, certainly many of the comments made by the member were quite relevant.

Rather than dwell on some of the differences I might have with the member on this happy and yet sad occasion in many respects, I found very interesting, if I may have some latitude from the chair just to comment, some of the similarities between the esteemed member for Welland-Thorold and myself. Both of us were born in the city of London. Both of us spent a great number of years at the municipal level of government, one with a very distinguished career -- namely, Mr. Swart -- and myself with a career in municipal government. Both of us happen to have some relationship to the milk industry in that my father, too, was a milkman. Both of us lost elections before we arrived at this chamber. Mr. Swart lost, I think, one or two on the path to this place. I happened to lose one before I arrived here.

I have a great deal in common with the member, and I want him to know that I listened very carefully to his comments about what his goals and objectives were relative to why he came to this chamber. I want to associate myself with those remarks. I cannot, obviously, agree with perhaps some of the economic philosophy which was shared by the member, but I know that his heart, as always, is in the right place. He is a people person. He is one who has, as I have said on many occasions, served his constituents well, served this province well and served his party faithfully and extremely effectively.

I say goodbye to him. He will be leaving this place shortly. I know my time is up already. I had much more that I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, but if you will allow me just a moment, I want to say on behalf of our party, Godspeed. He will be remembered a long time by all of us as someone who is an example of the kind of gentleman or lady whom we would like to see re-elected to this chamber and this House, someone who has a very deep and abiding commitment to the people he was elected to serve.

Mel Swart, good luck.

1550

Hon. Mr. Conway: He will leave as he came. We came together 13 years ago, and I sat here and listened to this wonderful man deliver this great speech. I think of the first time, when we were both over there and another party was over here, that the member for Welland-Thorold addressed the House. I cannot remember all of that speech, but I can remember the “Damn the torpedoes, I am here to speak for the good people, the ordinary men and women,” I think even before Ed Broadbent was using the phrase.

Throughout all of his 13 years, he has never varied from that course, and his speech today is a very good reminder and, I think, a wonderful summary of his time here. I do not want to go into all of the similarities between the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) and the member for Welland-Thorold. I can think of one dissimilarity. I think the member for Welland-Thorold was always a Co-operative Commonwealth Federation New Democrat, and in that, he is perhaps somewhat distinguished from the member for Sarnia, wonderful fellow though he is.

The member for Sarnia points out something that is also important: that is, many of us have the good fortune to win public office, at least to this level of responsibility, on our first try. I think one of the best things about the member for Welland-Thorold is that he won election to this place after I do not know how many efforts.

Mr. Brandt: Eight.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It was a lot of efforts, and that is perhaps the greatest tribute of all. He has not been guided by the whimsicality of electoral winning or losing. It has been the cause.

I sat here and I looked at some of his younger colleagues, and we are losing today, and the NDP is losing, with the possible exception of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), a wonderful oracle and a wonderful reminder of those great days of the CCF in this province and in this country. I would hope that great tradition in this province and in this country will be carried forward.

In conclusion, obviously we do not all of us agree with all of the remedies offered to all of the ills identified, but I must say to my friend the member for Welland-Thorold that he has set a very, very high standard in terms of both his commitment, the way in which he has expressed that and the example of representation that he has set. I hope and pray -- though I do not expect that either will bring me to the same point -- that at threescore and 10 I will have the energy and the commitment that our friend the member for Welland-Thorold has shown here today.

I just want to say to the honourable member, who has been a colleague for 13 years, that I will miss him, because there has been no one who has been better, who has been more exemplary. I can just hope that from now to eternity, it is not just great stock car races and great old evangelical democratic socialist opportunities that will fill his time, but that he will perhaps have the opportunity to guide some of his younger colleagues on all sides in the very fine example and outstanding legacy that he leaves to this place after a very stellar 13 years.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I will let the minister go.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I was hoping that we would let the honourable leader wind up.

Cela m’a fait plaisir d’être associé avec mon collègue le député de Welland-Thorold. I thought I would do that, Mel, to show that there is still hope for us. I can share with him, as some of the younger members cannot, that you can teach an old dog new tricks, and I feel very good about that.

We are a little bit apart philosophically. A lot of nice things have been said about him, but I think the one thing that really surprises me, Mel, is that you did not cross the floor. That surprises me because of that old political story about how you would rather see one lost from this side than from that side with your retirement. But you did not see fit to do that, so really now you have lost one of the numbers over there.

I am also of the class of 1975, and even though I had another commitment, I was very anxious to be here, Mel, to hear you make your final presentation here with the rest of your colleagues. I think the utter silence was a real tribute to all the people who came to hear you make your windup.

While we may be somewhat different philosophically, I think the warmth and the kind of dedication you have displayed here, the will to do that with those of us who are a little bit different philosophically, shows the kind of warmhearted individual you are. It has been my pleasure to have been in this particular chamber with you, and I would wish you and your family the very best, that you enjoy retirement and that you do it in a healthy and productive way. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. B. Rae: I will just take a couple of minutes to try to express what I think, really, all of us are finding a difficult time finding the words for, but it is a bittersweet moment, as has been said.

The member for Welland-Thorold has had, in my presence, I think, about four tributes already. There is going to be another one tonight. This is one of the most saluted farewells I have seen in politics, and I think it is a reflection of the feeling that we all have for Mel.

I just hope he will remember the words of Adlai Stevenson, who once said that, “Flattery is OK so long as you don’t inhale.” I am hoping that the member for Welland-Thorold will not be inhaling in these next few weeks.

I do want to pay tribute to the gathering in the gallery, because Mel has had the love, support and help of a quite remarkable family, with Thelma, the children and grandchildren there, and I know he would want me to recognize them for their remarkable presence and companionship in his life. I think all of us in this business know that you cannot do it, as Mel has not done it, without the affection, support and help of his family. This is demonstrated in many, many ways and we are delighted to see them all here today.

I have come not only to know but also to love the member for Welland-Thorold. I have worked hard with many different kinds of members both federally and provincially. I have been a friend of and gotten to know Tommy Douglas and David Lewis in my life, as well as David’s remarkable son Stephen, and Donald MacDonald, who was my predecessor for the riding of York South. I have worked with many of the pioneers in our movement and in our party.

I can honestly say that I know no one who is finer and who has made a more remarkable contribution to the democratic socialist tradition in this country and in this party than the member for Welland-Thorold, Mel Swart. He is somebody who teaches all of us an example of courage and of conviction, a philosophy which is always expressed in a way that is very human and real to people and that people can relate to and understand. I have learned a lot from Mel Swart. I think everybody in our caucus has.

I am sure members in the House would not feel I am being too partisan when I say that you have your loss, but believe me, it is nothing compared to ours. You all know those precious moments in caucus when people let their hair down, and we have had more than a few since I became leader. I can say that in all those encounters, no one has expressed himself more effectively and fairly, and always in the end warmly, and if I may so say as leader, with an extraordinary loyalty and dedication to the party and to the group. I just think it is a remarkable example to everybody in public life.

If I could just share one last thought, many people have a dim view of politicians and a dim view of those of us who are in public life. If you look at the career and example of Mel Swart, it is really hard to subscribe to that point of view. He gives all of us a sense of belonging to a profession which, while it is not always noble in its practice, certainly is in its ideals. Not only am I proud to be a colleague of Mel’s as a member of the New Democratic Party but I am proud to be a member of the same calling and I want to thank him for showing the way. Merci beaucoup.

1600

Mr. Swart: I would not be fair to my colleagues in this House if I did not rise and say thank you for the very kind comments they have made. They are very touching. I say to them that it is going to be difficult to leave here. Very few people leave this place, either by their own volition or by a decision of the electors, who do not miss it immensely.

I want to say that, in a strange sense, the very real kindnesses which you have shown me on my retirement make it both harder and easier: harder because of the friendliness I feel towards everyone here, and easier because when you go out of here in this manner you have something very warm to look back upon.

I say to you, Bob, that I will not inhale. I say to you and to people here, as I said the other night, that I am very conscious of the fact that there is only twice a person gets these kinds of compliments: once when you retire and the other time when you die. I am glad it is the first and not the last.

I, too, want to pay tribute to my wife and family, who are now in the gallery. Unfortunately, they were not able to be here when I started to speak. As my leader has said, nobody can make full contribution in this Legislature unless you have the support of your family. I have always had that unqualified support of my family. Not just my wife but every one of those who are sitting in the gallery has taken part in my campaigns and has shown a loyalty it would be impossible to exceed.

I say to all of you, Thelma, Melva, Orlen, Peter, Elaine, Spencer, Gillian, Darren and Kevin: I thank you, I am proud of you and I will be spending more time with you. You may take that as a threat. I am not sure how you take that, but I want to be doing that. Thanks to you all.

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

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Cureatz: I will continue with my debate on Bill 113 as a number of the members leave the chamber. I will talk to all those people at home. At this particular time, this is one of the more difficult follow-ups I have to make, after the presentation that has been made by my now retiring colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). I know he is being congratulated by his colleagues and talking old times, and it is difficult to get one’s mind around this very enthusiastic piece of legislation which has been brought forward with great gusto by the Liberal administration. It is so pleasurable to see one of the Four Ponypeople here to listen to my remarks.

I do want to say, however, about the member for Welland-Thorold, for those who are listening, more particularly his family -- he is too busy, but I will talk to them for a moment. For all of the people at home -- and I say to the Speaker, allow me about two or three minutes to digress from Bill 113 and speak about the member for Welland-Thorold, if I might -- four minutes at the most.

I want to say to members of his family that I had the opportunity of serving as Deputy Speaker of these chambers for about four years, from 1981 to 1985, I guess -- the good old days. I will say, first of all, something about the New Democratic Party. From time to time they can be a trifle sanctimonious, but I will tell something about them individually. They know how far they can push a particular item -- and boy they will push it hard and furiously -- and then they know that they have pushed it enough. That meant a lot to me as a brash new Deputy Speaker after serving a mere four years and then becoming a servant of these chambers. Strangely enough, as tyrannical as the New Democratic Party could be from time to time, it was always assuring to me that I could rely on them obeying to the letter the rules of our assembly.

I can think of a couple of people who fit that description more than others of that party. One is the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). Another is the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), my own colleague from my area in Durham. But, lastly, there is the member for Welland-Thorold who, in his own style and unique way, had the opportunity time and time again of bringing these chambers to their feet with laughter, yet seriousness, over those issues that he described so well in his concluding remarks, be it toilet paper --

I can remember a particular incident when I was in the chair -- I believe it was a dead chicken, and he was exclaiming on the problems that he saw in terms of a representative in the great province of Ontario and the discrepancy of prices over materials and foodstuffs.

