Hansard Transcript 1989-Feb-02 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Que, de l’avis de cette Chambre, le gouvernement devrait encourager le ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines et le ministère de la Culture et des Communications à soutenir les artistes et les groupes culturels du Nord de l’Ontario, qui désirent avoir un plus grand accès aux marchés du Sud de l’Ontario, et permettre ainsi à tous les habitants de notre province d’apprécier la grande diversité et la beauté des oeuvres de nos talentueux artistes du Nord.

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Culture and Communications should be encouraged to support northern Ontario artists and cultural groups who seek to more fully access the southern Ontario market, thereby offering all residents of our province an opportunity to appreciate the great diversity, beauty and talent of the north.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of that for the windup.

Mr. Campbell: Those of us from northern Ontario are already aware of the great cultural diversity and the heritage of the north, and as a former art teacher of video media, I am aware of how closely interrelated are culture and quality of life.

Sadly, though, very few people who live south of Parry Sound are even aware of the existence of northern Ontario and its art and culture, except as vaguely remembered Art 101 lessons from high school on Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven. While I do not for a moment underestimate the value and the great beauty of their work, I feel that it is vital that the unique vision of today’s northern artists be given a wider audience.

To this end, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is to be congratulated on its ongoing support of Ontario North Now at Ontario Place. During the operating season, various northern artists and art galleries are showcased there.

A number of fine northern Ontario artists have gained wider acceptance and notice through this program. Doug Fox of Wikwemikong, Clem Berini of Timmins, Lozia Daoust of Sudbury, Zoe Wood Solomon, also of Sudbury, and Robert Ralph Carmichael of Echo Bay are all artists whose works have gained wider public acceptance through Ontario North Now. In fact, many people carry Robert Carmichael’s work in their pockets and purses, for it was he who designed the very handsome new $1 coin depicting Ontario’s official bird, the loon. The art galleries that have been showcased have allowed a wider dissemination of northern and native art.

As mentioned earlier, I have a background in teaching video arts. I have had the great pleasure of teaching a number of young people who have moved south to enrich and deliver fine-quality entertainment to the homes of viewers. Some of my former students are employed here in this very building. Dave Tyler does yeoman’s duty for the electronic production office of the Liberal caucus bureau, while Joe Lemieux works for the assembly with the Ont.Parl network and is part of the team responsible for the high-quality coverage given to the Legislative Assembly’s proceedings.

A few of my other former students are Ray Cormier and Don Winton, who work for channel 47, Pete Leclair at CFTO, Terry O’Reilly at CHCH and the Flaherty brothers who offer their services via film and Global. As well, the Charbonneau sisters in Ottawa media are very active in both print and electronic, Carolyn McGrath works in the traffic department at CJOH, Dianne Zolodak works in marketing in Toronto and Cindy Eyre is a singer with a wide southern Ontario audience. In short, these and other northern residents have demonstrated their capabilities in the larger cultural market of the south.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is also to be commended for creating and operating the supplementary northern assistance program or SNAP. One facet of this program is to provide financial assistance to artists and cultural groups who must travel to show their works. This offers an opportunity for northerners to participate more fully in Ontario’s cultural life.

SNAP also works to assist southern Ontario groups and artists to tour the north, thereby increasing and enriching the cultural diversity of the north. The program will pay up to 75 per cent of eligible costs to a maximum of $10,000. Nonprofit volunteer groups may also qualify for assistance under the terms of this program.

What many people do not realize is that northern Ontario is neither a vast wasteland of blasted earth nor a pristine, untouched wilderness. Many southern groups and much of the press would have us believe that one of these two extremes is the norm. However well-meaning the intention of spreading these myths, these depictions are both inaccurate and somewhat insulting.

Yes, there are areas in the north where human shortsightedness has wreaked a terrible havoc; and yes, there are areas of great natural beauty. But what is forgotten, all too often, is that there are a great number of people who live in northern Ontario. These people are like everyone else. They are trying to earn a living, to make the world better for their children, to express their joy in their ethnic roots, while having a fierce pride in Canada. In short, they are like Ontarians in all parts of our province.

Few people realize that Sudbury has one of Ontario’s largest populations of people of Italian and Ukrainian descent outside Toronto; that there are many people of Finnish and eastern European ancestry living throughout the north; that our native people add their millennia-old understanding of the land to our cultural diversity; et que notre population francophone donne une grande joie de vivre à notre province.

In other words, northern Ontario is a microcosm of the province as a whole and has much to offer the rest of the province besides metals and wood products, if our people are only given a chance.

All too frequently we encounter an attitude not unique to any one segment of southern Ontario, which assumes that all is a wasteland north of Highway 401, east of Victoria Park Avenue and west of Bathurst Street. This may be a harsh statement, but the perception is all too real.

Look, for example, at the proposed handling of the Golden Horseshoe’s garbage problem by the mayor of Scarborough. In effect, she said, “Proper treatment and recycling is too expensive, so we’ll ship it north.” That is all. Ship it north and dump it down a mine shaft, with no regard for the impact on the communities already there which are coping with massive challenges of their own. It is this attitude of innocent ignorance which must be changed.

1010

Par exemple, Sudbury est le domicile d’une des plus grandes réussites au Canada dans le domaine des théâtres régionaux : le Sudbury Theatre Centre. Sudbury est aussi un des importants centres de théâtre francophone grâce au Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario. Ces exemples montrent que les gens du Nord sont bel et bien arrivés dans la vie artistique de l’Ontario.

I hope my French is reasonable enough that members and the folks at home can understand.

My resolution calls on both the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Culture and Communications to think creatively. I have already outlined the fine efforts by MNDM, but they are too often viewed as a curiosity because they are northern.

I would ask the Ministry of Culture and Communications to help show southern residents the beauty and achievement of the arts and culture of the north and to help spread accessibility of northern artists and cultural groups. Perhaps an enhanced SNAP, supported by Culture and Communications, would be a start.

We already have a program in place which allows northern students to come to southern Ontario to view the Royal Ontario Museum and this very building, the Legislature of Ontario, the centre of government. But encouraging school groups to travel more widely within our province would also help to break down the barriers of perception.

For example, while school groups, as I have said, may currently travel to Toronto from the north to quite properly gain a better understanding of our province and capital, why not have a similar program to assist students to travel north to Old Fort William, Science North or any other of the fascinating displays and features spread throughout Ontario.

The first step, though, is to expand our cultural horizons by exposing northern artists to a greater degree in the major marketplace of our province. We in northern Ontario have come a long way since an advertisement in Toronto asked, “What has more culture than Sudbury?” The answer the radio station gave was, “Yoghurt.”

I look forward to hearing from other members of this House and I hope the spirit of positive suggestions will help to bring a greater understanding and appreciation of our province to all the regions within its border.

The Deputy Speaker: You will reserve 11 minutes for the final part?

Mr. Campbell: I will.

M. Pouliot : Merci. Bonjour. Il me fait plaisir ce matin, non seulement de participer... mais aussi d’appuyer la résolution du député de Sudbury (M. Campbell).

I am very pleased to support the private member’s resolution of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) regarding long-awaited incentives, long-awaited help for our artists and musicians in the north, the people who are producing, for instance, these beautiful works of art.

If I were to ask the distinguished members of this House, in terms of this creation -- fur, beads, moose hide -- where these are from, where Ontario’s most northerly community is, maybe one of the pages would be able to say: “Mr. Pouliot, you’re talking about Fort Severn. Maybe you’re talking about Kingfisher.”

If I go beyond my learned colleagues in the party of social conscience, most of my distinguished colleagues probably would be at a loss. Their interest therefore resides in southern Ontario. In fact, a cynic could perhaps mention that once you get past Steeles you are entering central Ontario and that the extreme north, because he had a cousin or a relative who once made it there, is North Bay.

The riding that I represent extends to Fort Severn on the shores of Hudson Bay and I am closer to Miami, Florida, as I stand here trying to promote the lifestyle of 18 per cent of the riding of Lake Nipigon, the native population -- our first Canadians, of course, our first Ontarians. Since 1670, through the vested interest of gentlemen adventurers -- and I have been very, very careful when I see that term since dealing with the Hudson’s Bay Co. -- that was the only mode, the only vehicle for promotion, for retailing that our first Canadians have had for centuries.

The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) often reminds us, after reading the Scriptures, and he does read them, that he once visited Hudson Bay and once read in the Bible that the merchants were chased out of the temple. He now believes that they have returned with a passion and a vengeance through the Hudson’s Bay Co.

What the resolution tells us is that northern Ontario is not the mecca of culture, that encouragement has been lacking in the past. It has been sadly lacking, although there are some positive signs. It is beginning to change. The people of the north, aside from providing southerners with their natural resources, have a lot more to offer.

They can feed the pockets of people elsewhere by exporting their resources; by exporting, in fact, their sons and daughters in terms of raw talent, because job opportunities are better in southern Ontario. But we can also feed the soul with a degree of culture, with our artists, but it takes a collective effort.

The member for Sudbury is so right. It takes the participation of many people, people from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of Culture and Communications and the Ministry of Education.

The majority of our municipalities in northern Ontario do not have a music teacher. Some school boards have a great deal of difficulty adhering to the principles and curriculum of the Ministry of Education simply because they cannot find someone to teach French as a second language.

How many choirs from northern Ontario have been paid the compliment of an invitation to visit their counterparts in southern Ontario so that their talents could be displayed and appreciated?

I ask the members of the Legislature individually if they have ever spent more than one minute admiring the picture of the loon. The artist is anonymous. We have to bring it down by plane because we have no network, or a very limited network, to have our goods appreciated.

With a bit of practice of the art of not losing, with some training and incentives, with the belief that tomorrow will be brighter than today, we could develop a market for these goods. They can compete, but the people do not know, and the resolution from the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) addresses that.

It tells us that, aside from the natural resources that we produce, surely we will be more complete human beings, that as part of the makeup of anyone, we have to work. Heaven knows that we work very hard up north; not harder than anyone else perhaps, but we work very hard.

We do not feel that TVOntario, whenever we can get it, wherever we have access, and it is not universal -- oh, people take it for granted down here.

Mr. Miller: No, we don’t.

Mr. Pouliot: Up north, we have bigger moccasins to fill. My riding is more than 1,000 miles long. It is the size of West Germany. We measure things on a different scale there. We have people who are committed to making the lives of their neighbours a little better. They wish to put more into life than what they receive, and the way they do it is with their talent.

It is not that there are no takers, but they seldom get a pat on the back. They are talented, but where are they going to express that talent? If they do produce some goods, they simply have no market. They feel alone and neglected. The member for Sudbury has had the courage, has taken this one opportunity that is given to a member in his term of office, to recognize that not enough has been done.

1020

We had a private member’s resolution some weeks back commending the government for its initiative regarding eastern Ontario. With the highest of respect, of course, what needs more help, northern Ontario or eastern Ontario? I am sure they both do, and we can argue for a long, long time, but what I am saying is that exposure to culture –

La chance qu’on donne aux artistes, dans le Sud et le Sud-Est de l’Ontario, n’est quand même pas comparable à celle des gens de chez nous, qui ont su oeuvrer, esseulés et démunis parce que le gouvernement a choisi d’aller ailleurs que chez nous.

Il est souvent difficile pour nos autochtones -- pour les autres aussi -- de continuer d’oeuvrer quotidiennement ; d’essayer en vain... et d’informer leurs confrères des autres centres de l’Ontario que la culture, chez nous, ça existe ; et que personne n’a le monopole du talent. La culture est vivante chez nous, et elle veut pénétrer le marché du Sud de l’Ontario. Elle veut que les gens d’ici, dans le Sud de l’Ontario, se rendent compte des talents... On a surtout besoin d’encouragement.

La député de Sudbury nous offre aujourd’hui l’occasion de nous intégrer à la vie culturelle de l’Ontario. Cette résolution est la bienvenue dans notre parti et elle a aussi notre appui.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to participate in this debate. I will tell the honourable member that in spite of the fact that his bill is rather a narrow one saying, “Let’s support the arts in the north,” I am going to support it, because I think that people who are Canadians first and live in Ontario really have to have a great sensitivity to the needs of the people all across our great province.

I say to the member for Sudbury, all I can ask for is a reciprocal type of arrangement when someone from Windsor or someone from eastern Ontario or someone from central Ontario brings forward a similar motion and says, “Hey, where are you guys from the north when it comes to supporting us in our cultural needs?”

I think the one thing we always have to remember in this House and in this province of ours is that we are Canadians first. If I can do anything to support someone in another part of our great country, then I want to do it, and particularly when it is something within Ontario. I am sympathetic to the needs of the people of the north who want to make sure that their expressions are heard, felt and understood, and as we learn what the native cultural groups have to offer we too can learn and prosper from their experiences.

I think some communities do a far more effective job than others in translating their interests in the cultural world into expressions of what Canada is all about. I have a cottage near Penetanguishene and the people up there are constantly trying to build and create an interest in local cultural things by bringing out the past through parades and through special events and through artisans of different kinds and through music. It is marvellous what is happening and what one community can do. It really is an example of how all levels of government can work together to support the arts. That is a credit to this country and a credit to every level of politics.

That is really part of the message that I want to present here. What happens in Sudbury or the north cannot happen in isolation from the rest of the province and the country. Yet we have the member for Sudbury bringing forward this motion, without really having, I think, a sense of some of the other problems that go into it, and maybe in the positive spirit of this debate we can go forward with some positive action for the future.

One of the things I would like to touch on is that the Ontario government, as I am sure every member in this House knows, has a bill called Bill 119. This is the Ontario Lottery Corporation Amendment Act and a very significant bill that will affect the arts in many ways. What is going to happen is that the money that now flows through Wintario and Lottario funding is soon going to be appropriated in a different direction.

Less money will be given to recreation and the arts and it will be directed towards hospital funding. We all know that the hospitals need money, but the worry that many places are having is that that money, once taken away from cultural and recreational budgets that now need it, will no longer be there. They will no longer find the funding. They will not get the funding from the province, that is for sure.

In fact, I wonder if the member whose bill we are considering is aware that the Sudbury Little Theatre Guild is on the record as publicly opposing Bill 119. They are saying: “Hey, don’t do it to us. What you’re doing is taking away the money that has supported the arts.” I wonder if the member for Sudbury is going to go and speak to the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) and get her to withdraw that bill or amend that bill to take into consideration the point of view of the Sudbury Little Theatre Guild.

The fact of the matter is that there have been a large number of cultural groups across this province -- and we are talking about groups from everywhere, from Georgina, the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, the Oshawa Little Theatre Workshop; every part of the province has come in -- over 900 letters have gone to the ministry saying: “Don’t do it to us. You’re about to hurt the culture and the arts and the development of those things in our own communities.”

Our honourable friend has brought forward an important motion that says we want to do something. He personally can do something, as a Liberal backbencher who may well be in the front benches some day. With the kind of leadership that he could show through this kind of example to get the government to take a lead on this, I would support him for the Ministry of Culture and Communications.

But he is going to have to do more than that, he really is. In the estimates of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, which we have just finished reviewing, the people of Ontario are not aware of how money is not being spent on cultural development and institutions. I am referring here to a report on the spending of that ministry, and it is not good news for the arts.

In fact, what has happened is that there has been a net decrease this year over last year by this Liberal government in the arts. Grants for theatres and theatre awards are down by $91,500. A piddling $31,200 is now spent in that area of expenditures. Ontario lottery projects are down by $317,000 for program grants in one year. That does not just touch the north; that touches the whole province.

This beautiful Liberal government that was going to do so much for the whole province is taking money away from these areas right now. The money that would normally come through lottery grants to support agencies and cultural institutions is down by $6,544,000 in one year from what it was the previous year. Agencies and cultural institutions whose job it is to support the arts across the province have $6,544,000 less than they did the year before.

It is a dangerous precedent that is happening. Here, on the one hand, our honourable friend is supporting the arts; yet on the other, his Minister of Culture and Communications is cutting the budget on grants for theatres, for program grants and for agencies and cultural institutions. Somehow or other it does not add up. It does not add up that the member is saying we want to do more, yet the very government that he is a part of is doing less. I hope that his motion can somehow motivate the minister to do more than she is doing right now.

1030

We have to have municipal support. There is no way that we can have the arts developing in any community unless we start getting municipal councils involved. Somehow or other, we as representatives at the provincial level should give every kind of encouragement we can to municipalities to do more. We have to do more to get corporations to give generously to the arts.