I can say that never, ever, in sitting in the chair, or in my capacity as Chairman of the committee of the whole House, did I ever have to ask the honourable member more than once to take his seat. He was determined on particular amendments that affected him closely, especially on consumer items. Feisty, argumentative, a little repetitious -- I learned something from him on that score -- but after a point in time when I asked him or sent him the odd note by a page that I think we had had enough, he would look at me, agree and sit down.

It meant so much to me because it takes a lot to run these chambers, and I know only too well, as I rant and rave from time to time, the pressure that can be put on a Speaker or Deputy Speaker. He has to have the co-operation of all members of the House. The gusto of the honourable member has often frightened me, when I was in my chair, in terms of bringing him under control, but he knew when to be brought under control and I appreciated that very much. Of course, we wish him the best in the future years with his family, of which, I must say, I am a tinge envious, as I will have to carry the torch. As a result, speaking of carrying torches, I know that the member allows me now to continue with Bill 113.

It is so pleasurable to see all the Liberals. I want to tell the people at home that, of this large majority Liberal administration, there is not one Liberal over here on the rump, not one. One would think, out of 94 members we could find one of them here just to make me feel a little more comfortable. Is there one Liberal here? I am almost thinking about the possibility of making a quorum call. Let me see. One, two, three, four, five, six --

Mrs. Cunningham: Seven.

Mr. Cureatz: What? We are getting input from all over the place.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Pretty soon.

Mr. Cureatz: Pretty soon? I will leave it in the good hands of my fellow colleagues in opposition to determine when it would be appropriate to mention to the government, since it is running this place now with its large majority, that it may be opportune to have a quorum in here, as it is obliged to do, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). I will wait my turn at that point in time.

Mr. Speaker: Bill 113?

Mr. Cureatz: It is interesting, to refresh all the people at home from whom I have had hundreds of phone calls and many, many telegrams last week, or yesterday -- it seems like last week -- exclaiming how appreciative they have been of me to bring to the forefront the concerns that I have, as critic for the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) who is bringing in this legislation, and how appreciative they have been to again focus in on this particular issue of Sunday shopping, Bill 113.

Of course, we are really delighted that my colleague and new friend the member from London North (Mrs. Cunningham) is here in attendance, because we all know that one of the most successful campaigns in the recent by-election was that issue of Sunday shopping. If anyone in these chambers has brought it to the fore, it was none other than my colleague the member from London North, who, in the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) own backyard, down in London, faced odds of incredible stature and was successful. Even I did not think she could win -- even I, and I know lots -- but she was successful on this one issue, Sunday shopping, Bill 113. Happily enough, she has taught me a thing or two.

Mr. Mahoney: No. Say it isn’t so.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, indeed; I admit it, and it has been on Sunday shopping and the success that she had while she was knocking on doors, tramping up and down the sidewalks, explaining --

Mr. Mahoney: Were you there?

Mr. Cureatz: I was there in London.

-- explaining to the people the cause and concerns that they should have about this large, administrative government, which has exceedingly increased the civil service, and we are going to see that kind of result that --

Mr. Hampton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 5(a) we do need a quorum, and since this is such an illustrious speech on the damages of wide-open Sundays, we should have a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: I will ask the table to ascertain if we do have a quorum. No quorum? Call in the members.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1614

Mr. Speaker: A quorum is now present. I ask if the member for Durham has any further comments.

Mr. Cureatz: Of course, we have to be very appreciative to the member for, I believe, Riverdale, who indicated that there was a quorum absent in the assembly.

That brings us to the point that I did not get to yesterday because the House leader for the New Democratic Party decided to take it upon himself to be a little boisterous in terms of my explanation and concerns about Bill 113. I will say, though, in appreciation for his standing in his place and calling the quorum, that it gives me nothing but great pleasure to be working along with my colleagues who are the official opposition in regards to this piece of legislation. For too long we have been at odds with one another, and I can think particularly in 1985 when we could not see eye to eye, but now we know --

Mr. Morin-Strom: You didn’t get beer and wine in the corner stores.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right.

Now we know that we can work along and there will be another time, in 1990, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, or 1991; and I say to the people at home, in regard to Bill 113 -- for the benefit of the Speaker so that he does not stand in his place and call me to order that I am not speaking to the bill -- I say to the people at home, the reality is I do not think we humble people in the opposition, even with the support of the New Democratic Party, are going to be successful in stopping the legislation because the results of the election are indicative of the fact that the Liberal Party, which has formed the government of Ontario, has a large majority to pass its legislation.

But the parliamentary process, being what it is, allows us in opposition the opportunity to express our thoughts and concerns about the legislation, so that just maybe there would be the possibility of somebody over there speaking up, either a back-bencher or one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who will say, “We’ve made a mistake and we should re-examine Bill 113.”

Hence, I am here this afternoon to carry on not at great length, but to carry on what, as I indicated yesterday, Bud Germa used to call a walk around Ontario. I was bringing to everyone’s attention the kinds of correspondence I have had about this legislation. I know only too well, like my friend and colleague of the bar, who unfortunately is not of the same party -- but at least someone from the Liberal Party is over here, now on the rump, to listen to me on a walk around Ontario in letters that I know all members opposite have received.

It is astounding. Do I dare say it is almost hypocrisy to see some of the Liberal members stand in their place and spew forth support of the legislation which will mean Sunday shopping across Ontario?

Mr. Fleet: That’s unparliamentary. Withdraw that.

Mr. Cureatz: We will have to wait for the Speaker to make the ruling.

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If I understood the last comments made by the honourable member, and it is sometimes hard to do because of the way he expresses himself, he seemed to impute motives to the members who stand in support of legislation, and I understand that to be contrary to standing order 19(d)(9). An honourable member is not to impute the motives of another honourable member. I am not sure if that is what he intended -- he often, I think, says things he does not intend -- but if that is the case, I would ask for your ruling with respect to his comments.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully. Because the honourable member who is speaking is a former presiding officer, I am certain he gives careful consideration to the words he uses. In listening, I did note that he did say “almost.” I know that the member would wish to continue on Bill 113.

Mr. Morin-Strom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) does not have a point when his party does not maintain a quorum in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have been requested by the member for Sault St. Marie to ascertain if there is a quorum in the House. Would the table please do that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

To inform the member for Sault St. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) on that point, there is a quorum present. The member for Durham East may continue.

Mr. Cureatz: I thank once again my colleagues from the official opposition for coming to my assistance in regard to the quorum.

Mr. Mahoney: Is this orchestrated?

Mr. Cureatz: I will tell the member from wherever it is, from way in the back bench over there, nondescript as he is -- the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) -- that if he were much further in the back bench he would be up in the public gallery. After the next cabinet shuffle, when he is not in the cabinet, he is going to be so disappointed and disillusioned that is where he is going to be sitting, or running for the mayoralty of Mississauga.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the honourable member would take his seat. I am sure the honourable member is aware that we are debating a particular bill. It is out of order to make interjections, and it is also out of order to even listen to the interjections and make comments on them, so would the member please continue on the legislation?

Mr. Cureatz: It is so difficult, and I will do my best, sir, to you, not only in regard to respect for your position, but because you have a lovely, fine wife, Nancy, whom I would not want to disappoint by disobeying your ruling.

I would like to speak to Bill 113 --

1620

Mr. Speaker: I was just wondering. You are going to speak to this bill?

Mr. Cureatz: I was taking a tour around Ontario about Bill 113, and the honourable member for High Park-Swansea very kindly brought to the Speaker’s attention the possibility that I was treading on unparliamentary language. I say to him, if he was so insulted, that I will gladly retract. If it was unparliamentary to say that some of the Liberal back-benchers almost border on hypocrisy, I say to the people at home -- it is 4:30, some of you are finished your shift work and getting home, some of the children are watching cartoons, as mine do, but maybe one of you is switching to this channel -- as an example of what happened today in these chambers about Bill 113, the honourable member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) stood in his place after question period. Do you know what he did, Mr. Speaker? He read a petition. Do you know what that petition was about? Does he know what it was about, I say to the member for Mississauga West? Ask me, some Liberal back-bencher.

Mr. Mahoney: What was it about, Sam?

Mr. Cureatz: The petition was against Sunday shopping. That is right.

Mr. Black: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think if the member is going to quote me and cast aspersions on me, at least he could be accurate in doing that. The petition was in fact dealing with “wide-open” Sunday shopping. That may be a subtle distinction, but let us understand that that is a distinction. The member should recognize it.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member rose on a point of order. I would consider it a point of information rather than a point of order. The member may continue.

Mr. Cureatz: We appreciate the point of information.

Mrs. Cunningham: The former school board administrator.

Mr. Cureatz: The former school board administrator, I am sure, when he is giving his speeches back in his riding, will be one of the people who will have a very difficult time in the next election; we all know that is a very strong Conservative stronghold. We will be interested in his pamphlets in the next election, when he is going to be talking about Bill 113 and Sunday shopping and how he read petitions in the Legislature, and then he is going to be supporting it, because we all know the word “seal” in here and we know which way he is going to be voting on the bill.

I want to carry on with my tour of Ontario and bring to the member’s attention, as I did yesterday, the Rehoboth Christian Reformed Church in Bowmanville indicating to me that they would like, through me, “to voice my deep concern about the provincial government of Ontario’s intention to introduce legislation that would pass the responsibility for regulating Sunday shopping hours to the municipal governments.”

The clerk of the administration, whom I respect, carries on at great length, and I will be sending a copy of Hansard to them in regard to my remarks, indicating that I did do as they had asked, express their concerns about the proposed legislation.

We can carry on with some larger groups, like the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. I say to all the Liberal back-benchers, and even some of the cabinet ministers who represent small communities, like the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), my colleague to the north, that they should go back into their communities and speak to the little grocers, the owners of the IGAs and the Red and Whites and see what they have to say. I say to the colleague who was with me on the trip to Quebec City that I had hoped he would listen, because he is one of the more reasonable Liberal cabinet ministers over there. I am disappointed and hurt to the quick to think that he is kowtowing to the Front Four.

He has his own stamina. He is known as an individual, and what is he doing? He is not listening. There is no doubt that there are some businessmen in his community who belong to the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. If he went and listened to them, they would tell him what they think about his proposed legislation and he would be embarrassed, and he would say, “Aw shucks,” and just kick his feet in the sand and say: “It’s not really me. It’s the Premier, really; he’s running everything.”