In Canada, we do not begin to invest in the arts the way they do in the United States. I have a comparison of what they give in the US to what they give in Canada over the last 20 years, and US corporations give close to twice as much as Canadian corporations. In pretax profits, US corporations over the last 20 years gave 1.2 per cent to 1.6 per cent in pretax profits. In Canada, our corporations have given, over that period of time, 0.8 per cent to 0.6 per cent. We are seeing less than eight per cent of the estimated 45,000 companies in Canada making contributions to the arts. That is a place to begin. If we could get corporations to give that kind of leadership, then I am sure we would see more people beginning to benefit.

It is not just government that has to do something. It is not just our government, although our government is not doing anything to speak of. They are reducing what they used to do. We have to get municipal governments and corporations involved and, undoubtedly, the federal government can give leadership in this area as well. There is no doubt that the federal government through different funding sources can come along and start to make it happen.

There cannot be a monopoly on the arts. It has to be something where every community finds its pride in its history, its culture, its people and in doing things, not just being a spectator looking on and seeing other people do things but participating in a meaningful way to make this the country we all want it to be. If those who have the ability to sing or to work with pottery or to dance or to do anything share with others something of the beauty of this land, something of the beauty of our background, something of our culture, something of themselves, then this in itself will be a progressive step forward and something that will be part of the heritage of this country.

We have it in the north right now, and I am delighted to see so many things that can happen from the north. We see it in every part of our province and in every part of our country. May we find more people willing to give leadership to the arts in every way, and recognize them and allow them to have a chance to share their skills and what they are doing.

I am going to support the member’s bill. Hopefully, it will pass this House and the minister will be listening to the member’s expressions and, indeed, the province will begin to put the money back where it should be.

Mr. Leone: I am pleased to respond to this important issue which has been brought before the House and I want to speak in support of the resolution introduced by my friend the member for Sudbury.

I want to support this resolution in two capacities, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture and Communications and as a man who has spent years in the community working for the preservation and promotion of our heritage culture which represents the soul and the essence of our national identity.

I want to support it because I believe it is the right of every citizen of Ontario to have the same rights and privileges for the enjoyment of their culture. While we as government promote the creation and cultivation of our culture in the south, we have to do the same to promote cultural activities in the north and make it possible for artistic talents, creation and activities to be known and enjoyed throughout Ontario, not only in Ontario and Canada but throughout the world.

Last Friday, January 27, I was in Oliver, a small town near Thunder Bay, on behalf of the Minister of Culture and Communications, at the inauguration of a community centre. Later, I attended a fund-raising dinner at the Italian Centennial Club, organized by the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra, where I presented the president with a cheque for $90,000 as the contribution from our ministry and government towards the solution of its financial problems.

In my brief remarks, I told the president and the numerous audience that with the co-operation of the Italian clubs of Thunder Bay, I wanted to organize a tour by the symphony in Italy. In this way, we will promote northern culture not only in Ontario and Canada but in other parts of the world. This morning, I received a letter from the president, Don Watson, saying he would take up my kind offer to help the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra to undertake a tour in Italy. They are delighted with this offer.

Also, I want to tell the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) that yesterday I received an invitation from a region of Italy where we can exhibit and sell our artistic and cultural products this year. They are offering us 400 square feet of free booth area.

Besides the Ministry of Culture and Communications’ long-standing commitment to the promotion of the arts in northern Ontario, we take much pride in the north’s vast and growing cultural heritage. As a result, we are giving special attention to promoting it to a larger audience. We are engaging in a number of initiatives in co-operation with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. I would like to take a few moments to outline them.

We are working with the Rainy River Indian band to examine ways of developing the Manitou Mounds national historic site into a heritage park open to the public. At Rushing River and Providence Bay, excavations of native sites are open to the public and employ native youths through the summer Experience program. At Kakabeka Falls another excavation is providing insights into the period of the fur trade.

All three projects illustrate for visitors the important role archaeology plays in the understanding of our heritage. Furthermore, the Rushing River project will be featured in an upcoming TVOntario series on archaeology seen throughout Ontario.

The Ontario Heritage Foundation is involved with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in a number of projects which preserve and promote northern Ontario’s heritage. At Moose Factory, for example, the history of the fur trade is being interpreted through a number of restored heritage buildings and museums. As members know, Moose Factory is the destination point for the famed Polar Bear Express.

Turning to the current cultural expressions in the north, I would like to outline the ministry’s initiatives.

Northern Ontario publishers have been given special status to receive benefits from the Ontario book publishing program.

Francophone cultural industries and organizations mainly located in the north are being studied to determine the needs and potential.

The Ontario Arts Council assists in bringing exhibitions by northern artists to southern venues. The Art Gallery of Ontario provides professional advice on staging exhibits.

Through its French-language service, TV Ontario’s La Chaîne française is making extensive use of the work of northern Ontario artists and writers, which then becomes readily available to all Ontarians.

1040

On another front, the Ministry of Northern Development’s supplementary northern assistance program has a category for arts and cultural program assistance. It supports, among other things, cultural groups, workshops and tours of southern Ontario. The current grant categories of the Ministry of Culture and Communications are also available to support the promotion of northern culture in the south.

Finally, Science North, an agency of the ministry, continues to attract, educate and entertain visitors to Sudbury. It has also brought northern Ontario to the world, with pavilions at Ontario Place for the economic summit in Toronto and at the francophone summit in Quebec.

The government of Ontario is committed to the cultural enhancement of all its citizens. In Ontario we support cultural expression at all levels. We see culture not just as the prerogative or the property of the few or strictly for those from the south, but as the living expression of what many care about in their communities.

I am pleased that our government has taken such an active role in partnership with communities in the development of northern Ontario cultures.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like very much to participate in the debate. I thank the member for Sudbury for his initiative today. I am sure that what he was wanting to hear was exactly what the parliamentary assistant, the member for Downsview (Mr. Leone), has just said, giving a litany of what is being done at the moment and a government apology, rather than dealing with the stated problem which the member has identified. It is as if there is no point in having a resolution, according to the member for Downsview, because the government is already doing such wonderful things for the culture of the north and the cultural industry, as nascent as it is, in northern Ontario.

I am not sure that is exactly what the member for Sudbury had wanted to hear from the government, but he has another nine, 10 or 11 minutes to perhaps tell the parliamentary assistant what is missing presently, what he hopes to see and why he bothered to bring this resolution forward, if in fact the government is doing such a glorious job.

Mr. Mahoney: I think he is supporting you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am supporting the member’s resolution. I am wondering if the kind of support he just got from the member for Downsview, I say to the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), is exactly what he was after when he brought this forward; because if the status quo is fine, then what is the point in bringing in a resolution?

I want to pay a particular compliment and commendation to the member for Lake Nipigon, who spoke earlier. With a couple of beautiful pieces of art, he was able to make the point magnificently about the failure of our province to give proper support to native communities in northern Ontario to be able to access markets and to develop their skills, native and developing, I would say, in terms of the arts themselves.

It is ironic when you think of the difference between what happened for the Inuit in the Northwest Territories by the initiative, not so much of government formally but of a couple of major art collectors, and that which has happened for the native woodland Indian, if you will, of northern Ontario. That is to say, there has been a great exploitation of art, in the positive and negative sense, for the Inuit, and there is now a major industry in Baker Lake and other places in northwestern Ontario.

In northern Ontario the wonderful art that has been there for centuries is not something that has been allowed to develop or has been given the same kind of status here in the province and therefore helped to be promoted internationally. For instance, one thinks of people like Norval Morrisseau, who for years and years produced wonderful paintings in the north of Ontario and sold them for virtually nothing until he was discovered. But that was not made into the beginning of an industry and fostered by that government and has not been by subsequent governments, as it should have been. As a result, we have not seen the natural development and flourishing of the visual arts in that sense.

One thinks of some of the other people who, in spite of a lack of support, have come out of northern Ontario. In music, one thinks of Ken No, Robert Paquette and people of that ilk who have done some wonderful work in the past and have been recognized to one degree or another: in fact, by this assembly. One thinks of these people who are at the moment, in northern Ontario, trying to deal with the visual arts in terms of producing film and being able to try to get their particular performances brought to southern Ontario instead of always having touring companies from the National Ballet of Canada or Toronto theatre going north. They are running into severe and substantial difficulties.

It is time that we had some sort of concerted attempt to foster the arts in northern Ontario. It is not often that the member for Markham and I agree on anything. Therefore, at this point I think it is probably appropriate that I should refer to one of the things he said that I thought was particularly useful. He said that this government, in moving lottery funds away from arts and culture, is in fact pursuing a course which, in philosophical terms, I think is directly at odds with what the member is putting forward today. I hope that contradiction that the member for Markham raised was noted by the member.

It is difficult at the best of times to get government or industry in this country interested in proper, viable and continuing support for the arts and culture. It has always been a low priority. Still, we see arts, even in places like Toronto, in major difficulty in terms of being able to continue. I think of recent theatre groups here, such as Factory Theatre Lab, which are desperately trying to maintain themselves because of the lack of adequate funding. It has been especially true for people living in the hinterland, and especially true for those in northern Ontario.

If we take away funds from Wintario, if we continue to underfund the arts, as we have been doing through Wintario, and do not allow groups to participate which should be participating in that program, then I think we will be doing them a major disservice. The kind of resolution this member is bringing forward will just be so much flying against the wind of reality and not have any chance of development.

I want to focus on something which I know is not specifically part of what the member is talking about here; it is the limitation of how we look at Wintario grants and whom they can go to. As the members will know, if you have an amateur theatre group, it is not eligible for Wintario assistance. You have to have pros; you have to have a professional director and you have to have professional actors. But if you are totally an amateur group, you are not even eligible for any kind of assistance.

If the members think about the development of grass-roots art and culture, it is vitally important that government funds go into assisting the amateur sector and not just the developing professional, because where does the professional come from anyway? He or she comes from a large base of amateurs involved in a particular field, whether it is photography, music or theatre. It is from that base that those people come, and from that cultural context that they derive their strength and their art.

We do not foster this in any way with the government funding programs that we have at the present time. I suggest to the member for Sudbury that if there is a specific change in policy it would be of huge assistance in the north, in small communities which could use a little bit of assistance in putting on a theatre production or trying to mount an arts exposition, or the kind of thing that the member for Lake Nipigon was showing to the House earlier on; that would be one where that could be done.

Let me conclude my remarks short of the time, which I know will disappoint the table, which always expects me to fill the time right to the last second.

The motion is well addressed. It is a problem which does exist. The kind of response we had from the member for Downsview, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture and Communications, is not what we need. We need some real recognition of the fact that although we are doing things, there is a huge deficit and a need for new investment of money, time and energy in the north specifically and around the kinds of things the member for Lake Nipigon so eloquently spoke about.

I hope the government takes more seriously the kind of suggestion that is being brought forward by the member for Sudbury today.

1050

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to join in this debate and I am certainly going to support the resolution of the member for Sudbury.

I have had the privilege of travelling in the north on different occasions, and I have to admit, the north grows on you. I have been impressed by its vastness and some of the particular scenes in the north.

I think it is a worthwhile resolution that the member for Sudbury brings forward. It certainly will be beneficial to the north to have the government get involved and support more of these particular artists and people from the north, because it is a great part of this province.

I just wanted to put a few of those things on the record.

Mr. Kozyra: It is a pleasure to speak briefly in support of this resolution.

As members know, northern Ontario is blessed with a strong and varied network of artists and cultural groups. Unfortunately, though known in the north, these artists and groups are one of Ontario’s best-kept secrets as far as southern Ontario is concerned. Greater access to the huge southern Ontario market, as proposed in this resolution, would provide that much-needed exposure and recognition.

It must be noted that at present some good programs and activities do serve and have the potential to serve the promotion of northern culture in wider audiences. These, as has already been outlined in more detail, include Science North out of Sudbury, which has had pavilions in Toronto and Quebec. Exhibitions by northern artists have been brought to southern venues through the help of the Ontario Arts Council. Public archaeology projects, as well as serving the local visitors, will be featured on TVOntario programming on Ontario archaeology. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines supports workshops and tours of northern cultural groups. As well, at present there is a very exciting feasibility study of the Manitou Mounds, the largest burial site of its kind in North America, and it holds great potential.

The two ministries involved, in their positions, are supportive. The Ministry of Culture and Communications sees the promotion of this northern cultural development as a priority, and that ministry, along with Northern Development Mines, has co-operated in the past and will continue to do so.

In conclusion, let me say that what has been done has been good, but it is obvious to everyone that a great deal more can be done; a resolution of this sort goes a long way to furthering that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): If there are no other participants in the debate, the member for Sudbury to wrap up.

Mr. Campbell: First of all, I am gratified with the number of members who chose to speak on my resolution, particularly those from southern Ontario who perhaps will help us in northern Ontario deal in more concrete terms with the kinds of things we have been talking about this morning.

I am very pleased that the member for Scarborough West participated in the debate and particularly that he has joined the ranks of us who have moustaches. I am pleased to see his return because I think it adds to his visage and he is more photogenic. As a former video-media teacher, I can probably say that, if the member does not mind.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I’ll get you.

Mr. Campbell: I thought you already did.

In any event, in my summation I wanted to deal with a number of the things that have been talked about this morning. I particularly appreciate the member for Lake Nipigon bringing in examples of northern art and bringing in the kinds of things that we can exhibit and be more marketable sources perhaps in the south. He mentioned about being closer to Miami than his home, being in this community, and I think that demonstrates the vastness of the territory we have to cover.

I very much appreciate the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), and the member for Scarborough West again, talking from a southern perspective. However, the speech of the member of Markham was about taxes and about private sector giving, and it must be pointed out that the tax structure in the United States encourages more private sector development. The governments in the United States do not participate to the same degree through their government direct programs, but encourage taxation. That is why the US companies, for the large part, are able to take advantage of those kinds of tax programs to allow support of the arts to take place.

I think attitudes are changing. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the attitudes of southerners are changing as they become more exposed to northern Ontario art, whether it be native or ethnic northern art or other kinds of cultural pursuits.

For example, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Sudbury Theatre Centre, directed by Tony Lloyd, who has just retired. He built that, with a lot of community support in Sudbury, into one of the finest regional theatres in the whole country -- not just Ontario but the whole country. I was pleased to serve on the Sudbury Theatre Centre board and be able to participate in the building of the new theatre, with quite a bit of support from both the federal and provincial governments.

A number of organizations have travelled to represent this province. I am proud of the Black Sea Kozaks, a Ukrainian group that represented Ontario -- not just northern Ontario or Sudbury but Ontario -- in Vancouver at Expo 86 and again in Australia at Expo 88. I am pleased that those kinds of things show that we can widen the market and the scope of the kinds of things we can do in northern Ontario and let the rest of the world know it.

I am pleased as well that the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra) brought the northwestern perspective regarding the cultural pursuits as being the best-kept secret. I know he has been active in cultural pursuits in his community, and he knows full well the kinds of programs in Thunder Bay that have been supported by our government.

I am very much gratified that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture and Communications brought the ministry’s perspective to the debate and outlined a number of initiatives and programs. I think particularly of Moosonee and the work that has been done up there. I think also of a number of other cultural pursuits in northern Ontario that have been widely supported.

I purposely kept my remarks to the Ministry of Northern Development because I felt that the parliamentary assistant, the member for Downs-view, would bring his perspective from his ministry.

In closing, this has been a very good forum to bring out a lot of the questions and comments that support, and I would hope continue to support, my resolution. I think it is important. A wider market and a wider scope of what we have to offer in northern Ontario has to be supported, nurtured and cultured to bring to the marketing centre of Ontario, which is Toronto -- that is an accepted fact -- more of an understanding by southerners in the whole process of the pursuit of arts and culture in northern Ontario.

A community or region that denies its cultural heritage, that denies the fact that it cannot perish as a civilization, does not survive.

ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

Mr. Neumann moved resolution 59:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the critical importance of the Brundtland report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, this House commends the government of Ontario for its active participation on the National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy and for establishing the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy to develop a provincial sustainable development strategy; therefore, the government of Ontario should continue these efforts and:

1. Conduct a thorough review of its programs, policies and practices to ensure that the concept of sustainable development is applied within all areas of Ontario government decision-making; and

2. Implement a procedure for reviewing, on an annual basis, the progress made by all ministries, boards and crown corporations in applying the concept of sustainable development within their areas of responsibility.

1100

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member is reminded he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for his windup.

Mr. Neumann: In preparing for this resolution and the debate today, I have been encouraged by the support I have received from my colleagues in the House and also from community groups within our province. I have received encouragement from Pollution Probe, the Conservation Council of Ontario, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Harmony Foundation of Canada among others.

The hole in the protective ozone layer is growing larger, acid rain is harming our trees and lakes, global warming threatens to harm our world in many ways, the rain forests are disappearing, the deserts are growing larger and our air, water and soil are being burdened with the waste of our society.