He would try and get away with it, but we are not going to let him get away with it, because there was a Conservative member in that riding before he was elected, John Clement, and I am confident that there is a good Tory association there and it will be bringing to the attention of the constituents and the voters during the next election where the member stood in regard to Bill 113 and Sunday shopping. I hope he puts it in his newsletter and his pamphlets so everyone will see and will know where the Minister of Natural Resources stood in regard to this particular issue.

We could talk about the Citizens for Public Justice and Bill 113. I brought that to the attention of members yesterday.

Here is one for the benefit of the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger), who is not in attendance at the moment, even though he will be tuning me in later this evening on the replay. He indicated the township of Scugog is allowing Sunday shopping to take place in the municipality and Port Perry but is turning a blind eye to what is taking place. Well, I do not know and I will follow that up with the councillors, and that may be what is taking place, but for some reason, here is a letter from Earl S. Cuddie, clerk-administrator, to none other than the Premier of Ontario, with a copy to me, being the humble member for Durham East representing that area.

“Re AMO’s response to proposal for municipal referendum on Sunday shopping.”

I cannot understand how all the Liberal members, who no doubt have a good, close working relationship with their municipalities and councillors, can turn a deaf ear to this kind of concern from the municipal politicians

“At a regular meeting of the council of the township of Scugog held Monday, March 14, the council considered the association of municipalities’ position with respect to Sunday shopping and a referendum related thereto in the elections. The council of the township of Scugog wholeheartedly support and endorse the association’s position that Sunday shopping not be a question on the 1988 election ballot and that they do not want the responsibility of having to make the decision at the municipal level.”

That is from one of the councils in my own riding of Durham East. I know, without a doubt, and I would bet that the city of Mississauga has sent a similar letter to all those representatives in Mississauga. They are backpedalling so quickly, all except for the very astute and fine member for Mississauga South, who, of course, is against the legislation as is my party.

Of course I refreshed everyone’s memory about the region of Durham. Not being happy enough, the great region wanted to again emphasize its concerns about Bill 113. They sent a letter to the Premier, and I am glad the member for Durham-York is here, because he prides himself on being a former councillor for the region of Durham. Does he know what the region of Durham had to say, I ask the member for Durham-York? This is interesting:

“Therefore, be it resolved that the regional council pass a resolution indicating to the province its opposition to open Sunday shopping, urging the province --

Mr. Ballinger: You read that yesterday, Sam.

Mr. Cureatz: No, this is a new one. Those are the new ones.

“ -- to maintain the status quo in regards to Retail Business Holidays Act relating to Sunday shopping.”

I do not know, do they have recorded votes in the Durham council? I would like to know how the Liberal candidate against me in the last election voted on this. Ah, she represents a rural community. Dollars to doughnuts -- just like the hockey coach said, “Go eat a doughnut” -- she voted in favour of this resolution condemning her own party about coming forward with Bill 113 and Sunday shopping.

“And a copy of this resolution be sent to all regional and county governments.”

That means the member from Durham-York over there got a copy of this resolution. I do not remember him standing up in his place -- and yesterday he said he was so proud that he represents 80,000 people and that he has to be heard here too.

Mr. Villeneuve: Where are you, Bill?

Mr. Cureatz: Well, I tell the member, where is he now? I have not heard him talk about the resolution from the Durham region. How about reflecting some of their concerns? Oh, no.

Does the member know what he is doing? It grieves me.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: He is correcting you.

Mr. Cureatz: I am hurt. He has fallen into the back-bencher trap, and I have told the backbenchers about the back-bencher trap. He is supporting Bill 113, as all the other backbenchers are here, because they are hoping to make it into cabinet. They are toeing the party line. I have said to them it is impossible. The odds are against them. The Premier has selected the people who are going to run this show. He may shuffle five or six around. There are 50 of them hanging around there. There is no way. The odds are -- what is that? -- 1 out of 50 that they are going to make it into cabinet. They should show some gusto. They are going to have to get some recognition in their own ridings, and they can do it on this one issue.

I plead with them. I have sat over there and I have sat over here, and yes, I have sat way over there. They are just going for it hook, line and sinker. They should cut out their own cloth and stand up against the Four Horsemen over here who are bringing forth this legislation.

1630

Our former restaurateur would know about the Scugog ministerial association. Do members know what it had to say about Bill 113? The Scugog ministerial association of Scugog township clergy passed a motion to send a letter expressing concern over the potential extension of Sunday shopping to me, their representative -- and I am here expressing their concern -- from Reverend David Shepherd, chairman of the Scugog ministerial association.

The government House leader is over here and he is getting nervous. Do members know why? Because I am making some inroads. Just maybe one or two of them will stand up and object to the bill. He is going to get really worried. He is going to have a revolt on his hands. His ministerial budget for dinners and lunches is going to escalate. He is going to be buying so many meals. That is good. The back-benchers should put some pressure on him. He has had it too cosy. He was under a lot of heat in the old days when he was Minister of Education. I felt a little sorry for him. He had to face maybe 1,500 teachers, down at the Park Plaza or someplace, yelling and screaming at him.

Look at the cushy job he has now. Can members believe the salary he is getting, wandering in periodically, talking to a few of the back-benchers, keeping them under control and standing up now and again, having fun with the New Democratic Party House leader and our House leader, going out for dinners and lunches -- I know the whole routine -- trying to manipulate the concerns here in the Legislature? Backbenchers of the Liberal Party and the rump way over here -- they are not even members -- should put some heat on that House leader. They should talk to him about Bill 113 and express their concerns.

OK. Here is a question. Ladies and gentlemen at home, I have a question to all the Liberal back-benchers, through the Speaker. Who has letters from the ministerial associations in his riding concerned about Bill 113 and Sunday shopping? Hands up. Now, let’s be honest about it. I apologize to the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet). If I said they were hypocrites, I take it back. I brought forward the facts. We will let the people at home make the judgement.

Now, for the people at home, I am asking all the Liberals here, who has a letter from the ministerial association against Sunday shopping? I say to the people at home, you should see all the hands that are going up. They all have letters. Are they listening? No, they are not listening.

Mr. Ballinger: Baloney.

Mr. Cureatz: The member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) put up his hand, and he has been listening. We are going to be really enthusiastic.

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been led to believe that it is improper conduct to tell anything but the truth in this House. The member opposite just suggested that there were numerous Liberal members with their hands up, which is not true and is therefore a lie. He also suggested that my hand was up, which was not true and is also a lie. With respect to the honourable member, I suggest that is against the rules.

Mr. Cureatz: I gladly retract. The newly elected member has so much more experience and is so much more learned in the rules of this assembly, I will do nothing but bow my head in shame and say to him that we will be looking forward with great interest to the next election, when I know the Conservative association out there in Mississauga West will be reminding everybody that he did not put up his hand to indicate that he was getting letters from his ministerial association, like St. John the Baptist Anglican Church on Dixie where I used to attend. He probably did get them and he should have been representing their concerns here in the assembly.

I want to finish off this portion, because we have a number of sections to deal with in Bill 113. As the critic of the Solicitor General, I know you can appreciate my concerns, Mr. Speaker.

We have been approached by the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, which is, surprisingly enough, an organization that has been put together over a short length of time and I think has done a pretty darned good job to reflect the concerns of the people of Ontario. I am not going to go through all the correspondence and all the members; although I would really like to list all the members, I will just hit one or two.

It is interesting to note the pressure that is being put on. I am really impressed that the Liberal back-benchers are withstanding the onslaught, but they will not withstand it and there will be no red tide in 1991 because this coalition is going to be talking about where each and every one of them stood on Sunday shopping. We will not have to do it as Conservatives. As we all know, we have been through some campaigns. The candidates are busy as bees, knocking on doors, giving speeches, getting tired, but there will be groups like this group, which is well organized.

I can only bring to your attention: “January 22. Immediate release. Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping: The Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping will be holding its inaugural meeting on Wednesday, January 27, in Toronto.” There was another press release on January 23 and a few days later on January 25 -- fast and furious; then a statement by Tom Ross, chairman of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, and a press conference at Queen’s Park on April 18.

Do the back-benchers of the Liberal Party think they are going to be able to withstand this kind of lobbying during the next election? No way. There are going to be people canvassing against the Liberal incumbent member or New Democratic Party member or Conservative member, but the heat is going to be on.

I say to the House -- and I said this yesterday; I mean this sincerely -- just listen very closely: The best thing that the Liberals could do for their party -- it would kill us and the NDP -- would be if the Premier stood up just before the House concluded and said: “We made a mistake. We are not going ahead with Bill 113.”

They will not have to go ahead with the PC task force, which I will bring to the attention of everybody here. They can go ahead with the select committee that was struck under minority-government days. Remember those days of minority government; how the Liberals made the deal with the NDP, which we all seemed to forget so suddenly?

If they go back to the select committee, the Liberals will be off the hook. The Premier will be a hero. All the back-benchers will be able to write back to all the ministerial associations and answer all the phone calls they have been getting, and they will be relieved. Then we can get on with free trade, Meech Lake and a by-election: the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has resigned.

If the Liberals do that, it will take the wind out of our sails. This is free advice. I am making it public. I am not having a quiet dinner or lunch with them at Cullen Gardens and talking about how to manipulate the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Sam, why do you remind me of a full, full moon?

Mr. Cureatz: My House leader has just been in attendance and I have the sneaking feeling that he is getting the same reading that the member is getting.

Mr. Mahoney: He is going to take you off the list again.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right. We are close to the adjournment of the House, so they can take me off the list again.

March 17: another press release from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. March 21: an open letter to the Premier. I want to indicate the lists of people who are on this committee. I pride myself on being a titch of a loner, even in the Conservative caucus, because I have learned something from the New Democratic Party, from the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and Ed Broadbent, and I have been teaching my colleague here something. That is, look after your riding first. I tell the government House Leader to just keep monitoring television and he will get the message. In 1991, he will get the message.

Are the Liberal back-benchers having a good time here? I know they have to put in the hours. The clock is ticking away. At six o’clock we will get out of here. Tomorrow will be another day. But the day of reckoning -- and I say this to the people at home and to the translators and to the people manipulating the cameras, because they all have a vote too -- the day of reckoning will be that next election. Trust me. Twenty-five Liberals will not be here.

1640

Do members know what they used to say at law school? “Look to your left, look to your right and look at yourself. Two of you will be gone.” The Liberals can do the same thing over there. The same thing is going to happen. Look at the way we went down in 1985. We had some good cabinet ministers, and in the last election there were a lot of good incumbent Conservative members. Remember them?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Cureatz: Maybe she doesn’t. I remember them.

Notwithstanding the hard work that they did, they got hit by the Liberal red tide. I will admit it. How can I say anything different? I am not going to sit in the front bench and say what a great, wonderful job we did in the last election. We got slaughtered. Their time is coming because politics is very volatile in Ontario and Canada and these kinds of issues, of which they are on the wrong side, are going to make it extremely volatile.

Do members know why? Look at the list of people here. This is just a little snapshot of all the people who are against the proposed legislation. Of course, I brought to their attention the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and I have got pages and pages more. I will just hit one or two per page. I tell them, if I was a Liberal back-bencher, I would be loosening my tie, pulling out my Kleenex, wiping my brow and re-evaluating my stand in support of this bill. They are going to be in trouble.

We should think of all the members from Toronto. The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is from Toronto. She is working hard. She has a tough job at the Ministry of Health, with a third of the provincial budget. But it is this kind of issue that is really going to hurt all the Liberal members in Toronto. Look at the list of associations -- and this is from Toronto -- that are against this proposed legislation.

On the next page is the downtown London business improvement area. Are members familiar with them? I am sure they are. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) should say, yes, she is. Think of the Premier. That is his hometown. That is where the Solicitor General is from, bringing forth this legislation. It is her own hometown. She is going to be in trouble, notwithstanding Joan’s Dome that her husband is building down on the Lakeshore Road.

I remember her back in 1985, when my wife and I, during the campaign, sat up late one evening to see what was happening during the provincial election. Who was our leader then? Frank Miller. There is the Solicitor General in her little red shoes, knocking on doors. Boy, she got some great coverage. I am going to be very interested to see her again having that kind of coverage in her red running shoes, knocking on doors, explaining why she brought in Bill 113 and Sunday shopping.

Mr. Villeneuve: After calling it “the chicken way out.”

Mr. Cureatz: I will tell you, it is going to be very interesting. Is that what she called this bill -- I ask my colleague -- “the chicken way out”?

Mr. Villeneuve: “The chicken way out” is a great piece of legislation.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right; I remember that, when she read the statement in the Legislature. I am going to refresh everyone’s memory in a few minutes. When she first read it, I stood in my spot right here and I said: “You are doing the wrong thing, Madam Solicitor General. You are doing the wrong thing. You are going to have chaos across the province.” But I will bring that to the attention of members later on.

Stratford City Centre: Stratford is the home of the Speaker. As good as the Speaker is, as highly respected a man as he is in these chambers and in as high regard as I hold him, I will tell members, even he will have difficulties discussing Bill 113 with his constituents. He can dissociate himself a little, being the Speaker of the chamber, but at election time he is going to be quoted a Liberal and he is going to have some difficulties with Bill 113. I know Stratford. It is a lovely community. My wife and I have gone there to the theatre. It is going to be very difficult for him.

That was a tour of Ontario and the kinds of letters that I have been getting. If that did not hit the Liberals over there, how about this one? I am going to have a really interesting time just reading the highlights of the press that has gone on about Sunday shopping. No other issue outside of the Catholic school funding legislation has really been focused in on all of us at Queen’s Park. I cannot think of one. In my riding there is the Darlington generating station and presently there is Metro Toronto coming and putting a dump or dumps out in my constituency. Those are hot local issues, but this is an across-the-board provincial issue.

In terms of time, I will not even go through all the highlighted comments about what the press across Ontario is saying. I will just hit the big black letters, the capsule comments: “Premier Shrugs Off Poll Opposing Sunday Shopping.” This is the Premier for whom I have a great amount of respect. It is his ideas that I have some concerns about.

“Chamber Set to Make Resolution: Province Should Handle Sunday Shopping; Ontario Refuses to Bend on Sunday Shopping.” The pressure out there for the Liberal back-benchers, I know, is horrendous. I can remember, when we were the government, I sat in the back benches too, and Davis brought out some legislation that we took some real flak on: wage and price controls.

Boy, if the back-benchers want to start fighting the New Democratic Party, they should have seen them on wage and price controls. They were really tough, and I mean that sincerely. The NDP House leader was no cream puff or pushover. They spoke on wage and price controls for one year, and do members know how far we got? We got to clause 1(a). For one year we spoke on wage and price controls, hour after hour, in this chamber. Let government members wait until they start revving up the fires. I am going to be nothing compared to when they start getting cranked up, mark my words.

From The Anglican, a magazine I am slightly partial to, I quote, “Churches Stand United in Their Opposition to Open Sunday Shopping.” How the Liberal members can take on the churches, I will never know. That is a tough one. I can only say they should enjoy it while they are here. They will get their names chiselled downstairs on the marble plaque and that will be it. The Liberal member will bring his kids back years from now and say: “That’s when I was a member, but I got defeated on Sunday shopping. I should have stood up and spoken against the Premier on it.” But the Liberal members will not do it, and they are going to go down. They are going right down.

They can still save themselves. They can still do it. Not all of them are going to do it, but one or two --

Mr. Villeneuve: You can be born again.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes. Thank you, I say to my colleague. Liberal members can be born again on this issue.

It even hit Maclean’s magazine, our national magazine, talking about Sunday shopping in Ontario and the kind of controversy that is taking place. Members should look at this. Do they know how much this costs? The Toronto Star -- holy smokes -- Monday, January 4. I do not know; it is big dollars -- I sure could not afford it in my riding of Durham East, as supportive as the people are from time to time during the elections -- to buy an article like that, “Saturday or Sunday? One Day Closed.”

The parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General is rubbing his eyes, he is crying because he wrote that letter to the Toronto Star trying to explain his minister’s position on this bill and now he is feeling really remorseful because he knows there is no explanation.

How about the minister herself, whom I have said from time to time I respect? I quote, “Liberals’ Sunday Shopping Stand Given Hostile Reception to the Minister, Gregory Sorbara and Joan Smith.” Our own esteemed leader happened to be there to speak out against Sunday shopping.

“Petition has Churchgoers Resoundingly Against Sunday Shopping.” From a community in my own riding, we have in the Oshawa Times, “City Tosses Sunday Shopping Issue Back to the Grits.” I say to the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong) -- who is not here, but I know he will be reading Hansard later tonight so he can refresh his memory about my remarks -- that he is going to be shaking in his boots because our Conservative candidate, Stephanie Ball, is going to be bringing to the attention of those constituents the issues that have taken place in Durham and in Durham Centre and how the city tosses Sunday shopping back to the province saying, “We don’t want it.”

I should not be neglectful. I quote from Oshawa-Whitby This Week: “Province Copped Out of Sunday Ruling.” I think they were supportive of the Liberals in the last election. With all due respect, if somebody sends my remarks off to Oshawa-Whitby This Week, maybe I will get a nasty letter saying it was not supportive, but I can remember a few editorials during election time. They said, “As hardworking a constituent person as Sam is, we have to say this time you have to vote Liberal, because that is the trend to take.” Suddenly, here they are with front-page headlines against Sunday shopping.

We are almost concluded in terms of our press concern. Lorrie Goldstein -- I happened to run into him in the hall, and he said he was not too understanding, strangely enough, of some of my concerns yesterday during question period, but I said to him I have always enjoyed his remarks and his columns because they have always been objective. He does not particularly side with one party all the time; he takes whacks at everybody: “Grits Serving Up Sunday Chaos.” I like that word “chaos.” I can steal it from him, and that is the phrase I am going to use, “Sunday chaos.”

“Premier Won’t Change Our Minds on Sunday Shopping, Local Politicians Protest, But Opening Remains Up To Them.” Do members know where this is from? It is from the area where I went to law school, out in Kingston. It is from the Kingston Whig-Standard, from the riding of the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), a gentleman, I have to admit, who was Minister of Correctional Services and Solicitor General when I was sole critic, back before the last election, of Correctional Services.

1650

I met many times with him and I think he did a very adequate job in the two portfolios he had. That is one of the sad cases, his having to be removed from his portfolio. Politics is a rough business, as I have been trying to explain to all the back-benchers.

He has qualifications that, in a lot of respects, I sure do not have. He has been a municipal councillor, has been teaching for years, has taught a special educational seminar for a year with the federal government in terms of the military college down there. Look at all the qualifications. Do members know what people in his home town say? That they are against Sunday shopping.

The Toronto Star -- I like this one. Of course, it has been said from time to time that this particular newspaper has been a little biased. Far be it from me to make that evaluation. What do I know about the press? I am just a humble little lawyer from Newcastle trying to reflect the concerns of my constituents in Durham East.

When I see this in the Toronto Star, I suddenly perk up, as I know all the Liberal members perked up when they saw it, because now they have had a little taste. They have been here almost a year, they have their riding offices going, and when they see that in the newspaper, they will know their staff are getting the onslaught of phone calls.

What did the Toronto Star say in February? “Ontario Refuses to Bend on Sunday Shopping. Clergy’s Crusade on Sunday Shopping Gains Support.” Here is a picture of the Archbishop Lewis Garnsworthy, who I mentioned happened to be having lunch over there at the Albany Club with my colleague the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and my colleague who sits beside the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson). We all had a good look at the archbishop and reflected about his concerns back in 1985, but it is interesting to see how he is now in terms of supporting us on the Sunday shopping bill, Bill 113. Do the members know who else is here? Emmett Cardinal Carter.

Those are people I sure do not want to tangle with in any terms, in any place and at any time. I have my forum here, if the members have not noticed, at Queen’s Park, and they have their forum. In their forum it is a different area, in which they have an awful lot of influence. I can only say to the back-bench Liberals -- because let’s face it, cabinet solidarity has taken hold -- they are not going to find even the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), for whom I have nothing but great respect -- he is just a little wayward on this piece of legislation, but even he is not going to vote against the bill. So I am turning to and pleading with the Liberal backbenchers. If they are going to take on these church leaders and all the businesses in their communities, they can kiss their ridings goodbye in the next election.

We are moving with great speed and rapidity. I want to bring to the members’ attention the Report of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Task Force on Extended Shopping Hours. This was a very interesting endeavour by some of my former Conservative colleagues when this issue of Sunday shopping started to come to the fore over two years ago. I said, when the Liberal House leader was here, that he does not even have to follow this report. There is no need to. He is going to be too embarrassed. I can understand that. He wants to show that he is a Liberal and they are going to do it the Liberal way. They do not have to follow the task force report.