Stories such as these, which speak to the survival of our world, are in the news almost daily. Whales in the St. Lawrence River are dying and their bodies are so toxic they are classified as hazardous waste. Oil spills off our coasts cause great damage to wildlife and the environment. The issues of solid waste management, pollution in our rivers and lakes, erosion of our soils and resource depletion face decision-makers today.

Having inherited this legacy from the past, can we human beings, custodians of this fragile planet, alter our ways so that the legacy we will leave is one of hope for the future? We do not need to tell our children about these issues. They know and are voicing their concerns for their future more clearly day by day. These issues, while global in scope, affect us close to home and in our daily lives. They result from our pattern of life, from decisions made locally in all areas of the world.

Each of us can find examples of sad legacies from the past right in our own communities. Beautiful Mohawk Lake in the city of Brantford was enjoyed by many for swimming, boating and fishing but a few decades ago. Today, such activities are gone; the lake is too polluted. The cost for cleanup will be high and while it may be possible to clean up the lake, and it should be done, I mention it today for the lesson we can learn.

Development of industry and housing and the style of that development in the area were a boon to many, but despite these benefits, the hidden costs not calculated back then resulted in the pollution of Mohawk Lake. In the same way, decisions we make today may force future generations to pay a costly price. That is what the concept of sustainable development is all about: development today that robs from the future cannot be sustained. From understanding this concept, we can build hope for the future.

Our concept of environment must also change. The environment is not something out there apart from us. We are part of it and what we do affects all other humans and life on earth. We must stop thinking of environmental issues as something separate and distinct. All decisions we make -- how we live, what we eat, how we make our living -- are in effect environmental decisions.

Individual awareness and actions, worthy as they are, are not enough. As legislators in Ontario we can make a statement. We can provide leadership. We can prompt action to embark upon a new direction with a vision for the future. We can become part of the solution rather than the problem. Today, as we debate this resolution, we are helping to raise the level of awareness and understanding and we are helping to show the need for change of direction. We have the opportunity to endorse an important concept that provides guidance for action at all levels.

We should not be overwhelmed by the size of the problem facing our world. We do not always need to wait for the big solution in order to take action.

The Brundtland report of the World Commission on Environment and Development was released in 1987. Let’s listen to a few statements from this United Nations document:

“Most of today’s decision-makers will be dead before the planet feels the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the commission’s hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet’s present management.”

Another quote, “The time has come to take the decisions needed to secure the resources to sustain this and coming generations.” While documenting the planet’s ills, the report was one of hope, but that hope “is conditional on decisive political action now to begin managing environmental resources to ensure both sustainable human progress and human survival.”

Two basic principles emerge from this report: One, we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; two, environmental and economic issues are interrelated. While development can damage the environment, a deteriorating environment can constrain development.

The reaction to this report around the world has been encouraging. Canada’s national task force has completed its report and round tables are being established in Ontario and other provinces. Municipalities and citizen organizations have taken up the challenge as well.

While the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy carries out its task, it is important that we, as legislators, take a stand, that we set the example, that the government of Ontario expand the application of the concept of sustainable development into all areas of decision-making.

By adopting this resolution, this House would be calling upon the government of Ontario to “conduct a thorough review of its programs, policies and practices to ensure that the concept of sustainable development is applied within all areas of Ontario government decision-making.”

I will comment on this first point at this time. Such a review would supplement and strengthen the work of the Ontario round table by indicating strong leadership through example for the co-operative effort that will be needed in the broader community. Review will be ongoing and action can be taken along the way as feasible ideas emerge.

Major issues related to management of renewable resources and energy conservation are obvious areas for ongoing review and action, but questions such as fast-food packaging in our cafeterias right here at Queen’s Park or revising government-wide purchasing policies to be environmentally friendly need to be tackled as well. Virtually every ministry should become involved, although some areas will be more obvious than others.

I give three examples of possible involvement. First, in the Treasury, can taxation policies be altered to discourage purchase of products that harm the environment? Can we change packaging of consumer products through product standards? Alternatively, should taxation policy be used to achieve this goal?

Second, in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, how should criteria for grants or loans to industry be revised to reflect environmental concerns such as recycling?

Third, what role should the Ministry of Education and education authorities in our province play in this regard? Should curricula be revised to enhance awareness on these issues? Would an interdisciplinary approach lead to a more thorough and objective review of these matters by the students of our province?

Efforts along these lines are already under way in some ministries. Reducing acid rain, encouraging energy conservation and programs to foster recycling are but a few examples.

A good example of applying the concept of sustainable development is the decision this government took to discourage new mining operations from setting up new disposable town sites around their mines. By encouraging workers to settle in existing communities, infrastructures already in place are more fully utilized and more diversified communities provide strength for the future. Two towns that have benefited from this policy are Marathon and Manitouwadge. I had the privilege last year of visiting those two towns and seeing some of the results.

1110

Second, the resolution asks the government to “implement a procedure for reviewing, on an annual basis, the progress made by all ministries, boards and crown corporations in applying the concept of sustainable development within their areas of responsibility.”

This is probably the most important aspect of this resolution because it recognizes that review and implementation should be an ongoing process. The mechanism established will challenge key decision-makers to become involved in finding the new directions needed and in producing results as well.

Cross-ministry application of major principles or government policy is not anything new. The application of our government’s multicultural policy is a good example. The Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) has the responsibility for ensuring that all other ministries are making progress in applying the multicultural policy. In a similar way, an annual review would ensure that sustainable development concepts are treated seriously by all key decision-makers at various levels.

I will conclude my opening remarks with some positive examples from my own community. The city of Brantford is planning to recycle mined-out gravel pits for its new industrial park rather than annexing farm land, which would have been easier and less costly to develop. This will be a better long-range choice.

Cascades Dominion last fall abandoned its production of egg cartons using styrofoam. This Brantford firm now uses recycled paper for all its egg carton production. Another firm in Brantford, Johnson’s wax, well ahead of most companies, stopped using chlorofluorocarbons in its aerosol spray can products. It took this visionary decision in 1975 when it first learned of the danger to the environment, namely, the ozone layer. This was before the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer and well before the Montreal protocol. This example speaks volumes.

I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues in the House on this important matter. I would like to conclude by reading a statement from a report produced by the Conservation Council of Ontario:

“...The province needs to put out a statement of its vision of the future development of Ontario. This development philosophy should be clearly rooted in the notion of sustainable development. This should serve to give direction not just to the ministries with a central responsibility for policy in the environmental and resource management fields but also to all other ministries, from education to trade, whose policies and programs have a direct bearing on the demands made of the environment. Such a statement should recognize that, whether it is in our production processes, consumption patterns or lifestyles, our human behaviour can be encouraged, guided, cajoled or regulated to be supportive of development that does not destroy or weaken our life-support systems of air, water, soil, vegetation and animal life, that does not deplete the genetic diversity in our environment and that does not erode the opportunities for sustainable development.”

I will conclude my remarks at the end of the hour.

Mrs. Grier: I am pleased to support the resolution that has been put forward this morning by the member for Brantford and to acknowledge his sincerity in supporting the conclusions of the Brundtland report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as Our Common Future.

I acknowledge the government of Ontario has taken a lead in publicly recognizing the value of the recommendations of the Brundtland report. I am not quite as optimistic as the member for Brantford that public recognition has been translated into meaningful action to make sure those recommendations are in fact implemented.

In the two short years since the world commission reported, Gro Brundtland’s name has become a household word around the world. She is the socialist Prime Minister of Norway. I am very proud to be associated with her and her party through the Socialist International. What she produced as chairman of that world commission was a global agenda for change, changes in attitude, changes in policy, changes in approach to our economy, with a linking of economic decisions with environmental decisions, pointing out to us how that could be done.

I think the impact of that book has been profound. It is equal to the impact a book by another woman had in 1962. I am referring to Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring. Rachel Carson in 1962 alerted us to the dimensions of the problem that was occurring in our environment. What Gro Brundtland has done is to lay out a survival plan for the world, and in so doing, to remind us how long it is since Silent Spring was published and how much worse the problem has become in those intervening years.

There are two themes in the Brundtland report. One, as I have said, is the need to integrate economic and environmental policies and to make sure any economic decisions that are made are made fully cognizant of the impact those decisions will have on the environment now and in the future. The other theme is the need for sustainable development.

In the report, Mrs. Brundtland has used the state of the underdeveloped countries, mostly in the Third World, to illustrate these themes. She has shown very graphically how western industrial capitalism is repeating in the Third World all the errors we have made in the west and is in fact imposing on those underdeveloped countries fearful environmental degradation.

The fact that most of the examples come from the Third World does not make those examples irrelevant to Ontario because we have, after all, our own Third World in this province. We have the north, our own underdeveloped equivalent of many of the underdeveloped countries of the world. We have the fourth world that is often referred to, our native people. I think it is ironic that at this time, when we are all talking about sustainable development, we seem to have refused to recognize from our own native people what sustainable development actually means. Our native people lived in this province and sustained its environment for many hundreds of years before we came along and began to allow our environment to deteriorate.

I have a couple of concerns about the reaction of this province to the Brundtland report. I am a little worried that the popularization of the phrase “sustainable development” and the fact it has now become a buzzword in our language will give rise to a lot of discussion about what it really means, that we will have lengthy arguments about the definition of “sustainable development” and pay lipservice in a whole lot of inconsistent ways to the fact we support the concept.

I am also concerned about the concentration that seems to be emerging on setting up structures and discussing the process and the organization by which we get to implement the recommendations of the Brundtland report. I worry that all of that concentration on process may in fact serve as an excuse to delay actually doing something and actually taking decisions in harmony with the recommendations of the Brundtland report.

The member for Brantford mentions the Premier’s round table that has been set up to make recommendations as to how the Brundtland commission is to be implemented in this province. I think it is interesting that when that announcement was made last October, the announcement said the round table would hold its first meeting in December. It is now February. The round table has not yet met. The budget, the resources for that round table have not yet been announced.

The point I want to make is that we do not have to wait for round tables and structures. We can get on with weighing the environmental consequences of every decision we make. We can make the environment integral to every action we have taken, not just in small ways like packaging but in major ways.

If this government truly supports the principles of the Brundtland commission, I assume we will not be building any more nuclear plants in this province because it will be essential we take responsibility for that technology from its cradle to its grave, and that includes its waste disposal. We would not dream of allowing Ontario Hydro to sell small reactors to the Third World, because that would be merely continuing the tradition of passing our problems on to underdeveloped countries.

1120

If we really believed in the recommendations of the Brundtland report, we would immediately amend the Environmental Assessment Act, which now only covers public projects, to make sure every project was subject to environmental assessment. We would not be spending months, years and millions of dollars in setting limits for emissions of toxic substances under the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program or under revisions to the air pollution regulation. We would be saying that we would immediately move to zero discharge, because that was what we had agreed to in our Great Lakes water quality agreement with the United States some years ago.

I think the proof that this government is not really prepared to live up to the implications of supporting the Brundtland commission is shown by its actions in Temagami. If ever there was an example that makes the Brundtland report on the environment and development meaningful, it is the Temagami situation. If ever there was an opportunity to truly integrate economic and environmental decisions, it is in our attitude towards the survival of the Temagami wilderness. If ever there was an example where sustainable development could really be put into practice, surely it is in those wonderful pine forests of Temagami.

I support the resolution that is before us today. How could I not? It is the kind of resolution and the kind of recommendations that are long overdue. When I see that philosophy put into practice in the daily decisions of this government, then I will be very proud that I have supported the resolution.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I had not intended to speak on this resolution. In fact, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) wanted to speak on it, and I hope that he will be here shortly so that he can perhaps take the second turn around. He is tied up in committee; I think he has a motion tabled at the committee, so that is why he is not able to speak at this time. As I mentioned, I hope he can return.

I would like to go on record on behalf of my party as saying that we have no hesitation in supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann). Environment is so important. In fact, I would like to recall a former Minister of the Environment, Ms. Fish, who used to highlight its importance in nearly every speech by saying that “environment is only earth, air and water.” It says a lot about what environment is. It leaves out nothing, so it is extremely important.

As I mentioned, I would even go along with commending the government of Ontario for its active participation on the National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy. That is saying something, coming from this side of the House; but at times the government should be commended and at other times criticized. Having commended it, I would like to just take a minute to criticize it.

The government has a responsibility right here in this province and this city and certainly in many areas of the province, such as my riding of Wellington. There are very serious environmental problems, and the single most important problem facing many areas of the province is the solution to the waste management controversy.

It is slightly off the topic, although it falls under environment, but I would hope that if I am able to commend the government on one initiative, then I should be able to offer it some constructive criticism on another issue: That is, for heaven’s sake, it should put its mind to solving the problems that the municipalities have in obtaining permission for sewage expansions; show some leadership in solving the waste management crisis.

It is not a matter of simply coming up with a solution in one area and letting the others flounder through. It would seem to me that the provincial government should provide leadership so that if a region or a county had a problem pertaining to waste, the solution that would apply to that area could perhaps be used in some other part of the province, so that we do not have to restudy the same problem, or presentations or projects in every single part of this province. Surely, we could have a more consolidated process. We have to go through the hearing process. I have no problem with that, but it is just that smaller municipalities, especially, need some guidance from the Ministry of the Environment to help make the right decisions to help solve their problems.

I will leave it at that and hope that the member for Leeds-Grenville is able to return from committee in time to participate. As a matter of fact, he is coming in now so I will sit down. He should have a few minutes left.

Mr. Elliot: As the previous speakers have indicated, our topic this morning is really environmentally sustainable development. It is indeed a pleasure for me to speak in support of this motion put by the member for Brantford. I am extremely pleased to expand upon his comments. As a former mayor of Brantford, he did an excellent job. He and his council implemented much sustainable development in his city while he was mayor there. His background lends great credibility to his motion. He has discussed the Brundtland report entitled Our Common Future.

I agree that it is very important the government of Ontario actively participate on the National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy. I also agree that it is most important that the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy is establishing a provincial sustainable development strategy. The government of Ontario should continue these efforts and conduct a thorough review of its programs, policies and practices to ensure that the concept of sustainable development is applied within all areas of Ontario government decision-making.

Further, it should implement a procedure for reviewing, on an annual basis, the progress made by all ministries, boards and crown corporations in applying the concept of sustainable development within their areas of responsibility. This is particularly important and true in the Ministry of the Environment.

Worldwide, throughout Canada and here in Ontario, there is compelling evidence that environmentally sustainable development is not only a possibility, but is already a reality in many industries. One of our biggest challenges, the disposition of our garbage, is quickly becoming a vibrant growth industry.

Vegetation replacement, mainly trees, should be an opportunity for real growth. The lakes and streams here in Ontario and the oceans of Canada are largely untapped and are perhaps one of our richest resources, but our richest resource is our youth. By educating them properly, our goal of environmentally sustainable development will be achieved.

There are many examples, as I said before, in industry where this type of development is already in progress. I would like to highlight the waste management field. Until very recently almost all the garbage in Ontario has been landfilled. Under the leadership of the Ministry of the Environment, exciting new approaches are being formulated for the disposition of waste.

The 4R program is under way. The emphasis is on reuse, reduction, recycling and reclaiming. Curbside recycling will realistically allow us to reuse between 25 per cent and 35 per cent of our household waste. Further separation of waste at locations, hopefully close to source, should allow us to reuse an additional 25 per cent to 35 per cent of our household waste. The remaining waste must be broken down into two main types -- that which decays or rots and that which does not. The decaying garbage may be composted or landfilled, but those sites may be reused because the residue may be reused as soil. The second type can safely be put in landfill because there are no emissions.

In my opinion, the golden rule for industry from now on should be, if your product has to be landfilled, do not make it. I am talking about cars, refrigerators, tires, batteries and so on. The theme for the 1990s should be, “No more landfill.”

The soft drink industry, in collaboration with the Ministry of the Environment, has made great strides in beginning to address the landfill problem with its famous blue box program. I am told 1.7 million households will be using the blue box very soon. The goal is 2.2 million households by the early 1990s, and this represents 80 per cent of the households in Ontario. This is just the beginning. Apartments, the food service industry and institutions must address disposing of their waste in a manner similar to the blue box program.

1130

The reuse-recycling concept, backed up by other considerations such as composting on a large scale and modification of packaging, will allow Ontario, by the end of the next decade, to have an environmentally sustainable waste management process.