I want to give some encouragement to our humble 17 members, and show that we were on the forefront of this issue. I want to tell the people at home to cast their minds way back to when we were the government. We lost the government to a coalition opportunity between the Liberal administration and the New Democratic Party administration. We were the opposition then and we set up this task force.

Here are some of the interesting comments of the PC task force:

“(1) The general principle of a common pause day should be maintained.

“(2) To provide clarification and simplification of the law, the government should consider amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act.”

That is, the government should retain here in Ontario, within its own purview, within its own jurisdiction, the particular amendments to the Sunday operating hours, not the copout that is taking place.

What was the comment of the Solicitor General about this legislation?

Mr. Villeneuve: The chicken way out.

Mr. Cureatz: I cannot believe she would say that. She has a little more culture than to say the chicken way out, but I will take the member’s word for it.

I ask the minister, did she say it was the chicken way out? I want her to explain herself. If that is true -- I find it hard to believe that she would even say such a thing when, in the most pressuring of times, she is always most dignified, controlled and calm. But if she called this legislation the chicken way out, we would like a further detailed explanation on that.

Do members know what else the PC task force had to say? They said:

“(a) Give effect to the genuine demand for additional pre-Christmas shopping hours by permitting Sunday shopping on some Sundays prior to Christmas.

“(b) Permit Sunday and holiday opening by those retail business establishments which offer books and records....

“(c) Provide a clear definition of the terms ‘essential’ and ‘tourist industry,’ and further, establish criteria for municipalities seeking to designate an area as a tourist area.

“(d) Permit shopping on Boxing Day....

“(3) No employee in a retail business establishment should be required, as a condition of employment, to work on an exempt Sunday or statutory holiday.”

Of course, I know that the government is going to try to amend that in Bill 114 but in a much more articulate way than I can. The New Democratic Party has explained its concerns about Bill 114. They pride themselves on being leaders in the forefront of labour issues, and I will set aside my concerns about Bill 114 and let them carry the ball on that.

Those were the concerns of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario’s task force on Sunday shopping hours. I say to the House leader, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), I say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and, last but not least, I say to the Premier and also to Hershell Ezrin that if they do not want to take a look at our task force on Sunday shopping, they have an easy way out.

I say to the people at home who are watching that they can understand that, as an opposition member, I should not be giving some kudos to the administration. I should not be helping them out. My job is as a member of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. The Queen has not called me lately, but I know she wants me to represent the concerns of a different view here in Ontario. The government knows how it can get out of it. We are close to it.

“Summary of Guiding Principle and Recommendations.” From whom? “Your select committee on retail store hours adopts the following principle and makes the following recommendations.”

My honourable colleague and friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) has the more detailed aspects of that report. I have it all here except that, interestingly enough, he has the committee members who were on that committee, and there were some Liberals on that committee. The member has very kindly given this to me so I can bring it to members’ attention now and he will refresh all their memories later.

Do members know what? This committee report is quite similar to the PC task force. Well, they dot a different t and put an apostrophe where the period should go and those kinds of things, but it is quite similar, so I will not, need I say, bore members with reading all the recommendations.

But do members know who sat on the committee? Ed Sargent. Well, Ed is not here so we cannot poke too much fun at him, and I had great respect for Ed too for the number of years that he sat. The member for Lambton (Mr. Smith). Wait a minute. Who is that? Whose name is that there? That of the Solicitor General, who is bringing in this legislation. I ask the people at home whether they have ever in their life seen such a unique turn of events -- if I can restrain myself, as the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) used to say when he was in opposition -- where the member for London South -- now I did not know this. I really did not -- sat on that committee.

Now this is just exasperating. I am exhilarated. I have been given new life for another hour. To think that the Solicitor General sat on the select committee. I want to hear her comments about this. I would even stay around to hear what she has to say. I want to hear her comments on her signing of the report of the select committee on retail store hours, when here she is now carrying this legislation, Bill 113, in complete effrontery to what was recommended and to what she no doubt signed her name to.

I can only assume that with her name being typed on, she indeed signed it some place, because the clerks all run around with the report and say, “Sign here and sign here.” Notwithstanding that, even with her name typed on it, surely it is an embarrassment to the Solicitor General. I do not know how she can, in all honesty, sit in her place as calmly as she is.

1700

I even think she should be a little hysterical to think that she supported the select committee report when we had the minority government, when all of these back-benchers were not here and when the Liberals were trying to make a deal with the New Democratic Party. This was the sawoff. Now they have this majority and they are coming in with this piece of legislation.

To the Solicitor General, I would be worried back in London. She did not hear my comments about her red running shoes. She had better brush them off and get ready. She had better start going up and down the sidewalk knocking on those doors, trying to explain how she supported the all-committee report in the minority government, on the compromise on Sunday shopping being held within the provincial jurisdiction, and now she is bringing out this legislation, Bill 113, and giving it to the municipalities. How did she term that again?

Mr. Villeneuve: The chicken way out.

Mr. Cureatz: The “chicken way out” legislation. I have nothing but the highest regard for the Solicitor General, but she has to stoop this low, and turn her philosophy about, just to remain in cabinet so that she can support the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and carry forward legislation which is going to be the demise of an awful lot of Liberal back-benchers.

I am going to have great fun at another point in time, after the next election. I still might be here. I might be over there. Who knows? God willing, I might be over there.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You might be up there, Sam.

Mr. Ballinger: You might be down below.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right. But if precedent is any indication, there is a good possibility that I will be here and will be reminding the Liberal administration about the faux pas of Bill 113 and how one simple piece of legislation caused the demise of the largest elected government in Ontario. Talk about up and down.

We are going to have some fun, I say to the people at home -- now that it is five o’clock, and I am sure you have the burners going and the potatoes are boiling -- because we are going to be travelling across Ontario, notwithstanding that, no doubt, the legislation is going to be passed. But with the assistance of my NDP colleagues, we are going to be travelling across Ontario.

Much to my chagrin, I will not necessarily be taking the lead on the committee. I know my colleague the member for London North will be contributing and playing a most important part on that committee. We are going to be touring places -- some of which Liberals are from, no doubt -- like Toronto, York, Mississauga, North York, Scarborough, Pickering, Oshawa, Bowmanville, out in my community, and Barrie.

There is a bunch of Liberals out from Durham now, so the New Democratic Party and I made sure that we hit the Durhams. We have the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner), the member for Durham-York and the member for Durham Centre. Three out of the five are Liberals.

We are going to allow people in the Durhams the opportunity to express their concerns about Bill 113, and I know the Liberal members of the Durhams are going to be there making their presentation to the committee as to why they are against the bill.

I will be looking forward to our travelling to other parts of Ontario, like Hamilton, Welland, St. Catharines, Brantford, Cambridge, London -- for all the people in London, we will be there -- Windsor, Woodstock, Stratford and Owen Sound.

To all of the Liberal members -- and I can generally say “all of the Liberal members” because there are so many of them -- we will be looking forward, when we hit their particular ridings in southwestern Ontario, to them making their presentations to the committee as to how they are in favour of Bill 113.

How about in eastern Ontario: Peterborough, Belleville, Kingston, Hawkesbury, Ottawa, Renfrew, Arnprior, Picton and Brockville -- at one time, it was said, a great Tory bastion of support? There have been some inroads. I am the only Conservative member from, roughly, Markham to Kingston, not going quite as far as up to the riding of my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) but along the lakeshore -- as a matter of fact, past that -- to the riding of my honourable colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve).

Eastern Ontario will appreciate our visit when all those groups from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping that I read about to members start pouncing on the committee expressing their concern, shaking their finger at the Solicitor General, wondering how such a nice person could ever bring in such legislation; unless she sends out her parliamentary assistant, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter). Of course, the people out in rural Ontario will understand how a Liberal city member could bring in such legislation and they will understand that next time around, they will be thinking about voting Conservative or NDP.

What about going to the north: Sudbury, Thunder Bay, North Bay? How do we miss the Sault? Is that on?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Should be.

Mr. Cureatz: I am sure it will be on. We will have a good tour of northern Ontario and we will be visiting all the various hotels and motels. Goodness, I have been on a few select committees, namely, energy. I have been on it for about 12 years now. When we do a tour, it is quite intensive, and it is going to be interesting to see the concerns people have.

I can see tears in all the members’ eyes because I am about to conclude. I only want to conclude by quoting a very distinguished, reputable, forthright, sincere, slightly controversial member in these chambers for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect. I would like to quote myself, from Hansard on December 1, 1987, when the Solicitor General read her statement about Sunday shopping.

I was quick on my feet because the people who are really running the Conservative caucus over here in the front bench suddenly yelled back: “Sam, you are on. She has a statement.” Suddenly I was on. I got the statement and I thought, “Holy crumbs, she’s given it to me on a platter.” I felt like going over and giving her a big kiss and saying, “Joan, thank you so much for this,” but I did not.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I have been waiting.

Mr. Cureatz: She is still waiting. There will come a time after the next election when she gets defeated on this legislation. That is when I am going to pucker up.

This is what I said: “Might I first congratulate the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) on at least coming forward with this statement. Over the last week to two weeks, we had a great deal of concern that possibly there was a lack of leadership on the front bench, albeit the second row” -- where she sits -- “in terms of the wavering description of Sunday openings.”

I carried on: “I am concerned about the Solicitor General’s statement because, although she has indeed gone through four or five pages of outlining the problem, all of which we know, she then comes up with a solution which, it grieves me to inform her,” -- and I say again -- “is no solution. As indicated by my new Democratic Party colleague, all she is doing is passing on the dollar to the municipalities.” I would be interested if someone said the chicken way out. “It is interesting, notwithstanding the Solicitor General’s statement, that on page 5 she goes on to say, ‘Municipalities across Ontario will have an opportunity to consider their response and prepare for the change in the law.’”

This is really interesting because when she read the statement, do you know who was there, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Natural Resources. He is quoted right here and he started to shout at me because I said that every municipality is going to be having its own description of what Sunday shopping is. He started to shout: “Yes, that’s right. Allow the municipalities to do it.” It is all right here.

Does the Minister of Natural Resources remember? And do members know what my response was then, as it is now? They are going to have, to use the word of Lorrie Goldstein, chaos across the province. I said that back in December, and here it is June, six months later, and I am still trying to convince the members. They are going to have chaos because the domino effect is going to take place.

I spoke to a retailer in Oshawa on Friday when I was going up to my colleague’s fund-raising dinner in Simcoe West. My wife and I stopped off to buy a couple of little lamps, and the retailer said, “I voted Liberal last time, but I am not voting Liberal this time.” I guess he was telling me he did not vote for me last time.

But he said: “I am not voting Liberal again. They brought in this Sunday shopping. If Toronto opens it up or Markham opens it up or Whitby opens it up, it means that Oshawa is going to have to open it up, and that means I am going to have to make adjustments to open my store up and I don’t want to do that.”

It is going to be an interesting summer on the select committee and, as the critic of the Solicitor General, it gives me a great deal of pride to have the opportunity to express some of my thoughts and concerns about this legislation.

1710

I know I have bored one or two of the members, but I know, in all sincerity, that they can appreciate the function we are here to perform, so that the opposition is allowed the chance of being heard and so that we allow, in committee as we tour the province, all the people I referred to to be heard about their concern and their little bit of disappointment after giving all of those Liberals such a large, massive majority, at their coming up with this legislation, which flies in the face of what the people of Ontario really want.

Mr. Ballinger: What we have just witnessed in this Legislature today is probably the most bizarre, exaggerated presentation that I have seen as a member since being elected in September.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, six months.

Mr. Ballinger: That is fine. The National Hockey League has Eddie Shack, the NBC has David Letterman, the House of Commons has the Honourable John Crosbie and we in the Legislature, whom do we have? The member for Durham East, Sam Cureatz, the entertainer.

The unfortunate problem with this for the members on this side of the House, the government side, is that we have to sit here and listen to what we consider to be the most bizarre exploitation of a bill that is currently before the Legislature. The average citizens out there will be relying, I know and I trust, on their own members in their own ridings to explain the wherewithal of this bill that is currently before the Legislature.

It was really interesting. Last night I attended a ratepayers’ meeting in Pefferlaw, Ontario, in my riding.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I bet they’re mad at you.

Mr. Ballinger: Not at all; on the contrary. What happened there was a very interesting discussion about several pieces of legislation that we have dealt with in this Legislature, the two most controversial, of course, being the budget and this particular piece of legislation, Bill 113.

It really is interesting to talk to the average citizen, who is not being exploited and not being pushed and not being maligned to understand something that is not there. The real issue in this particular piece of legislation is where we came from and where we are going. This piece of legislation is solid.

The unfortunate thing is that we on the government side have to sit here and listen to the opposition tell the people out there something that is simply not there at all.

Mr. McLean: I just wanted to comment briefly on the comments made by the member for Durham East.

Mr. Mahoney: You weren’t here.

Mr. McLean: I listened to most of it on the television, and I tell you, when you sit back and observe some of the comments that were made, especially with regard to the committees that have done the studies across the province, it really is an indication of what has taken place here with Bill 113.

I think the member spoke very wisely when he indicated the problem that had existed. The committee brought in the report, which was unanimous, and indicated that Sunday shopping was an issue where the people wanted a common pause day. The member for Durham East very clearly indicated the feeling of the people across the province. I have done questionnaires, as he and other members have, which clearly indicate where the issue is.

The last member who just spoke for his two minutes really indicated to me that he is not aware of what is in the legislation. He says it is a problem for him to sit here and to listen to what is going on. I have say to him it really is a delight that he is going to gain some knowledge in his first six months as a member of the Legislature. I just believe that the people across the province have had the opportunity to observe the actions, the emotions and the way it was so delightfully put to the people who really want to know what is taking place with Bill 113. I commend him for his excellent presentation.

Mr. Fleet: Unfortunately, unlike the member for Simcoe East who was listening on television, we did not have the opportunity here to turn down the sound when the member for Durham East was speaking. When the member for Durham East was speaking, he was really very unfair to the Solicitor General and very unfair to this government when he suggested that somehow there was something in this committee report that was overlooked by the government.

The fact of the matter is, and the member well knows it -- at least, he would if he read it carefully -- that the report was premised on a definition of a tourist exemption somehow being dreamed up by somebody, and the hypocrisy frankly that comes out repeatedly from the opposition parties -- and this is a point I made earlier this week to a member from the New Democratic Party when he spoke -- is that not one of them has the courage or the honesty, apparently, to come forward and say he does not have any better idea about how to deal with that definition. None of them has brought forward a definition at all. In fact, no critic anywhere, whether in the Legislature or not --

Mr. McLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My point of order is very clear. The member has indicated that there was dishonesty here. I think he should withdraw the remarks, because I know that all honourable members in this Legislature are honest.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to take up the member’s time. However, I am sure the honour-able member is aware of the standing order which states clearly that a member must distinctly accuse a member of uttering a deliberate falsehood. I listened carefully. It was close, and I know the member will be careful with his comments from here on in.

Mr. Fleet: I will go further, Mr. Speaker. I am quite prepared to indicate that there is no intention to say that there was any moral dishonesty on the part of the honourable members, just that they cannot tell a straight story. The bottom line is that the opposition has never brought forward a consistent explanation. They have not produced anything any better. All they can do is carp from the other side.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to commend the member for Durham East for his insightful comments. As usual, the member provides one of the more entertaining presentations during his remarks to the Legislature, and I am sure all of the audience who were watching us on television enjoyed the presentation.

The points he made particularly hit home with the Liberal back-bench members. I think that is why we get some of the comments from those back-bench members, who feel so vulnerable when they are sitting there, the trained seals he talks about, not representing their own constituents, not reflecting the interests that they know they are hearing from their constituents in their particular ridings. Today we had one of the members over on the other side read into the record a petition in opposition to this legislation being brought forward by his own party, but we still see the trained seals following the party line on this particular bill.

I would like to commend the member for pointing out, as he has done in the past, the obligation of members and the interest that members should take in reflecting the true concerns of their own constituents. If the new Liberal members did so, they might have a far better chance of holding onto their seats the next time around.

Mr. Speaker: With 29 seconds left, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr. Black: I would like to set the record straight. I think two opposition members have now made reference to my reading of a petition. Once again, and I wish they would listen carefully, the petition was in opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping. Many people in this House are opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping, but this legislation does not deal with wide-open shopping. Those members know it very well and it is time they told the truth about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the member for London North would just control herself. I would ask the member for Durham East, do you wish to --

Mr. Cureatz: Could we start at two minutes again? I think it is only appropriate, now that the time has run.

I just want to say that I have indeed had the opportunity of speaking from time to time in these chambers, and yes, I have to confess, we try to make it a little entertaining for all of us who are here and for the people at home. Listen, if we get the point across in no matter which unique way we do it, then we have done our job. That is how I look at representing, first, my constituents and, second, the people of Ontario.

The interesting thing, though, to the member for Durham-York -- and I want to remind all my colleagues here and the people at home -- is that he said, “What a bizarre speech and presentation.” I want to say to the member for Durham-York that if he thinks it is bizarre when I quoted from the clergy, Lewis Garnsworthy and Emmett Cardinal Carter; women’s organizations; retail shoppers and consumers; parent groups; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; the select committee -- I could go back to the list and I could spend the next hour and a half -- if he thinks that is bizarre, then let him tramp around in 1991, during the next election campaign, where they have not had a Liberal in years and they are not going to have another one in years because of their position on Bill 113.

1720

If he thinks it is not bizarre to disrupt family life on Sunday, if he thinks it is bizarre to carry on in complaining about this issue and the tax grab budget that has taken place, well, we will not have to worry much longer about the member of Durham-York sitting here. In 1991 we will be reminding all the people, as my job is, about all the other Liberal back-benchers, where they stood on Bill 113 and how he thought it was bizarre to quote these groups in Ontario speaking out about the legislation --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired. Are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate?

Mr. Mahoney: I found it interesting to have the former speaker following the member for Welland-Thorold, who made his final speech in the House today. I also found it interesting, in beginning the comments on Bill 113, how the member from Durham East said he would now carry on the torch. I am sure it causes a great deal of concern to someone of the character of the member for Welland-Thorold, not to mention the concern of his caucus, to think that that member is going to carry on the torch that the member for Welland-Thorold has carried for 13 years in this Legislature.

I find it awfully presumptuous, whether it is on Bill 113 or any other issue, that any member in this House would purport to be able to carry on that torch which has been held so high and kept so brightly lit by the member for Welland-Thorold. Just in passing, on behalf of the back bench, which takes a lot of beating from certain members opposite, I would like to congratulate that member for Welland-Thorold for a wonderful speech and a great career in this House.

With regard to some of the comments made by the member for Durham East on Bill 113, I enjoyed his speech yesterday substantially more, because I was in my office and I could put the television on mute. I always find it interesting when someone goes to the trouble to quote himself in a speech. I can only presume that talking to himself is the only way he gets the answers he wants to hear.

It is unfortunate that the member for Sault Ste. Marie has left the chamber, because the member represents -- oh, he is still here; my apologies -- my home town, a wonderful city, where the residents of Sault Ste. Marie and their council are currently experimenting with a rather interesting bylaw. I would just like to read the information.

Mr. Ballinger: He is not listening.

Mr. Mahoney: The people in the Sault are listening, if the member is not.

“In the city of Sault Ste. Marie, a bylaw was passed in August 1987 to permit for one year all retailers within the city of Sault Ste. Marie to open for all holidays named in the Retail Business Holidays Act except for Easter Sunday. This bylaw is renewable in September 1988.”

To sit in this Legislature and hear members here being accused of not representing their constituents I find a bit of a double-edged sword. I got confused and had difficulty understanding it. I wonder if the member for Sault Ste. Marie is truly representing his constituents when their city council indeed has enacted a bylaw that allows wide-open Sunday shopping. It says, “all stores within the city limits.” It allows wide-open Sunday shopping.

Mr. Morin-Strom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe this member is making accusations against my community, which has found the existing legislation fine.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the member that that is not a point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members have an opportunity to state their views following a member’s speech.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am wondering if there is a quorum present.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the table to ascertain if there is a quorum present. There is not a quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1727

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to be clear on my comments, though, about members representing their constituents and representing the community, because there have been many accusations made by the member for Durham East, the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and other people in this House that we in the Liberal Party are not representing the concerns of our constituents. I think that is utter nonsense and the members know it.

Quite clearly there are examples, one of which I have just cited, where a member is ignoring the wishes of his constituents. But I have sat here, as have other members, for the past week or so and listened to the comments from both sides of the House, and the comments on both sides of the House are pretty well the same; they are mirrored. In fact, I find that both opposition parties seem to be in a rut. The only difference between a grave and a rut is the depth, and I would suggest that they are in a rut because they are going over the same old stuff and they are operating on the principle that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it.