I was privileged, on January 3, to represent the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) when we opened our fourth and final blue box program in the region of Halton. Halton Hills began a curbside pickup approximately 10 years ago. One of the main things that was highlighted in the speech that I read for the minister that morning was the fact that by collecting newspapers in Halton Hills alone, you could save in the order of 9,600 trees. This does not sound like very much at first blush, but when you take into consideration that there are approximately 840 municipalities in Ontario, and Halton Hills is probably about an average-sized community, that translates into more than eight million trees per year if every municipality was doing exactly the same thing.

To put it in context, the Toronto Star, in its weekend edition, uses the equivalent of 44,000 trees. This translates into 2.25 million trees per year for just the weekend edition. By recycling newsprint throughout Ontario, we could produce the Toronto Star on an annual basis without using any more trees.

We must recycle wood products. We must plant more trees. We must husband this valuable renewable resource.

I would like to spend a few moments to talk about a definition of “sustainable development.” There have been several conferences with respect to this important concept recently. One was held in Sweden, in Stockholm. At that recent conference, the way they defined “sustainable development” was that suitable development must be ecologically, socially and economically sustainable.

One of the gentlemen there, Otto Soemarwoto, indicated that there must be four main components to sustainable development. The first is the need for agricultural and biological diversity. The second is the need to improve our ability to predict what will happen in the future through the use of applied and pure science. The need for governments to react quickly against events that are detrimental to the Earth’s surface or to humans is the third. Fourth and finally, the need for citizens to exercise restraint in the use of pollution-causing agents, is probably the most important because the underlined part at the end of that one is that we must be self-motivated.

I firmly believe that individuals and groups can make a difference. Every morning each of us must reaffirm our commitment to environmentally sustainable development as legislators. Each of us can practise recycling. Each of us can refuse to purchase overpackaged goods. Each of us can purchase items made from recycled materials. Each of us can strongly encourage sound reforestation practices. Each of us can take the time to be well enough informed to support sound, environmentally sustainable development.

As I begin to wind down my remarks, I would again like to commend the member for Brantford for his visionary motion. It deserves the support of this House. I support its intent with much enthusiasm.

As I conclude, I would like to read into the record part of a newsletter. I will not mention the municipality in the United States nor the county from which this newsletter came, but I will mention that the logo at the top says it is called the Conservation League and it began in 1934. In my view, they have one of the most up-to-date recycling recovery processes in the world. The newsletter reads:

“In 1987, the Resource Recovery Centre opened a 130,000-square-foot facility that includes state-of-the-art equipment used to recycle materials which otherwise would contribute only to growing landfill. Instead, materials are recycled and energy is saved.”

I see that my time is growing very short. I would like to indicate that in the article they specifically mentioned at least five different items where not only is energy saved but the reuse of the materials is highlighted in a very positive way. I have a great deal of enthusiasm, as we approach this major problem in Ontario, that we will recover it in the context of the type of motion that the member for Brantford put this morning.

Mr. Hampton: This is a resolution which I find interesting, to say the least, because while I want to support the general intent of it, while I want to say that this is indeed the way we ought to be going, as a person who deals every day in my own constituency, in my own part of the province, with what seems to be one environmental disaster after another, or potentially one environmental disaster after another, I feel bound to say I like the resolution but I also feel bound to say that there is a lot that is not happening at this time and there is a lot that the present government is doing which actually flies in the face of this resolution. I want to deal with some of those things to try to put something of practice and something of practical worth into the sense of this resolution.

It is a very good thing to say that “Ontario should conduct a thorough review of its programs, policies and practices to ensure that the concept of sustainable development is applied within all areas of Ontario government decision-making.” I want to see that happen. I also want to make the point it is not happening now. In fact, some of the policies in the Ministry of Natural Resources are going in the opposite direction.

I also want to see the government of this province implement a procedure for reviewing, on an annual basis, the progress made by all ministries, because it is quite clear to me that if this were in place at this time, the Ministry of Natural Resources would get absolutely failing marks across the northern section of this province.

I think boards and crown corporations should also be required to apply this concept of sustainable development within their areas of responsibility. There is no doubt about it. It is long overdue.

I want to talk about the Ministry of Natural Resources and what it is not doing, and ought to be doing, in the face of this kind of resolution, because let us face it, if you come from the northern part of Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources is the ministry which has the greatest impact not only upon the lives and wellbeing of the people who live in northern Ontario but upon the very environment that we live with.

Let’s take, for example, the issue of forest management. You would be hard pressed to find in Ontario a professional forester who would say that aerial reseeding of cutover land is better than hand-planted seedlings. You would be hard pressed to find someone who says it is just as good or better to regenerate by means of aerial seeding. Almost every professional forester out there will tell you that if you want to regenerate a forest efficiently, then you regenerate by hand with seedlings. You do that especially when you are in muskeg areas or rocky areas, which take in most of northern Ontario. Northern Ontario is overwhelmingly Canadian Shield. You do not have a lot of sand. You do not have a lot of deep soil available for replanting.

Yet, what policy has the Ministry of Natural Resources instituted in the last year? It is a policy of gradually stepping out of growing and planting seedlings and growing into more and more aerial seeding. And what is the rationale for this? The rationale is it is cheaper to seed by using aerial seeding. It is not more effective, it is not more efficient, you do not get the regeneration growths, but it is cheaper. That policy flies directly in the face of this resolution.

1140

Let me give members another example. The Ministry of Natural Resources a couple of years ago instituted a $10 resident fishing licence. The resident fishing licence was to be used to restock and regenerate the fish stocks that in many parts of northern Ontario have been so badly abused. Yet what is happening? Members need only pick out any edition of the magazines or press releases of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to see it. What is happening is there have been cutbacks in the fish restocking and fish management program, again, by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The money was made available, yet the money is not being used appropriately in a way that would be in accord with the resolution we are speaking about today. The Ministry of Natural Resources is failing badly -- today, yesterday -- and if the current policies are any indication, it will fail tomorrow in meeting the requirements of this kind of resolution.

Let’s look, for example, at the paper industry in northern Ontario. It is an industry that is vital to the livelihood of that part of the province. It is vital to the many small communities that exist there. Paper mills, unfortunately, do two things that are not in any way helpful to the environment. One of them is that all kraft paper mills generate, as an unwanted byproduct, the very serious pollutant dioxin. There are kraft paper mills in northern Ontario that have been found to have very high concentrations of dioxin in their effluent.

The European Community is acting on this problem in 1989 and 1990, yet when asked when the Ontario Ministry of the Environment intends to act, the minister will not say. When we press the minister, he says: “Look at the regulations of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement.”

There is a problem with the MISA regulations. First of all, the monitoring system is already a year behind. We look at the abatement schedule, which is not listed to take place until 1993. I suggest that in view of the fact the monitoring timetable is already a year behind, we will be lucky if we make 1994. That is not good enough. It is not good enough because dioxin is a long-lasting pollutant. It does not break down easily and is a very serious pollutant for all levels of the ecosystem.

Let us take air quality controls. The other unfortunate thing about paper mills and kraft pulp mills is that they pour out a stream of air pollutants. The paper mill in my own community last year exceeded the existing limits 421 times; on 421 separate, individual times the paper mill exceeded the existing limits. This cannot continue, yet there is -- I will not say it is inactivity -- hesitation on the part of the Ministry of the Environment to do more.

It seems to me the Brundtland report says one very clear thing. It says there is a close and inseparable continuity between the economics of the social system and the environment. What is so problematic about what the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources are doing in the north is that the longer they put off these things, the longer they put off the proper regeneration of the forests and the proper regulation and control of air pollutants and water pollutants from paper mills, the more difficult it becomes to put them in place without harming the economic infrastructure of those communities.

That is because after a certain point a paper mill company will say, “If you impose these restrictions on us, we will close the mill.” After you have allowed a mill to continue to pollute in that way for 15 or 20 years, it becomes much easier for the corporation to walk away from it and say, “Well, to do the kind of work you require us to do now, it is easier and cheaper for us to walk away from it.” So it is very important to impose these requirements and regulations early and to upgrade them, rather than let the situation continue and then have to do a crash course, because that can have very deleterious effects on the local economic environment.

We support the wishes and the would-be’s of this resolution. We only say that the government of this province should be doing something now to show it is in agreement with the resolution contained herein.

Mr. Runciman: At the outset, I want to compliment the member for his interest in the environment and in the concept of sustainable development, and to indicate, as my colleague the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) did earlier, that we will be supporting the resolution. I must say that in our view it is putting the cart before the horse to some extent, but that does not necessarily reflect in a negative way on the member’s initiative in any respect.

We believe there is a crucial missing link in the proposal; that is, he has neglected to consider that there is no overall provincial strategy for the application of a sustainable development concept. I think it will be extremely difficult for ministries to apply a concept and a review process when there is no plan and there are no guidelines.

The national task force was clear that there must be advanced and integrated planning. To aid in the development of a plan for rational management and protection of resources, the task force recommended that every province and territory assume the responsibility for the co-ordination and development of conservation strategies in their jurisdiction. Those strategies would then be used as blueprints for sustainable economic development.

The member may be aware that Ontario began such a plan even before the establishment of the national task force. The previous Conservative government helped initiate and fund the Conservation Council of Ontario’s assessment of conservation and development in Ontario. That report was entitled Towards a Conservation Strategy for Ontario and was released in May 1986. The report offered an overview assessment of conservation and development practices in Ontario and recommendations for the organization of the next steps to be taken in introducing a provincial conservation strategy.

Regrettably, since its release, the current government has virtually ignored the report. Before responding to the council’s report, the Liberal government wanted to wait for the report of the national task force. That was one of its excuses. It has been over a year now since the report of the task force and still the government has ignored the work of the Conservation Council of Ontario. Because the council feels it is urgent that Ontario move ahead with a conservation strategy to eventually have a blueprint for sustainable development, the council has proceeded on its own initiative to do a follow-up study. We hope that will be released in the near future.

We can only hope the government will stand up and listen and use the efforts of the conservation council in tandem with the discussions at the environment round table to develop Ontario’s blueprint for sustainable development. When this blueprint is in place, the proposals of the member for Brantford will be complete and effective.

There is another thing I want to mention. One of the problems in some respects with the small number in our caucus is that you do not always have enough time to prepare for these debates. But a concern of mine was reinforced yesterday with the release of a demographic study indicating that Ontario’s population is going to increase by three million souls by the year 2010, much of that increase through immigration.

1150

It seems to me that when we are talking about sustainable development and conservation, one element that is consistently ignored and never touched upon is the question of population strategies for Ontario. I just do not think there is any population strategy or any real consideration being given to the implications of three million more people in this province by the year 2010. I personally would like to see consideration given to a royal commission on population growth.

If you take a look at what is happening in this province now, our health care system is overburdened. People are not able to attain the necessary medical services right across this province and the health care system is taking almost one third of the provincial budget.

Take a look at the education system. There was an article in the Toronto Star recently about the impact immigration is having on the education system in Metropolitan Toronto.

Traffic congestion: I have been living in Toronto on a part-time basis for eight years now and I have seen such a dramatic impact in terms of the traffic congestion problems.

You can look at the housing crisis. You can look at increasing crime. You can look at any number of questions that are tied into the very intensive and significant population growth in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

There are our natural resources with the increasingly rapid consumption of prime farm land in this province, the deteriorating highway infrastructure, social programs that are overburdened in many instances now and increasing demands on government in dealing with the current population load. There are the energy generation requirements for this province in the future through Ontario Hydro. All are very significant questions that have a bearing on the population of this province. It is a critical element that must be considered.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired. The member for Brantford had reserved some time.

Mr. Neumann: I have enjoyed listening to the remarks of my colleagues in the House on this important resolution. I am not surprised to hear criticisms of the government and its policies. That is to be expected from opposition members. I am pleased, however, that the members opposite have indicated their support for the resolution.

Members will not be surprised to perhaps hear some positive comments about government initiatives in my concluding remarks.

The Ministry of the Environment has provided considerable leadership in this province and across North America in initiatives related to environmental issues. The budget for the ministry is up 51 per cent since the 1984-85 period. That indicates quite a commitment by this government to environmental matters. The Minister of the Environment has initiated a new approach within that ministry that tackles environmental problems head on, such approaches as those that relate to the “polluter pays” principle and a proactive role in environmental protection rather than a reactive one.

Comment was made about the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. While there may be some criticism of that program, it is a bold new initiative that requires dischargers to meet standards attainable by the best available technology, periodically examining new technologies in a drive to eliminate persistent toxic discharges into our waterways. The absolute discharge amounts allowed to each source are capped and new limits are set on many persistent toxic chemicals previously ignored. I believe it is a very positive initiative of this government.

I mentioned in my opening remarks the progress made on acid rain. Another area of improvement is in the area of increased fines for polluters. Amendments to Ontario’s three major environmental laws dramatically increased fines tenfold, $100,000 per day, adding jail terms of up to one year. The most dangerous offences could incur fines of $500,000 per day. This, accompanied by stricter enforcement and follow-through, is a positive initiative of this government.

Proclamation of the spills bill is another area, and there is the establishment of the $10-million security fund to provide timely and effective cleanup of spills. These are areas in addition to the ones mentioned by my colleague.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this resolution does not call for the production of more reports. I note the member for Leeds-Grenville made reference to this document, Towards a Conservation Strategy for Ontario. I have read the document and it is a fine document. I think it can help in guiding us along the way. I noticed, however, that having made reference to a report, he called for yet another report to be commissioned on population.

There may be a need for reports and studies to be done. My resolution, however, does not focus on the creation of new reports. I believe there is enough information available now about the basic principles of sustainable development, the concept that we should not be borrowing ecologically from future generations, the concept that environmental and economic issues are interrelated and that sustainable development means having decision-makers challenged in all areas of decision-making.

There is enough known about the basic principles for there to be leadership provided and direction given to all decision-makers within our areas of responsibility, so that we can become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. If that means a few decision-makers in Ontario squirm, let them squirm. This is private members’ hour and we are challenging the government to move forward, as it has done, perhaps more quickly.

As well, I would like to comment again on the final point in my resolution, which calls for an annual review and a mechanism for monitoring what all the ministries, boards and agencies are doing. I mentioned the role the Ministry of Citizenship plays in implementing the government’s multicultural policy and I noted with interest that the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) has been given responsibility with respect to the Ontario round table. I find this encouraging because, along with the fine work of the Ministry of the Environment, perhaps it is important that a ministry such as Management Board, which has links to virtually every ministry, take a responsibility in this area.

I submit that this resolution, if implemented by the government, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, would be complementary to and supportive of the initiatives of the round table. We do not need to wait to find out what the round table recommends with respect to the broader strategies in our society. We can be moving in many areas within the government, within the ministries and within different departments and agencies along the way. As feasible alternatives, as feasible measures are discovered, they should be implemented.

In conclusion, I am encouraged by the positive support indicated by my colleagues in this House. The issues we are debating today on this resolution are weighty issues. They are global in impact, yet they arise from the local areas all over the planet. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we should not be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problems before us. We should be challenged by them, because the solutions can be found individually and locally within our areas of responsibility, perhaps right here in this building at Queen’s Park, in some of the things we do in our offices and in our communities. All of us should be challenged. That is the main purpose of this resolution.

I thank the members for supporting the resolution. I thank the various environmental groups that provided me with information to assist me in my research and in preparing me for today. I have enjoyed the debate. I look forward to the resolution being approved and seeing the response.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on ballot item 59 and ballot item 60.

NORTHERN ONTARIO ARTISTS AND CULTURAL GROUPS / ARTISTES ET GROUPES CULTURELS DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Campbell has moved resolution 60.

M. Campbell propose la résolution 60.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Neumann has moved resolution 59.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:29 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VOTING BY PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Farnan: Yesterday, I had a very few moments to comment on the concept of a free vote for Liberal backbenchers on the issue of Bill 113 and Bill 114. We have had a statement from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in this House that indeed every vote was a free vote.

I think we have to distinguish what we mean by a free vote. In the eyes of members of the public, a free vote is similar to a vote taken on capital punishment at the federal level, where all members were free to vote according to their convictions and consciences. In this particular matter, the Liberal members of this House have been instructed right along the line on what to say when they make a speech and what to write in their letters. We will be voting today on the issue of Bill 113 and on Monday, presumably, on Bill 114.

I am not a betting man nor am I inclined to wager, but I am prepared to offer $5 to any Liberal member who is prepared to bet. I will say that the Liberals will either vote in favour of the legislation or they will be absent from the House. Not one Liberal member will vote against this legislation, and here is $5 that says that is the way it is going to be.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. McCague: Last year, the Treasurer (Mr.
R. F. Nixon) went to Europe to speculate about possible tax increases in his next budget. This year, he went to England to write the epitaph for his government’s hollow, short-sighted and politically motivated opposition to the free trade agreement.