Well, if you repeat something often enough, the press will print it. In fact, I found it very interesting that the member for Durham East was reading headlines. He did not bother to read the body of any of the newspaper articles, because they have in many cases given a different message. In fact, there have been editorials right across this province supporting Bill 113, supporting the principle of local option, because who knows his community better than the people who are elected at the local level to represent it?

With respect, there are two issues in this debate that I think we have to deal with. One is the issue of Sunday shopping; the other is the issue of Bill 113. I respectfully suggest that they are different issues.

Bill 113 is not a wide-open Sunday shopping piece of legislation. In fact, quite the contrary, it is a Sunday closing piece of legislation. If you analyse the present legislation, it says, paraphrased and in essence, that no stores in Ontario shall open on Sunday unless they have an exemption, and it lists a number of exemptions. Those exemptions relate to square footage and to the number of employees. They also relate, very interestingly, to an option by the local council through a regional council, if regional government exists, an option that it has to allow a store, a group of stores, a particular community, a section of the community, a plaza or all of the above to open on Sunday if that regional municipality wishes to pass such a bylaw allowing that to happen. That is the existing legislation before Bill 113 takes effect.

The new legislation under Bill 113, interestingly enough, says in very, very similar terms that no store in Ontario shall be allowed to open unless it has an exemption. The exemptions relate to square footage, different square footage than under the existing law. They do not relate to the number of employees. They do not require roping off or putting a milk carton in an aisle to stop people from going down. They are simpler, they are more enforceable, they are clearer and they are more understandable by the public.

There is also, in a very similar fashion, an exemption whereby a local or regional municipality, where a region exists, may pass a bylaw or a resolution allowing a store, a group of stores, a community, a business improvement area or the entire city to open on Sundays.

I ask, what is the difference? What is all the fuss about? The difference is that under the existing law, the local or regional municipality must say, “That particular store is a tourist attraction, by a definition that only we understand, being the council, and therefore we are going to allow it to open.” Under the new law, that council need not justify to anyone that it is a tourist attraction or is not a tourist attraction.

I would like to give some examples. The question comes from the opposition, why are we changing the law? If in fact they are open, as they are in Sault Ste. Marie and many other parts of this province, why are we changing the law? Well, some of the exemptions have been abuses that should not, frankly, be tolerated because they are not understood.

I see the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) is finally vacating her seat, after suffering through an hour and 15 minutes of abuse and paper-waving from her seatmate. I knew the day she came into this House she would rue the day that the honourable leader of that party chose that seat selection. I am sure she is now beginning to realize what a purgatory it is to be put on the back bench. She has finally had enough and she is leaving. I do not blame her. I think she needs a break. In fact, she has to go and get all the marks off the side of her head from being hit by her seatmate.

Let me talk about some of the amendments that have taken place, just to prove how ludicrous the existing law is and how fair and enforceable and understandable Bill 113 will make this situation.

In my own community -- in fact, when I was a member of regional council, and I would add, by the way, it was at a time when the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) was also a member of regional council -- we dealt with the issue of the Malton fruit market. The Malton fruit market people came before us and said: “We think we are a tourist attraction. We should be allowed to open on Sunday all year long.” They justified that plea. They said they had people coming from upstate New York and from as far away as Michigan. They were even coming to the Malton fruit market from Uxbridge. There was no question that they were tourists in coming from Uxbridge, because they were trying to escape from the former mayor of Uxbridge at that time.

In any event, the Malton fruit market people came forward and said, “We would like to open on Sundays; would you please grant that?” We had a vote. Council voted very strongly in favour of allowing the Malton fruit market to open on Sundays all year long.

Mr. Black: How did the member for Mississauga South vote?

Mr. Mahoney: Thank you for the intro. It is nice to have a straightman in the audience.

I have to be honest and say that I suspect the member for Mississauga South voted against that particular opening, because the member for Mississauga South has been resolute in her opposition to any kind of Sunday shopping.

That is not to say that because you support Bill 113, you support wide-open Sunday shopping. In fact, if you understand the bill, as I have said before, it is a Sunday closing bill; it is not a Sunday opening bill. It is a fraud that has been perpetrated upon the taxpayers of this province -- I will not say by whom or I would have to withdraw the comment -- but clearly the information being let out to the taxpayers is fraudulent; it is misinformation.

Let’s go back to the Malton fruit market. The fruit market people asked if they could be allowed to open. We said yes, as a regional council. We were honouring the wishes of the people in the Malton community, it was our feeling, and we felt justified. The local councillor supported them. Frank McKechnie has been the councillor there for 26 and I do not think he has lost an election because of Sunday shopping. I think maybe the member is misreading the temperature, misunderstanding the issue and not paying attention to his own constituents, with all due respect.

We allowed the Malton fruit market to open. There was a challenge in the courts. The courts ruled that the council had erred on some technicality and sent it back. Council had to vote on it again. This was the second kick at the cat. We had people before us saying: “Don’t allow it to open. We don’t want it to sell its melons, oranges and bananas on Sunday.” But we allowed it to open.

Mr. Ballinger: Again.

Mr. Mahoney: Again. I wish the member for Durham-York would go and sit over there beside the other guy from Durham, the member for Durham East, and leave me alone. I am doing just fine without the support from my colleagues.

We allowed, for the second time, the Malton fruit market to open on Sundays. Guess what? It is open on Sundays. This Sunday, my friend can go there and do his shopping -- this Sunday, next Sunday, any Sunday he wants. Does the member for Durham East want me to show him where it is? Let him give me a call and I will give him a tour of Mississauga. I know he used to live there, but it has changed a lot; it is a big city now.

We had another group of people come before us at that same august body, Peel regional council. I might add that many of the members of the council voted in favour of the Malton fruit market opening. With respect, and they are my colleagues and friends, many of those same people are now saying, “Don’t give us Sunday shopping.” I have talked to them. I have gone to the council. I have appeared in front of city council, and I have listened as they criticized the government and I have tried to understand where they are coming from. They do not want wide-open Sunday in Mississauga. Do the members know what? I support that. If they do not want it, it is their right to say no. Under this law, it will be their right to say no. What do they have to do in order to achieve the goal they want, which is not to allow wide-open Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Nothing.

Mr. Mahoney: Thank you. The honourable minister has given me the answer and he is absolutely right and astute; they have to do nothing.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to explain to the people of Ontario that, as committed as the member is to this piece of legislation, there is not a quorum in the House for him to convince anyone of it.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1738

Clerk of the House: There is a quorum present.

Mr. Mahoney: The member for Durham East took away about 35 seconds, which I know he is relishing, even though I did not do it to him, but I appreciate that; we will live to fight another day.

The next item that came before us at regional council -- and it is important to explain the history of this to you, Mr. Speaker -- was the Port Credit business improvement area. Let me explain where Port Credit is. Port Credit happens to be in Mississauga South. The Mississauga South provincial riding association is the location of the Port Credit business improvement area.

It came before regional council saying: “Mr. Chairman and members of regional council, would you allow us to open on Sundays? You allowed Malton fruit market to open.”

I notice the member for Durham East is running to the hills.

Mr. McCague: He is running someplace else.

Mr. Mahoney: He has to go? I am sorry. I did not mean to get personal.

An hon. member: Tell him to come back.

Mr. Mahoney: No. I am happy that he does not come back. He is going to go and watch it on TV like I did, and probably put it on mute, so that is fair game.

The Port Credit business improvement area people came before us and said: “We would like equal treatment. We would like to be allowed to open on Sundays.”

Mr. Black: This is from Mississauga South.

Mr. Mahoney: This is from the community, the provincial riding area known as Mississauga South. That regional council, a body which I served on at that time -- and so did the member for Mississauga South -- agreed with the request.

With respect, I cannot honestly say whether or not the member for Mississauga South voted in favour of that particular issue. She has always been known to support her constituents’ requests, but I am not clear and I am not sure. I must say, as I said earlier, that the member has always shown a dedication to being opposed to Sunday shopping. So I am going to assume that she voted against her constituents’ wishes at that time to allow Sunday shopping.

However, the council, in its wisdom, thought it made sense, and let me tell the members why. Again, they used the tourist exemption clause in the existing legislation to allow the Port Credit business improvement area to open on Sunday. I supported that on the basis that the salmon hunt is a tourist attraction in our community.

Now we have other business improvement areas in our community. We have the Streetsville BIA, we have the Clarkson BIA, and I have been told on pretty good authority -- by a member of council, as a matter of fact -- that the Streetsville BIA would like to open on certain Sundays during the year; maybe not every Sunday, but it would like to open on certain Sundays for the purpose of attracting tourists, for the purpose of servicing the Bread and Honey Festival, one of the finest festivals in this province, which went on just two weeks ago in that community.

The Streetsville BIA would like to open, so now it will simply have to go to council and say, “Madam mayor and members of council, we would like your permission to open three or four or ten Sundays a year,” whatever it happens to be. Under Bill 113, the council will not have to play any games. Unlike what they have to do now, they will not have to play any games and say: “Gee, is this a tourist area? Maybe it is; maybe it isn’t.”

They will not have to worry about that. They will simply be able to make a decision that is in the best interest of their constituents, and their constituents, with respect, are the ones who know what is best for them. The council and the mayor will simply have the opportunity to do that.

So in the great city of Mississauga, we have the Malton fruit market and the Port Credit BIA open on Sundays. Now comes a very interesting example.

Many members may know that we built a rather dynamic, exciting new civic centre in Mississauga. The member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) called it a factory, and I thought that was rather unfair because it is a dynamic, exciting civic centre.

We also had the very good fortune of having royalty. We had Prince Andrew and his lovely wife, Fergie -- I should not call her Fergie, should I? We had the Duke and Duchess of York in attendance to open our new civic centre. To the member for Etobicoke West (Mrs. LeBourdais), is that better?

Mr. Cureatz: Did they shop at the Malton fruit market on Sunday?

Mr. Mahoney: The member for Durham East would not have known how to behave. It was a very grand weekend. It was a wonderful event. There was a huge parade. There were tens of thousands of people on the front lawn and lining the route where the duke and duchess approached the new civic centre. I believe it was on July 18, the Duke and Duchess of York opened our civic centre. Council, led by the mayor, passed a resolution, which I supported and would support again, to declare not just the Malton fruit market, not just the Port Credit business improvement area, but the entire city of Mississauga open for shopping on Sunday, July 19.

An hon. member: The whole Sunday?

Mr. Mahoney: The whole Sunday.

An hon. member: The whole city?

Mr. Mahoney: The whole city.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mahoney: There is some disruption going on in the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cureatz: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am wondering if we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1745

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga West may continue.