The Treasurer’s statement yesterday simply highlights the Liberals’ doubletalk and bafflegab on the FTA. The Treasurer said, for instance, that Ontario had concerns about the deal but not on the basis of tariff reduction. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) was singing a different tune in 1986 when he tabled reports concluding that tariff reductions would cost this province hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The Treasurer’s statement will be news to the Liberal members of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, who, in their report of last October, expressed serious concerns about tariff reductions.

We can add this to a growing list of cases which show that this is a government which not only does not do what it says it will do but does not even mean what it says. I can understand why the Treasurer leaves the country to make these kinds of statements and can only speculate that he carries a passport from the twilight zone, because that is where this government seems to develop most of its policies.

MARK AND HUGH WILSON

Mr. Owen: Despite the mild weather that has been with us here in Toronto, elsewhere in Ontario and in my riding of Simcoe Centre there has been sufficient snow to support the many thousands of Ontarians and visitors who enjoy winter activities. Simcoe Centre and Huronia as a whole offer numerous venues and opportunities for people to participate in their favourite winter sports. Cross-country skiing, in particular, is available right across our area.

Simcoe county boasts a number of competitive cross-country skiers, including Mark and Hugh Wilson. These 19-year-old twin brothers swept the top two places in the 14th Vachon Cup cross-country race held at Camp Fortune, Quebec, this past Sunday. They captured first and second in the junior free-technique 10-kilometre skating event and produced the day’s two best times, to lead 164 other senior, junior and masters racers in this sprint distance.

Mark and Hugh are members of the national junior team and have been skiing competitively for approximately nine years. They moved to Barrie from Gloucester, near Ottawa, a year and a half ago. We join their parents in the pride of their sons’ excellence in sport and assure them of our continued support and good wishes in future achievements.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Grier: I want to put on the record today some thoughts about Sunday shopping that have been movingly expressed by pupils of St. Ambrose school in my constituency.

Katherine Silviera writes: “I think that shopping on Sunday will destroy our families because moms, dads, brothers and sisters will be forced to work and be away from home. My mother works at Eaton’s Sherway. She already has to work one night a week and if she works on Sunday we won’t be able to go to mass, eat dinner together or do girly things that girls, excuse me, ladies do. Please vote for no Sunday shopping.”

Katie Antonczyk writes to tell me what is happening to the families of her friends: “We think that Sunday shopping should be stopped because it will break the love between our families. The Raparello family is breaking up, her father is gone and she hardly ever sees her brother because he is always working. The Russo family is not always together either because her father works every Sunday and he gets home all moody and grumpy. The Antonczyk family is not communicating very well either because her father works until about seven and she cannot go out or even spend some outings together.”

These young people in Etobicoke-Lakeshore have proven once again that St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians apply to this Liberal government:

“When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things. Now I see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.”

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Jackson: I rise today to bring to the attention of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) another example of this government’s commitment to breaking promises.

In May 1987, this government announced, in typical Liberal fashion, the media release of a plan entitled Challenges and Opportunities: Community Living for People with Developmental Handicaps. The plan was announced as a seven-year program that would see the closure of institutions for the mentally handicapped. The individuals who relied on these institutions would have the opportunity for a greater quality of life by living in the community.

What the announcement did was raise hopes and expectations in parents that their children were coming home. This government’s election promise has turned into a governing excuse. This seven-year plan has now become a mysterious multi-year plan.

This government is presently putting more money into institutional care than into community living. As a result, salary imbalances are reaching crisis proportions, with loss of personnel and lowered expectations at a time of increased challenges to meet higher client needs. This government has cancelled the intermediate step program between group homes and independent apartment living. Groups like People First were created and have become enthused solely on this government’s promise to provide real jobs. The parents, who for years kept their children at home, bought this government’s promise.

I say to the Premier that the Ontario Association for Community Living and the families and children it serves are going to starve on a diet of this government’s promises.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Adams: Concern about the environment has grown to such an extent that some people have become very pessimistic about the future.

I would like to inform the House of hopeful signs in one small community, Peterborough.

We were the first of the blue box communities, after decades of volunteer, community-run recycling. The city and the province are to double the capacity of Scott’s Plains Recycling and relocate it so that it will be accessible to rural communities.

A group of grade 8 students have gained national media attention for their knowledge of the greenhouse effect. They have lobbied local politicians and have organized a group of senior high school students to take part in a demonstration this Saturday to show their concern.

At Trent University, the Ontario Public Interest Research Group has for many years performed research and public education activities on environmental issues.

At the other end of the age spectrum, a senior citizen has arranged a public viewing next week of the award-winning TVOntario documentary on the greenhouse effect. This same person has been on more than 30 radio stations across North America discussing the disposable diaper issue.

The Mayor’s Citizens Committee on Sustainable Development is fully operational, and the community has two members sitting on the Premier’s Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy.

When young and old work to combat environmental issues, there is hope.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Cousens: I was asked this morning by one of the people who works in this Legislative Building when we are going to do something more to promote the construction of Highway 407.

I feel I have missed an opportunity in the last few weeks. I have not had a chance to remind this House of the importance of doing something about the road networks around Metropolitan Toronto. One of the reasons I have not done that is that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has not been around for us to pick on him and remind him. I hope he is not sick.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: He is sick.

Mr. Cousens: I hope he gets well soon so he can come back here and get to work on building Highway 407. This House has a responsibility to do good things across the province. I hope the minister gets better by my wishing him well.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Spend, spend, spend.

Mr. Cousens: We have to have our priorities in order. If those guys think they can successfully lead this province, they are not going to do it unless they do something to build the infrastructure for the people.

1340

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

Hon. Mr. Curling: Technological advances, demographic trends and changes in international trading patterns will have a major impact on the economic environment over the next decade and will exert escalating pressures on our labour markets. If we are to remain competitive in a new global economy, Ontario will require a highly skilled and adaptable workforce. Skills training is critical to our capacity to meet these challenges.

Today, I am tabling a paper that proposes a renewed federal-provincial training partnership. It is called Building a Training System for the 1990s: A Shared Responsibility, and it outlines the province’s negotiating position for the upcoming federal-provincial training talks.

Ontario is committed to working with the federal government and its other partners to put in place an effective and positive system where adult workers can undertake training and retraining in the 1990s. The positions set out in this paper represent the directions shared through ongoing talks with labour-market ministries across Canada as well as Ontario’s training community.

The federal-provincial partnership is governed by an agreement on training which was signed in 1986 and is due to expire March 31, 1989. The negotiation of a new set of agreements between our two governments presents an opportunity to review the partnership and ensure it is appropriate to the challenges facing the province in the next decade.

Ontario is committed to working with the federal government to ensure that federal expenditures complement provincial efforts to build a training system. Towards this end, Ontario will continue to advocate a number of changes in federal policy.

The government of Canada should reaffirm its commitment to skills training as an economic investment.

The government of Canada should implement a comprehensive system of income support for trainees to remove financial disincentives for many who could benefit by upgrading their skills.

The government of Canada should ensure that adequate training opportunities exist for employment-disadvantaged individuals to become full, contributing members of our society and for displaced workers to be reintegrated into the workforce.

The government of Canada should commit itself to making language training available to all immigrants, enabling them to participate in training and employment opportunities.

The government of Canada should support the existing training infrastructure in the province, enabling it to provide more effective training and ensuring a more efficient use of public funds.

These principles for federal action will guide the government of Ontario as we renegotiate our training agreement with the federal government leading up to March 31.

We are negotiating another agreement with the federal government. An agreement to enhance the employability of social assistance recipients will provide an important opportunity to improve self-employment prospects of benefit recipients. We are keen to sign such an agreement within the context of our larger training relationship with Ottawa.

Now that the federal cabinet has been sworn in and my counterpart, Ms. McDougall, is continuing as Minister of Employment and Immigration, may I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her reappointment. The government of Ontario welcomes the opportunity that her reappointment will bring and I look forward to meeting with her at the first opportunity to begin our negotiations.

BEEF MARKETING

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I rise to inform the members of this House of an announcement about the beef cattle industry in Ontario. As I stated in this House at an earlier date, Ontario beef cattle producers will have an opportunity to vote on two questions affecting the future of the marketing system for their industry.

The vote comes as the result of a recommendation made by the Beef Marketing Task Force, which I established in February 1988 with the mandate to develop a plan of action aimed at achieving a long-term, viable beef industry in Ontario. In forming the 16-member Beef Marketing Task Force, every effort was made to ensure representation from all sectors of the beef cattle marketplace. The task force was supported by the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and the Beef Producers for Change, both of which were represented on the task force.

The Beef Marketing Task Force recommended that beef cattle producers in Ontario be allowed to vote on whether they want to alter their present marketing system. The vote, which will be held on April 14, is being conducted by the Farm Products Marketing Commission through a mail-in ballot asking producers two questions:

1. Are you in favour of the proposed producer-controlled marketing commission which would regulate the sale of all beef cattle in Ontario?

2. Are you in favour of the above proposed producer-controlled marketing commission working toward a national beef cattle marketing plan with the authority to manage supply and determine price?

I want to make it clear to the members of this House that these questions were developed by the consensus of a vote committee representing the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, Beef Producers for Change and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The group also prepared an information package which will be mailed with the ballot.

The vote committee has agreed upon and set the voter eligibility criteria to involve all Ontario producers who produced four or more head of beef cattle for at least 45 consecutive days in 1987 or 1988. Beef cattle includes dairy and beef breeds.

As well, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food is arranging a series of 41 information meetings across Ontario in late March and early April. The meetings will take the form of a debate between representatives of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and the Beef Producers for Change. In addition, we are installing a toll-free information line.

The results of the vote will be announced in May, at which time I will accept the vote of 60 per cent as a clear signal that producers want to alter their marketing system.

This vote seeks the consensus of beef cattle producers to decide their future marketing system. I am pleased that the ministry could act as a facilitator in establishing the groundwork for this very important vote, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank chairman Dr. Ken McDermid and the members of the task force and the vote committee for their commitment and dedication toward this important endeavour.

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) based on the report he is introducing today regarding building a training system as a shared responsibility. He lays down what it is the federal government should do, which is an interesting notion of sharing.

I thought perhaps it would be good for members to know and for the public to know what this government’s part of that responsibility has been and how it has neglected its responsibilities on training.

This government has committed itself to increasing the number of women in apprenticeships and increasing the percentage of women taking apprenticeships in Ontario. Members will be interested to know that although apprenticeships are up to 45,000 this year, about the number they were back in the early 1980s, the percentage of women in apprenticeships has dropped, has actually dropped.

Let’s look at their Transitions program, which is a training program for older workers, a much vaunted program of which they have been able to spend barely a pittance, a tiny proportion of the $8 million initially slotted for this. Why? Because the criteria are absolutely useless to most of the workers who wish to participate. It is not the kind of program that is at all useful. If it were a program that started when we knew a plant was going to be shut down, as I said to the minister during the estimates, if it were something we could get into the plant six months before those workers were laid off so they could be retrained for specific work, then it would be useful, but as it is now, hardly anybody is even bothering to participate.

Let’s look at the emphasis on apprenticeship versus other programs in the money that actually goes in from this government. Let’s remember that most of the money that goes in is actually federal dollars. There is very little provincial money that actually goes into apprenticeship at all, except if you are a university graduate and you want to be an international marketing intern; then this government will give IBM Canada $30,000 over two years to allow this marketing intern to participate in that poor, impoverished corporation, while it will only give a tradesman, who maybe needs $6,000 or $7,000 or $8,000 worth of tools, $750 towards his tool needs. That is the priority of this government in terms of training.

1350

Let’s look at the fact that this government has no concept at all of what the number of apprenticeship categories should be, how we should increase those or what the role should be in terms of meeting the targets that were set. For instance, this minister and his deputy minister told the government and cabinet that they could not meet the target of 60,000 apprentices they had promised with the resources they have, and yet this cabinet said they could have no more money. They have already decided they are not even going to bother to try to meet those kinds of criteria.

Why is there nothing in this about how the minister has failed the disabled? The participation rates of the disabled in training programs is abysmal in this province, and yet there is nothing in this document about the minister’s responsibility. He even has the nerve to slough off the English-as-a-second-language training responsibilities on to the federal government in this document, as if that is something that Ontario should not be providing to its immigrants and refugees who come into this province.

There is a lot missing from this statement of shared responsibility, and that is perhaps because this government has taken none.

BEEF MARKETING

Mr. Wildman: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). At the outset, I would like to say that we are happy to see that the committee has reached a consensus. It is a long-awaited one, and I am glad that the vote is going to be taken.

Obviously, the crucial questions were the wording of the questions and the definition of a beef producer. I note, though, that in the wording of the questions that the committee has arrived at, producers are being asked if they are in favour of a system which will be a national one or working towards a national one.

While we agree that is certainly desirable, whatever the decision, we wonder what this government will do in Ontario if 60 or more per cent of the producers voting and who are eligible to vote choose a change in the marketing system. Is this government then going to be prepared to act in Ontario to establish a new marketing system, perhaps with supply management, if that is the desire of the producers? We should be working for a national plan whatever the decision, but we also should be acting on the wishes of the producers in Ontario in the interim.

Mr. McCague: I would like to make a comment or two on the statement from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am pleased to do this on behalf of my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), who is studying agriculture in another jurisdiction at the moment.

It is hard to argue with the statement that the minister has made today. I just wonder, though. It is a well-known fact that the Beef Producers for Change wanted specific reference in the question to costs of production. I can only hope that they can live with this question, which, as the minister says, has been developed through co-operation and the two associations.

Although this is long-awaited and has been promised for several months, we are happy to see that the minister is now about to put the question before the farmers.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Cousens: I would like to make a few remarks to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling). Shame on him, shame.

How can he begin to say he is going to have negotiations with the federal government when he starts off by lambasting it in this presentation? He just does not know how to negotiate with another political power when he is going to start it that way. Just shame on him. He has not learned a thing. Two years in the job and he does not know how to begin to set up a relationship.

The federal government in 1987-88 agreed to give this government of Ontario $35 million and ended up giving it more than that: $37.4 million. In 1988-89, they agreed to $37 million and ended up giving $37 million. The fiscal irresponsibility starts with the minister. He thought he should get a little bit more, and because he could not live within it, he starts blaming them.

His statement today says the federal government should do that, they should implement this; not once does he say, “Thanks.” If he is going to have a working relationship with another level of government, he should start working together with it and give credit where it is due. They are giving the leadership and he is following. He is not even doing a good job following.

Mr. Jackson: I too would like to comment on the announcement today by the Minister of Skills Development, an interesting document with its typical red Liberal gash on it. For the second time in as many weeks, he states this government’s commitment to a negotiating position.

If the federal government has been watching the way the David Peterson government negotiates with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, if the federal government has been watching the way the David Peterson government negotiates with teachers, doctors, nurses, optometrists and social service workers in this province, then the government of Canada will know the bargaining position exactly.

The government of Ontario will take any group down the path on a negotiating process past an election, to the gate and then it will drop its hand. That has been the reputation that this government has now achieved in terms of negotiating processes.

In terms of reaffirming its commitment, why was it that this minister’s predecessor announced that 1987 was going to be the year of apprenticeship and then found out that not even a single person from the Ministry of Education was invited to help build that system?

Mr. Cousens: Not one?

Mr. Jackson: Not one person from the Ministry of Education. We have seen a decline in provincial dollars in programs that are 100 per cent financed here in Ontario. We have seen the women in trades and technology program and older worker programs with 100 per cent Ontario dollars phased out. We are seeing those programs phased out.

This government cannot point a finger at the federal government and talk about its commitment when this government’s own is declining. The fact of the matter is, and I agree with my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), that this document is an admission that Ontario under this Premier (David Peterson) lacks the vision, lacks the planning and lacks the management necessary to develop a world-class workforce.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The numbers are out now for the rent review process as of the end of December. We are gradually whittling away at a process and a little bit more than 22 per cent of the rental units in Ontario are still caught in the process. In another decade or so, this system may work.

My question is precisely about the decisions that have been reached. Can the minister explain why better than 90,000 tenants who have now had a decision from the rent review process have been faced with an average increase of 11.4 per cent when the announced guidelines are somewhere around 4.7 per cent and the rate of inflation is at a similar level? How does the minister explain that what she publicly announces as a guideline turns out, in practice, to be useless and that the actual rent increases are more than double what she promised they would be?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows full well that the guideline is meant to cover rent increases to manage the normal process of managing the building properly. However, there are a large number of buildings in which major capital improvements are being made. Buildings are being repaired and work is being done to make them better, safer and cleaner. When there are significant capital costs and other costs associated with running a building, some landlords come forward to rent review to ask for an increase above the guideline, and those are the ones reflected in the percentage that the member has there.

Mr. Breaugh: The capital improvement seems to be in the landlord’s pocketbook. Here is a woman, Mrs. W. T. Gresham, who has been caught in this web. She lives in an apartment at 507 Dundas Street East in Whitby. Her rent over the last four years has increased by 50.1 per cent.

How does the minister explain to her that, in a building that has not had substantial improvements in any sense of the word -- the building has in fact been sold several times, but there has been no major improvement in the building itself -- her rent has increased 50 per cent while this woman, living on a fixed income, has had nowhere near that kind of increase in her pension? How does the minister explain to her that such dramatic increases occur regularly when the minister says that the increase should be only 4.7 per cent?

1400

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The increase in rent is based on a variety of factors. One of them is capital costs and the other is economic and financial loss. I should tell the member opposite that the average tenant rebate, in the time that we have been dealing with rebates in the rent review system, has averaged 14.6 percent, which means that a significant number of tenants have in fact received rent money back.

For the person the member is talking about and for all people on fixed income, I realize this is a serious issue, but the issue is the fact that they are living on a fixed income. There is no way that rent review by itself was meant to take care of the rental housing needs of people on fixed incomes all by itself. That seems to me to be a separate issue.

What we are talking about is making sure that no rent increases that are unjustified are paid by tenants and that we make reasonable recognition of the cost of running a building and the financial cost of managing a building. Unless there is such recognition, there is not going to be any private rental housing in this province.

The quick quip about capitalization is really misplaced, as I think the member knows, because unless buildings are properly repaired and maintained, they are all going to fall down eventually. It is extremely important that buildings be properly maintained and that capital improvements be made in the building stock of this province.

Mr. Breaugh: It is the tenants who are falling down.

Mrs. Gresham seems to have figured it out. She perhaps is a little smarter than the minister. In her letter to the minister of December 14, 1988 -- and I really would like to hear what the minister had to say to her -- she said:

“So the question has to be asked: Why would someone purchase a rental building with an obvious yearly loss of about $50,000, unless there was a loophole in the legislation whereby the tenants would be assessed to eliminate the interest on the loan?” It seems to me that she has gone directly and very cleverly to the heart of the problem.

The minister has created an act and a system whereby people who buy apartment buildings cannot possibly lose money because she guarantees that their speculation will be paid for by the tenants in that building. Why does she continue to allow Mrs. Gresham and others like her to become the victims in her rent review process?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows full well this legislation has a number of parts which were meant to balance each other. I am not going to claim the legislation is perfect, but I do believe that it does work in a relatively balanced way. It also seems to me very important to recognize that it is important that the legislation take account of the fiscal and economic realities of the marketplace in which landlords and tenants work together. I think the legislation does that in a reasonably fine way.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Health and it is again about the crisis in Ontario’s health care system. Specifically, it is in regard to the announcement she made on June 29, 1988, regarding cancer treatment. At that time the minister said that additional funding was being provided to deal with “the significant increase in the number of patients requiring treatment.”

She said, “We are committed to providing a co-ordinated and effective system of cancer care in Ontario.” She also said, “Escalating the war against cancer has priority status with the Ministry of Health.” If the war on cancer is a priority with her ministry, how can the minister say she is fulfilling that commitment when 43 of the 202 in-patient beds at Princess Margaret Hospital here in Toronto are closed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Our priority in this province is to provide the care that people need when they need it. We appointed a cancer care co-ordinator, who is at this moment reviewing cancer capacity and cancer care right across this province. We are working very closely with the Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Hospital and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to ensure that resources are available and work proceeds to make sure that Ontario will remain on the leading edge of cancer care in the world.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That sounds very nice, but it is just not the case. The fact of the matter is that 43 of the 202 beds at Princess Margaret are closed. The fact of the matter is that 46 of the 123 in-patient nursing positions at Princess Margaret are vacant. There is a 37 per cent vacancy rate of nurses in the cancer facility at Princess Margaret, and Sunnybrook Medical Centre, the other facility that provides radiation therapy for Metro cancer patients, is dealing with twice as many patients as that facility was designed to deal with.

I would like to ask the minister again how she can possibly say that the treatment of cancer patients in Ontario is a priority with those statistics being a fact in Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is important for the member opposite to know that cancer care is provided in numerous hospitals across this province, in Ontario cancer treatment and research facilities, in clinics in Hamilton and Sudbury. In fact, there has been expansion of those treatment facilities. I can tell the member that we are working very closely with the leadership of cancer care in the province and we are ensuring that resources are made available when and where they are needed.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not think the minister understands the long-term impact that these vacancies in nursing positions are going to have in cancer care in this province.

Does the minister realize that because these hospitals do research, they need higher staffing ratios -- in other words, more nurses than most treatment facilities in the province require -- and that because those nurses are not available, research is going to be cut back? Patients who are involved in clinical trials will not be able to participate at the same level, because they have to have in-patient care.

If the minister understands those long-term, detrimental effects in Ontario on cancer research and treatment, what is she prepared to do if she is not prepared to reopen the contract with the nurses of this province to satisfy some of those concerns? If she is not prepared to do that, what is she prepared to do to get more nurses into cancer treatment in this province so that we will not have another crisis?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, and it is important for the member to know, as I mentioned, cancer care is provided in numerous centres right across this province. I can tell him that my priority is always patient care and having access to that care as close to home as possible -- effective quality care.

I can tell the member as well that we recognize the importance and priority of both research and education, and that is why we are working very closely with the Ontario Cancer Institute and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to make sure that we have not only quality and effective patient care but also excellence in research and education.

The member knows full well that the Ministry of Health is not involved in the negotiations between the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association. I respect the collective bargaining process, and I am surprised that he does not.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Health as well. Talking about effective quality care close to home, I want to pick up on that theme. I wonder if the minister can share with us the number of surgical heart procedures that took place out of province, primarily in the United States, and were charged to the Ontario health insurance plan in the provincial fiscal year ending March 1988. Can she give us some idea of that number?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I can tell the leader of the third party that approximately 4,400 procedures were conducted in Ontario last year. That is open-heart surgery, cardiac bypass surgery. It is my understanding that the numbers for out of province are consistent with the numbers of the previous years. There has not been what would be considered a change in that trend.

Mr. Brandt: I want to be helpful to the minister. I think her first response in terms of the total number of procedures in Ontario is in fact correct. The number of procedures that took place out of province was 204, representing approximately five per cent of all procedures. I am sure she would agree with that, based on the number that she just gave me. The amount of money involved in out-of-province procedures directly charged to OHIP averages about $25,000.

When one takes that number, the minister will quickly be able to calculate, knowing how fast she is at these kinds of mathematical problems, that this amounts to something in excess of $5 million annually. That is not including when one looks at the emotional and stress side of the cost to the patients who have to leave Ontario for procedures outside the country.

Is this price of over $5 million and the additional strain on the patients who have to look for this option, by going to the United States primarily, acceptable to the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I said to the leader of the third party, in fact, the number of people choosing for whatever reason or finding themselves in the situation where they have surgery outside Ontario and outside Canada has remained fairly constant over the last few years.

I can tell him as well that a number of people from outside Ontario, from across Canada, from the United States and around the world come to Ontario to seek treatment because of the very fine quality care that is offered in Ontario’s hospital system.

1410

Mr. Brandt: I have no particular difficulty with those who come here for the fine-quality care we have been able to deliver on occasion. However, I do have difficulty when more than 200 procedures for a life-threatening operation result in people being forced to go to another jurisdiction. I have difficulty when 130 people from this province are forced to go to a clinic in Cleveland and pay the additional cost and the additional time that is involved in going to that facility in order to get a life-saving operation performed.

I am concerned about the fact that all the trend lines indicate this five per cent may well increase. I think the number itself is very dangerous and is too high. Can the minister assure this House that the number is going to start to come down in a reasonable period of time?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Last June, we committed significant resources to increase the capacity for cardiac surgery and cardiac care right across this province. As the honourable member knows, the number of people seeking care outside Ontario, for whatever reason, has remained constant for the last five years. I have been informed that with the capacity increase, the waiting times for urgent and elective surgery will be reduced. For those determined to be emergencies, care is provided on an as-needed basis by the physicians in this province.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the next questioner, I know all members will want to join me in welcoming Edward Sargent, the former member for Grey-Bruce.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Harris: What I am holding here is a standard-issue bullet-proof vest.

Hon. Mr. Elston: For the Tory convention.

Mr. Fleet: For the leadership race.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Didn’t they have your size, Mike?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Some Liberals think it is funny that people in this city are working in fear for their lives. I do not.

Let me say to the Minister of Housing that the custodial staff at the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority buildings now feel they need to wear bulletproof vests in order to be able to do their jobs safely and without risk to either themselves or the tenants they serve. I wonder if the minister can explain how the situation has deteriorated to the stage where tenants, their families, and indeed now the cleaning and janitorial staff of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority buildings feel they need to wear these to be able to perform their jobs.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I hope the member will not need anything remotely like that at the time of his bid for the leadership.

Let me say the people who live in Metro Toronto housing are very concerned about safety, as we are for them. We are especially concerned about the people who work at MTHA. They are concerned about their safety and they are in the middle of negotiating a collective agreement right now. The officials of the Ministry of Labour were meeting with the employees today. We will await their decision and will abide by it.

We have addressed safety and security issues by increasing police security and by evicting people who are drug dealers. Maintenance workers are able to work in pairs if they choose to do so. They have uniforms to distinguish them and to set them apart. We have set up various education programs inside MTHA to deal with issues of safety.

The other thing I am very pleased about is the co-operation between the people who live in our housing and the local police forces in dealing with whatever perceived or real problems there are in our housing. I believe we are doing some important things and working together to make changes in those buildings where there are such problems.

Mr. Harris: In the litany the minister has read out today and in any of the actions, she appears to have acknowledged, to have recognized and to be dealing with only the symptoms. The minister knows Mr. Sewell was very well known for his personal commitment to resolving the problems of drugs, violence and associated problems. The minister assured us that both she and Ms. Augustine, when she was appointed the new chairman, were committed to carrying out those reforms and proposals proposed by Mr. Sewell about a year ago now.

The problems clearly are becoming worse every day. I ask the minister what she and Ms. Augustine are going to do to address the problems, not recognize the symptoms, that have caused this situation we are faced with today?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Ms. Augustine has been given a mandate to make whatever changes she deems necessary, and working together with the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, she is indeed doing that. I have met with Ms. Augustine and I know she has an agenda for reform. Has the member met with her? I do not know.

It seems very clear to me that the work we are doing is very much committed to making sure our tenants live in as much safety and security as is possible. I should also remind the member and the people in the House that our tenants are among the most active people working with us to make sure our buildings are as safe as they can possibly be.

Let me put some of this in context, if I might. I have to say that unfortunately, as everybody in this House actually well knows, drugs are a pervasive problem all over our society. They are not located in only one place and the problems we have in the society with drugs are unfortunately not easily pointed at in one location.

At the least, in the Metro Toronto Housing Authority we are working actively to make a difference for the people who live there. They are actively involved with us and with police forces to make a difference. I believe we are turning this thing around and doing very good work in the Metro Toronto Housing Authority on this problem. I wish I could say the same for everywhere.

Mr. Harris: Clearly, nobody else believes that and I quite sincerely doubt the minister herself believes the situation is getting better.

I do not believe being shot at was what the people who wrote the Occupational Health and Safety Act had in mind when they drafted the regulations for that act. This problem was very predictable. This problem was foremost in Mr. Sewell’s mind a year ago. These people -- the tenants, their families and indeed the employees -- now fear for their lives. That was not the case one year ago today. It certainly was not the case three years ago.

I ask the minister to do everything in her power so that tenants and employees do not feel they are living and working in what is becoming a war zone, because I believe this is not something that can be left to Ms. Augustine alone; it requires the minister, her cabinet colleagues, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and a sincere commitment.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: If in his reference to shootings the member opposite is referring to the shootings that took place in North York in the Falstaff area in the past two days, let me tell the member I have a report that was given to me just recently from the police. Their conclusion, since they now have some suspects, is the following: “Evidence now indicates that the three shooting incidents are connected.” That is something we did not know. “There is no evidence to indicate” -- this is the police report – “that they are related in any way to the Metro Toronto housing development at 20, 30 and 40 Falstaff Avenue.”

Mr. Harris: So there are no problems?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am not saying there are no problems. I wish there were no problems of violence anywhere in our society. These shootings took place in North York and the police report says there was no evidence to indicate these shootings are in any way related to that location. It seems to me very appropriate, at the very least, to listen to the police report, which is all the information we have at this moment.

1420

TRITIUM

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of Energy and it relates to the issue of the export of tritium. When my leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), raised this with the minister last week, the reply was somewhat confusing but seemed to indicate this government would only support the export of tritium for peaceful purposes and would support the guidelines of the Atomic Energy Control Board.

In 1986, the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) raised this with the former minister and got a very clear commitment. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) said: “There will be no tritium supplied to replace any tritium that might be used in the United States for anything other than peaceful purposes. I propose to make this mandatory. I will make certain there will be no displacement of tritium for purposes other than peaceful ones.”

Can the Minister of Energy tell the House whether he agrees with the position taken by the former minister, and if so, how he intends to ensure that policy is followed?

Hon. Mr. Wong: In answer to the honourable member’s question, let me be very clear and say this government does agree with the previous minister’s statement. With respect to the question how this will be administered, we have the federal safeguards and guidelines. In addition, as I mentioned to the House, when and if this government makes a decision on the sale or nonsale of tritium, this will be one of the questions that will be addressed.

Mrs. Grier: I guess it is the “when and if” that concerns me, because we all know that the “ifs” are often longer than the “whens” for this government.

Surely the minister must recognize that the federal government’s position and guidelines on the export of tritium are very weak. The federal guidelines allow the export of tritium to countries that have not signed the nonproliferation treaty, and the federal government allows broad ministerial discretion. It allows the provincial Minister of Energy to permit exports in all other circumstances.

Can the minister explain why there has been no leadership from this government? Being the minister of a facility that is producing tritium, the only one in this country, can he explain why we have not yet seen any leadership, any policy that the federal government might follow for a change? When are we going to see the policy?

Hon. Mr. Wong: This government is exercising leadership. In due course, the honourable member will see the specifics.

I wish to respectfully correct the honourable member and point out that federal regulatory controls do require that shipping is only to nuclear nonproliferation signatories or countries with equivalent agreements. Federal regulatory controls also refer to the Atomic Energy Control Board transport licences. Federal controls are also tied up with the Department of External Affairs export permits under the Export and Import Permits Act and with the importing country’s regulatory approval.

Again, I would like to say to the honourable member that in due course we will make sure she is satisfied that all proper safeguards are adhered to.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Pope: This is to the memory of Cy and Doris. I have a question for the Minister of Health and it relates to the air ambulance service in northern Ontario.

Concerns have been raised since the tragedy in Chapleau and are continuing to be raised by nurses, doctors, medical staff at hospitals and the public with respect to the availability and quality of air ambulance transportation, particularly the use of dedicated jet aircraft out of Timmins, the mistakes that have been made in the transition of the contract from Air Ontario to Voyageur, and what is being done to make sure those mistakes do not happen again.

These questions are being raised throughout northeastern Ontario. We have had no detailed response from the ministry. I am wondering if the minister can give a response now in this House to these concerns that she knows exist.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I must question some of the premises on which the member’s question is raised, but I can tell him and assure him that full service with jets is now available in Timmins and northern Ontario.

Mr. Pope: The minister has heard from representatives of nurses in northeastern Ontario, from hospital administrators -- I know that for a fact -- from doctors and from the public, expressing their very grave concerns about what happened in the transition period between full service being provided by Air Ontario and full service, which was just put in place last week, using the dedicated jet aircraft by Voyageur.

She knows those concerns are there about this transition period. She knows the mistakes that were obviously made. We are talking about Tom Morrish and many others, including members of my own family. Mistakes were obviously made in this transition period. What is she is going to do to resolve those mistakes?

I have tried to get the information out of the minister and her ministry without success. I made an application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Pope: Does she now want me to pay $213? Here is her deposit for the information everyone is entitled to. Will she now release the information and tell us what in the world she was doing with the air ambulance service for northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member knows full well that the regulations under the freedom-of-information act are applied equally and fairly to all members. He knows as well that like any other member, he could apply or anyone could apply for a waiver. I would tell the House today that the member did not contact the ministry’s freedom-of-information office to request a waiver. He did not contact me personally or my office to request a waiver. Instead of political grandstanding on an issue of real concern, I suggest to him that he sit down and talk to me like a person.