Mr. Mahoney: I am very appreciative of the fact that the member for Durham East is the only Progressive Conservative in the House and is holding down the fort for his party. I appreciate the fact that even though he is alone over there, he is there and he is calling a quorum on this extremely important issue. I appreciate it if for no other reason than it gets me an audience fast. I thank him for that.

I would like to go back to my example. My example was that we declared not just the Malton fruit market, not just the Port Credit business improvement area, but the entire city of Mississauga wide open for shopping on Sunday, July 19.

The rationale was simple. The Duke and Duchess of York were in attendance. It was probably the most significant opening of the most significant building in the history of our relatively young city, and we felt that we would be attracting tourists. We felt we would have people coming from all over the greater Metropolitan Toronto area and perhaps from the Niagara Peninsula to see the duke and duchess and to see this wonderful structure, this wonderful piece of architecture that has been acclaimed internationally as an outstanding success.

We thought, “Well, if we’re going to have all of these people coming to our wonderful city, it would only make sense to open up Square One, for example, to open up the Streetsville business improvement area, to open up the areas along Burnhamthorpe Road to allow our merchants an opportunity to capitalize on this very successful day and weekend.”

My point in all of this is that under the present legislation we were allowed, as a local community, to make that decision. We had to go to the regional municipality of Peel to get it to agree, but it is not usual that the regional government in Peel would turn down the request of one of its member municipalities when the impact is solely within the boundaries of that member municipality, and they agreed with us. We had the Brampton members and the Caledon members and the Mississauga members all voting, and I cannot tell you whether or not it was unanimous at that particular time. I suspect it was, however, and it was just a formality.

But we had to play a bit of a game. We had to identify it as a tourist attraction and justify it. We did not know who we were justifying it to, because there was no appeal process. You could not go to the province and say: “These guys in Mississauga just declared themselves a tourist area and I don’t think they are.” You could not come from Durham and say: “I don’t think they are a tourist area.” They would tell you to get lost, to mind your own business and to go back and run the business of your own local community.

That is exactly, precisely, accurately, without question what Bill 113 will do. It will allow each local municipality the right, without having to hide behind any kind of a shell game about whether or not it is a tourist attraction, to open on Sunday.

I ask again, if the honourable members are listening, what does the municipality have to do to prevent wide-open Sunday shopping in its municipality? The answer came, nothing.

If they do absolutely nothing, then Bill 113 says that no stores in this province will open unless they have an exemption, and if they do not get the local municipal exemption -- and members of the opposition know it as well as I know it, but they do not want to tell the people that because that does not suit their political game. That does not suit the agenda they have set to mislead the population in this province with nonsense about wide-open Sunday shopping. Rather, it suits the political agenda of members of the opposition to confuse the public, to tell them that this party, this government, is in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping.

We have never said that. We are putting clear-cut guidelines in place that will allow Sault St. Marie to open on Sunday if indeed that is what it wants to do; that will allow Oshawa to open if that is what it wants to do.

Mr. Cureatz: Cardinal Carter is on your phone, Steve. Explain it to him.

Mr. Mahoney: The cardinal probably would not be on your phone in any event.

1750

I want to talk about the domino effect, because one of the honourable members earlier mentioned the problem with the domino effect. Again, a shell game; again, nonsense, misleading intentionally just to make political points. The domino effect --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I deem this language to be unparliamentary.

Mr. Mahoney: I withdraw the word “misleading” as it applies directly to the opposition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you withdraw the word?

Mr. Mahoney: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Mahoney: I would say they are confusing the public, however, in leading the public to believe that this government is in support of wide-open Sunday shopping when, in fact, we are not in support of that at all. What we are in support of is giving the authority to make that decision to the local community, to the local council.

I started to speak a little about the domino effect. Everyone says that if North York decides to open on Sunday, the dominoes will fall and everyone else will thereby open on Sunday. Let me take members back to the present legislation. It says that if you declare your municipality, all of it, a tourist attraction, you are allowed to open on Sunday.

Mel Lastman, the mayor of North York, was going to do that, in fact. I would suggest to members that if the mayor of North York put through a resolution -- although they also fail to tell the public that he would have needed Metro council’s approval to do that, because that is the body which is charged with the right to make that decision. One of the former members of Metro council might correct me, but it is my understanding that Metro council is not in favour, and there have been numerous debates not in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping. In fact, it is not even in favour of asking its own voters how they feel. It recently turned that down. I find that a little disconcerting.

The existing legislation would clearly allow for the domino effect to take place; no doubt about it. If North York is a tourist attraction, you cannot tell me that Scarborough is not a tourist attraction. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt (Mr. Phillips), I am sure, would agree. And if Scarborough is a tourist attraction, you cannot tell me that the borough of York is not a tourist attraction. Of course it would be a tourist attraction, equally as justifiable.

Mr. Cureatz: Or Uxbridge.

Mr. Mahoney: Uxbridge clearly is a tourist attraction.

Mr. Cureatz: They go to see the provincial member.

Mr. Mahoney: That is right. They go to see the former mayor. Definitely. In fact, they set up a little site on the road on Sundays and he sits there and waves at them, I can tell members from personal experience. It is a wonderful experience, I might add; the people in Uxbridge have a wonderful time with their ex-mayor.

So the domino effect could occur. Mr. Speaker, is the Eaton Centre a tourist attraction? You’re darned tootin’ it is. And the council in the city of Toronto, with the co-operation of the Metro council, should be able to make a decision to open. That is exactly what Bill 113 will allow them to do and that is exactly what the members opposite are opposed to.

I am confused. I do not understand how they can go on both sides of the issue.

Mr. Cureatz: I agree with you there. You really are confused.

Mr. Mahoney: He agrees. I thought he might.

If all of these wonderful municipalities and these wonderful communities in this greater Metropolitan Toronto area are tourist attractions, I can assure members that the city of Mississauga would be classed a tourist attraction, and one of the finest. So why do we have to play games?

The other side of the coin is that if they do not want to open on Sunday, under Bill 113 they have to do absolutely nothing. Metro council, York regional council, all of these people have to do nothing. They do not need to pass a resolution saying, “You can’t open on Sunday.” They do not need to pass a resolution designating certain areas of the city as having to be closed on Sunday or allowed to be open. They have to do absolutely nothing. It clearly, then, is their choice.

I would like to do a little bit of a walkabout as well.

Mr. Ballinger: Are you leaving now?

Mr. Mahoney: No, I am not leaving now, but I would like to take members along Walkabout Creek, through this wonderful, glorious province of Ontario, and just tell them some of the research I have been able to compile, with the assistance of my staff, on where we have existing tourist exemptions in Ontario. It is fascinating reading, and what I will do is I will make a copy available for the member for Durham East for his bedtime reading this evening, if he can stay awake long enough. I know he is getting old.

The first area I have already mentioned, my home town, Sault Ste. Marie, a wonderful community, with a wide-open Sunday for all stores, represented by a member of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Polsinelli: Is that now?

Mr. Mahoney: The honourable member asked if that is now. That is now -- existing wide-open Sunday. I have several aunts and uncles who go shopping every Sunday in Sault Ste. Marie and enjoy it quite a bit.

Mr. Polsinelli: Under the existing legislation?

Mr. Mahoney: Yes, under the existing legislation. If the member watches my lips, he will probably find this easier to understand.

Mr. Hampton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum and we should not have to listen to this if there is no quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1757

Mr. Mahoney: I am also pleased to note that it is interesting that the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) should actually be the one to call a quorum. I know why he did that. Because the next area that I was going to mention happened to be --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Rainy River.

Mr. Mahoney: -- Rainy River. One store in Atikokan, in the honourable member’s riding, has an exemption. That is represented by the honourable member from the New Democratic Party, from the opposition. Can members imagine?

Some honourable member just said there are only two stores there. We know that is not true. Atikokan is a wonderful community in a wonderful part of this province, again represented by an NDP member, and yet it has an exemption. Is he listening to his constituents? I do not think so. His constituents seem to want an exemption.

Let me take members on this little walk along Walkabout Creek and talk about the district of Nipissing.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member is not here.

Mr. Mahoney: The member is not here, and I understand you are not allowed to refer to a member who is not here in the House, so I will not. However, in the district of Nipissing, represented by a Progressive Conservative who is so adamantly opposed to Bill 113, to Sunday shopping, since 1976 any retailer in the township of Temagami may open on any holiday. Again, I do not understand his not listening to his constituents. I can only assume that he does not understand what they are saying and that his opposition to this Bill 113 is based on rote, rather than understanding.

Members opposite talk about the backbenchers being seals. Members opposite have written up a policy to oppose Bill 113. It does not matter if the bill is good, it does not matter if their opposition is right or wrong, they are going to oppose it, no matter what. Clearly, they are not listening to their constituents.

Let me carry on. In the district of Parry Sound, in the town of Parry Sound all retail businesses may open on Victoria Day and Canada Day, a minor amendment, a minor change, clearly done, however, at the wish of the local community. Again, that is a Progressive Conservative community. They are not listening to their constituents.

This one is amazing. I was astounded to read this one. In the county of Leeds-Grenville, in the village of Athens all retail stores may open from the Sunday preceding Victoria Day to the Sunday preceding Labour Day from 6 p.m. and on Victoria Day, Canada Day and Labour Day. Members opposite want to talk about confusing. Imagine people saying: “What day is this, honey? I don’t know if we can go shopping or not. We had better phone our member of provincial parliament and find out if the stores are open.”

What kind of nonsense is that? Is he listening to his constituents? I suggest he is not.

Here is an interesting one too. I am almost out of time I understand, but this one I have to end with. I will do like the member for Durham East to maybe pick up at the end when the debate resumes. The united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the village of Morrisburg stores can open -- again only a minor amendment, but it is an amendment -- on Canada Day. They are allowed to open at the will of the local community.

PCs, Progressive Conservatives, you are not listening. Do not tell us we are not listening. You are not listening.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

June 15, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORLD JUNIOR TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS

CONTROL OF SMOKING

MORQUIO SYNDROME

WORLD JUNIOR TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS

USE OF GILL NETS

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA

TRAVEL ASSISTANCE FOR ATHLETES

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

MINISTRY’S INTERNATIONAL OFHCES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ENSEIGNEMENT EN LANGUE FRANÇAISE / FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

SEXUAL ASSAULT

TRAVEL INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

MINISTRY ANNUAL REPORTS

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY-LAW AUTHORIZATION ACT

329931 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

VDT OPERATORS’ SAFETY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY / CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)