Mr. Pope: Here are the letters. Why don’t you tell the truth to the Legislature?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Did you request a waiver? Where is your letter requesting a waiver? You never requested a waiver. You never contacted my office. Cut the baloney.

Mr. Pope: I did so. Here are the letters.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: You never requested a waiver. You never contacted my office.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the Minister of Health and the member for Cochrane South.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Cordiano: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. I want to return to the matter of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority with respect to the neighbourhood at Jane and Falstaff, which is in my riding.

I have received a number of telephone calls and many people have made visits to my office over the preceding months with respect to security at these buildings. Tenants and surrounding area residents have been terrified of what has been going on in these buildings with respect to security. Essentially, they are sick and tired of the abuse they have had to put up with, the abuse of the neighbourhood by drug dealers, etc. The root of the problem is with respect to outsiders who come into these buildings. That is the heart of the matter. What we need to do is address this problem.

I would like to ask the minister if she is prepared today to deal with the matters at hand at MTHA, to sit down with the chairman of MTHA and provide some immediate relief and immediate action on the whole question of safety and security for the people who live in the MTHA buildings and surrounding area.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: This concern the member has is shared by everybody in this province who is concerned about the pervasiveness of drugs and drug use in many places in the province, and the associated violence that sometimes accompanies that. MTHA has taken necessary steps to ensure people who live and work in those buildings are safe.

I should tell the member that I see the chairman of MTHA quite often and have spoken with her recently. I should also say to him that police patrols have been increased, security has been stepped up and drug dealers are being evicted. We have talked about that in the House in question period as well. We have made a commitment to make sure that if any people involved in drug dealing are actually in our buildings, they will not be there for very long. The community is working hard to make sure whatever dealing takes place on those premises can be stopped as quickly as possible.

I know this is a really important priority for the chairman because I have talked with her about it more than once.

Mr. Cordiano: I had the opportunity to meet with the chairman earlier this week. We discussed the very problem of security in these buildings. It was suggested in discussions with her that we might bring along live-in superintendents, have proper locks at the buildings and have monitoring cameras. Those might be some of the solutions we are looking for for security of these buildings. Can the minister look into these further?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I will, of course, be glad to look into them further, but I think the most appropriate thing to do, which I would be very glad to make sure happens, is to have the member bring his suggestions forward to the chairman of MTHA and the MTHA board, so that they can consider them and make the decisions they think are necessary on all these matters.

1430

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. As he knows, my colleagues and I have been touring the communities along the Highway 17 corridor in northern Ontario to learn the concerns of northern residents regarding health and social services delivery in northern Ontario. Can the minister explain why there are no vocational rehabilitation services available to residents of central Algoma at this time?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that there is a reanalysis within my own ministry in terms of the reallocation of resources, particularly in different parts of the north. The member will be aware of the fact, for example, that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and I are involved in the placement of professional teams in that area.

I cannot answer the specific question as to why they are not located in that particular area. What I will find out for the honourable member, if he does not already know it, is where the closest services are available, and I will pass that on to the member.

Mr. Wildman: It is not that they are not located there; they are not available.

Mel Baird, the director of education of the Central Algoma Board of Education, appeared before us in Sault Ste. Marie and informed us that two young students who have multiple handicaps and have done everything possible to go through high school and are now graduating, after a great deal of effort on behalf of themselves, the board and everybody involved, and who now need vocational rehabilitation in order to help them get into the workforce after they graduate from grade 12, have been informed that they will be able to get assistance in 30 to 33 months.

Why is it that two young people who are graduating from high school in this province and need vocational rehabilitation to help them get into the workforce to use the education they struggled for have to wait three years to get assistance?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I cannot speak to the specific example the honourable member has drawn to my attention. I would certainly concur with him on the basis of the information he has provided that it does not seem reasonable at all.

I would make two observations, however. The first one is that, in the past two years, we have put $40 million of additional money into a range of community support services all across the province. Second, with respect to vocational rehabilitation specifically, two of the difficulties we have to work with are the opportunities within any community, or close-by communities, to provide the specific kinds of services that people need. In many parts of the province we can meet them in a very short period of time if the range of services that particular person needs is available. In some cases it takes longer.

If the honourable member will share with me the specific names, I will certainly check with my office and see if we can do something to speed it up. It does seem an unreasonable length of time.

MENTAL COMPETENCE

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the members of the House will recall, in April 1988, the Minister of Health appointed Professor David Weisstub to review the standard for determining mental competence of a patient under the Mental Health Act. The need for review became evident during discussions on amendments to the Mental Health Act. The minister herself decided, and rightly so, that some of the concerns about the act might be resolved if there were a clearer way of determining mental competence. Can the minister provide us with an update on the review and tell us when she will be able to table the final report?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes. As the member knows, this is one extremely difficult and challenging issue because passions are felt so strongly on the side of the right to treat patients versus the right of patients to refuse treatment.

The member will know extremely well that during the discussions and debate around the Mental Health Act, the former minister expressed grave concerns about the amendments that were proposed and in fact supported by both opposition parties at that time.

I established the Weisstub inquiry to bring together a panel of experts to advise me on how to proceed on this very difficult and challenging matter, and I am hoping that I will have a report from that inquiry by the end of this year.

Mr. Eves: While the minister and others, including myself, await the results of the review, many patients, particularly those with schizophrenia, are not receiving proper care or treatment. Today I would like to bring to the minister’s attention a case with which she may well be familiar.

William Pakeman is in the gallery here today. His son Andrew was diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Since 1987, Andrew had been involuntarily admitted to hospital a total of 12 times, but due to an unfortunate and tragic accident during an admittance procedure just this past January of this year, 1989, Andrew died.

Before the changes to the Mental Health Act, Andrew was receiving treatment and was making substantial progress. After changes to the act, Andrew began to refuse treatment and became stuck in the revolving door of mental health treatment for schizophrenics.

Will the minister tell this House how she plans to prevent more of these tragic accidents and how she plans to reform the system so people suffering from schizophrenia, like Andrew, start receiving appropriate care?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have heard from numerous families struggling with very similar issues. I would say to the member again that many of these issues were brought to his attention and to the attention of members of the Legislature when the Mental Health Act was dealt with not so long ago. In fact, many of these concerns were expressed when his party and the other opposition party supported amendments which changed the practice that had been in place for quite some time.

The reason I established the Weisstub inquiry was because of how difficult this issue is to deal with. I am hoping to have those recommendations as expeditiously as he can give them to us so we can --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That’s outrageous.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: -- once again consider amendments to the Mental Health Act.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Stop pointing fingers. You know you’re the one.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: You supported it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), the Minister of Health. The member for Scarborough West has been reminded many times about standing order 24(b).

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. With CAMI Automotive coming into production in the near future, together with the Toyota plant and Honda plant, there will be more vehicles produced. What are the rules as far as free trade is concerned? Are all these vehicles included in the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The general rule under the free trade agreement is that all automobiles manufactured in Canada which have a cost of processing that is 50 per cent North American will be allowed to be shipped into the United States duty free.

There are also various companies which have auto pact status. Of the three companies the member mentioned, Honda and Toyota will not have auto pact status, but CAMI -- and I am sure members will know CAMI is a joint venture between General Motors and Suzuki -- although originally excluded, has been included and has been grandfathered provided it meets the 50 per cent cost of processing by July 31, 1989.

Mr. Tatham: I understand that early in January, a ruling by the United States Customs Service increased tariffs from 2.5 per cent to 25 per cent on Jeep-like vehicles and minivans. Until now, those vehicles have been classified by customs as passenger cars, but now these cars are trucks. What effect could this increase in tariffs have on Canadian sales of these vehicles in the North American market?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member’s observation is true that the United States Customs Service has increased the tariff to 25 per cent, but it will not impact on Canadian exports to the United States provided they meet the cost of processing rule.

Any trucks shipped from Canada to the United States which do not meet that provision will be assessed a 25 per cent tariff. They have been doing that all along anyway, so it should not have any effect.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: To the Premier: This morning, before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, three major groups -- the Social Assistance Review Committee Consulting Group, which embodies about 40 different groups in the province, the group representing community legal services, and the Child Poverty Action Group -- made their representations and laid out the moral and social challenges and the economic costs of poverty, and also the challenge the Thomson report confronts the government with.

Can the Premier tell me whether he himself has asked the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) about, or whether there are in progress in his government, any studies which would tell us in fairly concrete terms what the economic costs -- not just budgetary costs per year -- of poverty and poverty factors are to the economy, public and private, in Ontario?

1440

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I do not know the answer to my honourable friend’s question – a very legitimate question -- as to whether there are specific studies with respect to the cost of poverty and broken down into its various components. I can certainly inquire of the Treasurer.

I can tell my honourable friend that the Thomson report is undergoing a thorough review by the government. I understand the attraction of my honourable friend to that report philosophically, as I can say that I think there is no question that the government is attracted philosophically as well.

As you know, that report in full implementation would cost about $2.4 billion. It is enormously expensive. We are trying to analyse all aspects of it at the present time. That is all I can tell my honourable friend at the moment.

Mr. Allen: There are not just those costs out there, of course, which are the budgetary costs to the government and are the ones that I want the Premier to look beyond. In terms of enhanced employment, the application of energies, initiatives and productive capacity that lie untapped there, we undoubtedly have resources that can be fed back into the economy. I think we need to have some measure on that as we proceed with this report. I hoped the Premier would not use the budgetary element as a way of neglecting the moral challenge itself.

Can I ask him, none the less, why it would be, since I expect the Premier takes this challenge seriously, that the Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review that his Treasurer and the government recently issued paid no attention whatsoever to the contradiction of extreme poverty on the one hand and the affluence that currently marks the Ontario economy on the other?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer puts out a report quarterly with respect to the state of the finances as well as a report with respect to his projections for next year. It is an economic document in that sense, based on the figures as the Treasury department sees them.

I think there are other things inherent in my honourable friend’s question with respect to the disparities between the rich and the poor -- and they are there. My honourable friend will know that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has had enormous increases in his budget, relative to many of the other budgets in government, in the last three years. I am sure that the member would stand in this House and talk about his dedication and commitment in that area.

We also recognize that whatever we do will not be enough. The member knows the pressure that is on the social services budget from a wide variety of areas, be it child care, dealing with family benefits and a variety of other programs. Certainly it is something that appeals to us as Liberals philosophically very much. One of the arguments I hear constantly in this House is, “Spend money now to save later.” Frequently it does not turn out that way.

That being said, we are looking at this very seriously, are attracted to the idea of rehabilitating people, of opportunity-planning, of trying to take people and give them the tools to deal with and work in our society -- shall we say, to turn welfare cheques into paycheques. That is important.

We also recognize there is a level of support that people need. I think my honourable friend would agree that we have, I believe -- the minister will correct me if I am wrong -- the highest levels of support in this country today, and we are proud of that record and achievement. That is not to say that any of us could not do more.

We are looking at all aspects of this report. I just want to tell my friend again, it is extraordinarily expensive in government budgetary terms. He does not want to be standing up tomorrow and asking us to cut taxes if we do these kinds of things.

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Is it not true that he had met on previous occasions with the chairman of the select committee on energy and that he reviewed with him specific aspects of the energy report to such a degree that on January 23, 1989, the minister came forward with his statement on An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, and then, on January 24, 1989, another statement on the municipal street lighting project in Ontario, thereafter an attempt -- if I may use the phrase -- to short-circuit the committee’s report and presentation of Thursday, January 26, two days later, after the minister’s statement to this House?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I would just like to make the record clear. I did not discuss and did not even see the select committee recommendations until, I think it was, Friday last, after it had been released.

Mr. Cureatz: I am sure the minister has since seen the select committee report and recommendations and of course is highly supportive. Being so highly supportive of the committee’s report, I am sure that he will be making -- and is he making? -- representations to his cabinet colleagues. Do not bother with the Liberal back-benchers, because they have no say in here anyway.

Is he making representations to his cabinet colleagues that the energy committee will be sitting again this summer to review the Power Corporation Act and Hydro’s demand-supply option possibilities?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I read the recommendations of the select committee. I understand the particular recommendation to which the honourable member refers. I appreciate, as we all do, the value and the contribution that permanent standing committees of the Legislature can make. All I can tell the honourable member today is that this recommendation, among all of the recommendations of the select committee, will be and is being reviewed by the government.

INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN FILMS

Mrs. Fawcett: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. It has been brought to my attention that as part of the federal tax reform, the federal government has reduced income tax benefits to investors in certified Canadian films. My question is: Could the minister possibly tell this House what the reaction is of the Canadian film community to this action?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: The Canadian film community is alarmed at the action of the federal government in reducing the capital cost allowance from 100 per cent to 30 per cent for investment in Canadian film. Some of the effects of that action have been a notable reduction in private investment in Canadian films, and also an anticipated 50 per cent reduction in production.

At the same time, Quebec has also put an increase in the capital cost allowance on investment in Canadian films through the Quebec income tax act, which is drawing Ontario production into Quebec.

They are alarmed. They have made their concern known to the federal government through their two umbrella organizations, the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers and the Canadian Film and Television Association.

Mrs. Fawcett: In view of that, what is the Ontario government’s position and what is the minister going to do to address this federal action?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: At the time that tax reform came into being and at the time that it was discussed, the Ontario government called on the film representatives, both in Ontario and elsewhere, to discuss the implications from a broad point of view. As the time has passed, we are now convinced that they are in a very dangerous situation. We are working with them and they are preparing a report for us which would indicate to us, as the Ontario government, what we could do in the area of stimulation for investment in Canadian film.

On the other side, we are also continuing to pressure our counterparts at the federal level to ask them to take another look at the capital cost allowance, but more important, to take a look at some form of investment credits for filmmakers. We are also asking them to look at the distribution side of film and are asking the federal minister to consider bringing into effect the distribution legislation.

1450

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Solicitor General. I would like to remind the Solicitor General of her statement in the House some time ago when she referred to the municipal option as “the chicken way out.” Today, these words are very prophetic, in that 94 chickens -- my apologies, 94 Liberals -- will take the chicken way out and vote in favour of Bill 113.

Could the minister tell us at this late stage what extraordinary event took place, what road-to-Damascus event took place between her statement in the House that this was the chicken way out and her rising in the House one week later to say that she was introducing this legislation?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to inform the member that a great deal of work was put into defining this act and making sure that the municipalities were given the proper authority, techniques and methods so that indeed they could handle it properly and the citizens could have a more direct input at the municipal level, where they themselves can make the needs of their own municipality known at first hand to the council.

Mr. Farnan: The people of Ontario, the churches, small businesses, large businesses, workers, municipal politicians, children, all have expressed opposition to this legislation. There is no mandate from the people of Ontario. Neither is there a mandate from the Liberal Party.

Would the minister tell this House precisely when in convention, in policy session, the Liberal Party discussed the issue of Sunday shopping and endorsed the direction of the municipal option, or is this simply a knee-jerk response to her big-business friends?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The members of the province speak in many different voices, as is demonstrated by the 100 different municipal options that were already expressed by tourist exemptions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind the members that in a referendum held in Sudbury during the recent municipal elections, every ward in that community voted in favour of maintaining open Sundays in Sault Ste. Marie.

On the other hand, for the many people in Ontario who do not want to have shopping on Sunday in their communities, this bill will provide them with the safeguard that their municipality cannot open their community without speaking to the people and having the opening properly vetted through the community. They have an opportunity now that they never had before to speak up on their own behalf within their municipality before anything can be opened. Previous to this time, it could be done with no reference to the people.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health, and it again deals with the risk management system in the psychiatric hospitals in the province. The minister may be aware that this morning the Liberal members of the standing committee on public accounts turned down the request by this party to have the Provincial Auditor conduct an efficiency audit of the risk management system in use at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital in wake of the knife attack on a Brockville woman.

The justification they used for that rejection was that there was no evidence of a breakdown in the system, but at the same time, they refused to accept the tabling of the internal document I provided the minister with, which clearly points out that there was a breakdown in the system. They suggested that they did not have the jurisdiction, although the minister knows that risk management clearly falls within the purview of hospital administrators.

I am really wondering whether the minister supports the action of her colleagues in the public accounts committee in continuing to frustrate this question and continuing to not allow the public to have insight into what exactly is happening in terms of these people being allowed into the streets of their communities.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been well asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, the federal Criminal Code mandates the process for the granting of warrants by the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review. That process is clearly within the mandate of the Criminal Code and the federal government. The hospital has the responsibility for implementing the warrants which are very specific.

Mr. Runciman: We didn’t ask you about that. I am getting sick and tired of the same answer; I didn’t ask you about that at all. Respond to the question. It is garbage and gobbledegook, disgusting. Sit down, sit down, sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would tell the member again that we are implementing --

Mr. Speaker: The member does not want an answer. He stated that he did not want an answer.

Mr. Runciman: I didn’t get one anyway, Mr. Speaker. It is the same gobbledegook.

Mr. Speaker: Order. He stated he did not want an answer. New question, the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Breaugh: It’s a good thing it’s not to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). She doesn’t even know where Sudbury is.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MINING

Mr. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Mines. Could he review how the process is going with the new Mining Act for the province?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As always, the member for Sudbury shows a continuing and positive interest in this very important mineral sector of Ontario. I was just wondering if my friends in the opposition were going to join my friend from Sudbury in directing the attention of this Legislature to that very important aspect of the Ontario economy.

After a very good consultation with the various constituent parts of the mining community, I tabled a green paper which contains proposals for a new Mining Act. At that time, which was just a few weeks ago, I indicated that we would entertain submissions from the specific and the general community over the next couple of months with March 31, 1989, as the target date for the conclusion of that phase.

We have received a number of submissions. I have encouraged the community, and I would encourage all members of the Legislature with a particular interest, like my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), to stimulate as much response as they possibly can because I very much intend, on behalf of this government, before this year is out to have before and through this Legislature a new Mining Act so that we can put a very modern framework in this connection.

PETITIONS

CAISSE DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS / TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

M. Poirier : J’ai ici une pétition des 31 enseignants de Prescott et Russell, adressée justement au lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario, en ce qui a trait à la caisse de retraite.

It is a petition on behalf of the teachers’ superannuation pension.

Mrs. Fawcett: “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 May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

I will affix my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

NORTHERN FRONTIER DEVELOP.
LTD. ACT

Mr. Kozyra moved first reading of Bill Pr43, An Act to revive I. Gosselin and F. Camiré Developments Ltd. to change its name to Northern Frontier Develop. Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) have any further amendments to section 4 of Bill 113?

Mr. Philip: I believe my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) has the next amendments from our caucus, but I would like to ask a question of both the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter).

The minister did not appear in the committee except for a very short time on one or two occasions. This is an important bill that is before the House. The minister obviously was not ill or anything, because she was in the House earlier, and the moment we are dealing with this important piece of legislation she has disappeared once again from the House.

We do not have the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and we do not have the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). I am sure the government House leader would recognize that on numerous occasions, he brought it up when the previous government showed that kind of contempt for the House. Where are the Solicitor General and the Attorney General for this important last day of debate on these bills?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I might indicate that the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the very distinguished and able member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, who had the carriage of this bill almost exclusively in the standing committee on administration of justice, has expressed a willingness to continue that process here in the committee of the whole House. I think all members would agree that he has done an admirable job in addressing the concerns of honourable members both in this committee and in the standing committee.

The Solicitor General will certainly be here from time to time. Like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), who I believe is himself in another committee this afternoon, she has other responsibilities. That is why in our system we have parliamentary assistants.

I can assure the honourable member that the government is very anxious to listen very carefully to his submissions, because in my discussions with my ministerial colleagues they indicated a willingness and a desire to be here on that fourth day, probably next Tuesday, according to the House leaders’ meeting this morning, when we will have third reading windups.

I repeat that my ministerial colleagues will be here, most especially when we are doing the third reading, but in terms of the committee of the whole, my very able and informed colleague the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), will have the principal carriage of these matters at this particular stage.

Mr. Philip: Because the government House leader, like myself, has a certain affinity for history, he will recall that during the previous government, to the credit of that government -- and of course I am not a supporter of the previous government -- whenever really important, controversial legislation was introduced, on most occasions, unless there were some exceptional circumstances, the minister was present to answer questions. You cannot ask questions on third reading. You can give speeches, but you cannot ask questions.

I can recall that when the police complaints bill was brought before this Legislature, the Honour-able Roy McMurtry was there to handle every difficult question himself and to present his views on it. When the Family Law Reform Act came before committee and the Legislature, despite the fact that on some days he had considerable pain because of a back problem, again Mr. McMurtry would still be sitting in that committee answering questions and dealing with the issues, not passing it off to a parliamentary assistant.

We are not talking about a minor bill; we are not talking about even a medium-level bill, if I could rate it on a pendulum. We are talking about a major piece of legislation, just by the very fact that more briefs have been presented to this committee on this bill than on any other bills, except possibly the select committee my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) chaired. Here we have the minister not even present to answer questions concerning policy, concerning where we are going from here in the next couple of years as a result of this important legislation.

It is not the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale who is being insulted. It is not the opposition that is being insulted. I think it is the public being insulted by the minister being absent. I do not object to the Minister of Labour not being here; we are dealing with Bill 113. But at the very least, the Solicitor General could be here to answer questions, as she managed to take the chicken way out with the committee and refused to be there on days on which we had serious questions concerning her interactions with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: On that point, Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of this particular meeting today, the committee of the whole House, is to consider amendments which are going to be put forward by members of the Legislative Assembly. No one in this Legislative Assembly is so naïve as to think the government is going to be in a position to accept an amendment unless the minister says it is going to be accepted.

The whole purpose of having this particular meeting today, the committee of the whole House, in this Legislature, for a limited time, as put forward by the government of Ontario, is useless; not useless because we do not want to participate but because the minister is not here to advise her colleagues as to whether the amendment is reasonable or unreasonable.

Therefore, I could not agree more heartily with the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I understand that the hearings with regard to this bill were long and arduous. I accept the fact that the minister could not be at all those meetings. But we are in the last stages of this particular legislation and surely to God this government is not so arrogant as to have that minister absent today when this is our last chance in terms of the opposition to put forward amendments and have this government either accept or reject them.

The minister does not know whether a member is going to come forward with a brand-new idea, and I find it extremely upsetting and unacceptable that the minister is not here today. I suggest we adjourn these particular hearings until the minister returns.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I listened with great care to what the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) has said today. I do not know whether he was here yesterday, but there was a very good discussion in this committee yesterday, one of the best I can recall in a long time; a very good give and take, where the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and others made very good points.

I thought my colleagues the parliamentary assistant and the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Sola), who is here again this afternoon, anxious to participate in these deliberations -- I would never want to leave my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale feeling unsatisfied, unhappy. I can assure him that in light of the protests which have been so vigorously put -- and in the case of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, with a surprising want of gallantry in regard to his comments to the absent minister, the Solicitor General -- I will give an undertaking to --

Mr. Philip: What do you mean by that?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I will show the member the Hansard. It is not like him to refer to a member of the Legislature in quite the way he did, about a chicken way out.

I simply want to make the point that since my friends opposite are for some reason today veering in a slightly different direction than yesterday when we began and had a really good discussion in the committee, I will give them an undertaking, notwithstanding the presence of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, that if they want the minister, who has other obligations today -- I would not want to see the momentum of yesterday destroyed by some kind of idiosyncratic tantrum today -- I will give the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale a commitment to go immediately and search out the minister and, notwithstanding whatever else she might be doing, bring her to this place so his particular concerns in this respect can be satisfied.

1510

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I think it would be a wise thing for the House leader to do just as he has suggested, and that is to go and search out the minister and bring her here.

This is not the time perhaps to talk about the demeaning of this assembly, which has been gradual and which over the 10 years I have been here has seen some slippage in terms of the esteem in which participation in this House -- it has fallen by members of the government, and I would suggest even by some members of the opposition. I think this is a very important time to focus on at least this one example.

I do not recall this and perhaps the government House leader does; he has a better memory for these sorts of things than I do. I do not recall when an important piece of legislation of this sort, one as controversial as this, has been brought in where there has been closure -- or to use that other term that is often used, time allocation -- where it has actually been used so that the House has had its time rearranged by virtue of the decision of the majority, by the decision of the government, and yet the minister responsible does not see fit to adjust her schedule to be in the House for the last very short period of time the government has left to discuss the matter. Somehow she can be elsewhere, whereas the critics have to be here because the government, with its majority, has decided it shall be so.

Perhaps the House leader can tell me when there was another occasion when a minister took this so lightly. If he can give me another precedent, I would be glad to know about it. It does seem to me it would be appropriate. We should continue. We should pursue this. This is not idiosyncratic. In my view, I see this in the context of a bit of slippage in the importance of being in this House, and that is seen by some ministers and even by some members of the opposition these days. That will be to our great detriment in the long run if it continues to be thus.

Hon. Mr. Conway: There are precedents. I can think of one for my friend the member for Scarborough West. It was the very controversial anti-inflation legislation that was put by the then Treasurer, Mr. Miller, in 1981-82. It was piloted through at its most controversial phase by his parliamentary assistant, the then member for Mississauga North. That is one example that comes to mind. In fact, I think one of those members actually put the motion, but I will check the record.

I have been around here long enough to know when a storm is about to blow up, for whatever reason. I will go and get the minister involved. I will not observe that some people on the critics’ side, who have been most closely associated with this initiative over a long period of time, are for whatever good and outstanding reason not in their places today as well.

I think we should get on with it. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale looks like he is about to inspire us yet again with new perspectives on this old song. I will give an undertaking that while the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick continues to do the very excellent job he did yesterday, I will certainly go and see if I can bring the minister to the House.

Mr. Philip: I will not recycle the arguments and the temper tantrums the government House leader used to go through when similar circumstances were faced when he was in opposition. I will not call them idiosyncratic. I will not call them even temper tantrums. But I can say I am using a lot more moderation in asking for the minister’s presence for this bill than he ever did when he created his considerable uproar, not only in the House but in committees, when ministers did not show up for important legislation. Perhaps now we can wait and have the minister attend.

Mr. McCague: There have been a lot of things said about this issue. Yesterday, my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) quite often mentioned the absence of the Solicitor General when we are discussing a bill that is of great importance to a lot of people in Ontario, the people this government is supposed to represent.

I have no doubt about the competence of the member for Halton Centre when it comes to her duties as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. Until yesterday, I had no doubt about the competence of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, until he decided to tell my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville what he thought of him in a very inappropriate way.

However, I recall very vividly some of the wonderfully complimentary things that were said about members of the cabinet it was my pleasure to belong to when this very thing happened. The comments were very rude at those times and there were even demands made that “the minister shows up or we do not proceed with the business before us this day.”

Members know that the two parliamentary assistants cannot make policy for the government of Ontario. Here we have them sent in here with one thought in mind, and that is to kill any amendment put forward by either opposition party. We are supposed to take that as being democracy.

I suggest nothing could be further from the truth. Even if the parliamentary assistants to these ministries thought in their own minds that what was being suggested by the opposition was a great idea, they do not have the power to accept it without running to the minister and saying: “Madam Minister, may I do this?” or “May I do that?”

I can understand how the Solicitor General might have chosen not to be here today. In answer to a question from one of the members of the opposition, the Solicitor General told us that in Sudbury they had taken a vote to find out what the people in Sault Ste. Marie thought about being open on Sundays, and when the people in Sudbury said, “Yes, it is a good idea,” therefore Sudbury was open on Sundays. I think she was a little mixed up and maybe that explains why she is not here today.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members want to debate? Any points? The member for Rainy River wanted to bring forward --

Mr. Philip: He is on his way in, Mr. Chairman. He will be here in a second.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River will move an addition to section 4 to be labelled subsection 4(9). We have been told he will be coming in a few seconds.

Mr. Philip: While we are waiting, maybe now that the Solicitor General is here, she will be able to answer a few questions on section 4. Is that agreeable?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Certainly.

Mr. Philip: The minister’s chief justification for the introduction of section 4, which is so greatly opposed by the municipalities of Ontario and indeed by a majority of the population of Ontario whose organizations appeared before the committee, was that the tourist exemption was not working. I wonder if the minister, since she has not provided the information to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario despite its requests on several occasions, can tell us in which municipalities the tourist exemption is not working. Can she name those municipalities at this point in time?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I wish to say that through the debate we have given countless examples of where the tourist exemption has been used to define something other than tourism. For instance, in St. George it was used to open a grocery store. It was used, once again, in Mississauga to open a fruit stand. One can go through countless examples where it has nothing to do particularly with tourism and where in fact, when put to the test, no one could say, “You cannot go under a tourist exemption,” because it is impossible to legally say, “This is not a tourist attraction.” If, as in the Mississauga instance, they get a bunch of Americans to write and say how much they enjoy Ontario fruit, then you have a tourist exemption.

A tourist exemption as a means of preventing openings was not working. Therefore, the local option did exist, but the people were not protected because such exemptions could be done with no reference to the people of the municipality, which is now provided.

1520

Mr. Philip: The minister still has not answered my question, any more than she has answered the question of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has on several occasions asked the minister to provide a list. If it is a major problem, then obviously it is more than a problem with a fruit store in downtown Toronto or one or two other examples that she says she has given.

Will she give us the list? Which are the offending municipalities where the tourist exemption has been so abused that she finds it necessary to introduce this legislation the municipalities are so opposed to?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member misspeaks when he refers to municipalities as the “offending municipalities,” because in fact we have said tourism cannot be defined in a meaningful way without it being very restrictive to existing and important tourist exemptions across the province. Local municipalities have obviously expressed their wish to have exemptions other than what would be called tourist exemptions. They have taken advantage of that loophole in order to open and express their difference, as municipalities, and their wish to be different.

We are now respecting that wish to be different, as expressed by over 100 municipalities; this is what we are respecting now. I did not know it would turn out there were anything like 100 municipalities, but when we looked into it, there were over 100 municipalities that had used that to express their own wish for local option. That was done for them. Now they have local option, but with rules that make it fairer to the people in those places.

Mr. Philip: The minister has said now that she has about 100 municipalities that have in some way used the tourist exemption. My question to her is the question I have asked twice already. Hopefully, the third time maybe I will get an answer. I doubt it because the municipalities have not been able to get an answer through their association. Of those 100 municipalities, can she tell us, in her opinion, how many of those have misused the tourist exemption in a way that she finds to be offensive and therefore justifies the introduction of this legislation?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I suppose that would depend on how you define “tourism.” Obviously, in Mississauga they did not find it a misuse to call Longo’s fruit stand a tourist exemption; they did it.

Discussing it with legal people, they do not find it possible to say that in a court of law that could be turned down as a tourist exemption. Therefore, tourism as a method of prohibiting or allowing opening becomes unuseful and unmeaningful.

Tourism is an essential industry in this province and in many ways exists here in the heart of Toronto, as it does in Sault Ste. Marie, as it does again in the Niagara region.

I could say, for instance, that the reason tourism does not sufficiently describe the problem is that in Sault Ste. Marie you might say the problem was not tourists coming in so much as the fact local people were going across the border to shop. That is not tourism. It is the reverse of the coin. It is that they were losing their people to become tourists in the United States.

Mr. Philip: The minister has said that by her definition, whatever that definition is or set of criteria -- obviously, there must be some criteria if she has come to the conclusion there are abuses. She has only been able to give one or two examples of abuses. She finally came up with a list on the day after the bill was published of how many municipalities had actually used the tourist exemption provision of the old act.

My question to her is, if this is an abuse by whatever standards she is using to judge an abuse, how many of these municipalities have committed this abuse?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I repeat that these municipalities used this loophole to prove that they wanted to have their own control of what they did and did not open. Whether or not they used tourism primarily for a tourist area does not matter. They had the power to open. They used that power. They were often not particularly in tourist areas. They did use it and could continue to do so. This was a local option they obviously were taking advantage of.

Mr. Philip: The minister says there were 100 that used the tourist exemption. Then she says some of those used it as a loophole. Would the minister care to tell us how many, in her opinion, used a loophole?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member has the list himself. He can go through it and make his own choice. My choice might be different than his. It really does not matter what my opinion is. We are trying to put together a legal document that will stand up in the courts. The member’s opinion and mine have very little to do with it.

Mr. Philip: With respect, it is not my opinion. It is the minister who has justified this bill by saying there are abuses. We have made several attempts to ask in a quantity way, even, how many of these municipalities are, according to the minister, abusing the loopholes or the inaccuracy in the present legislation, how many are problem cities, if you want, there are vis-à-vis the use of the tourist exemption.

Is the minister now saying she cannot tell us how many of the 100 are in fact problem areas? I assume the minister agrees some of those 100 have used the tourist exemption properly, according to what she would find acceptable. How many, in her view -- she justifies this legislation by saying there are abuses, loopholes, misuses of loopholes -- of those 100 municipalities would she label the abuses or the misuses?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I remind the member that the municipalities did not need the permission or blessing of the province. They were free to do as they chose. They did not let us know what their motives were. I do not wish to judge their motives now. Their motives will be judged by their own people in their own municipality before the end of five years, because they will have to review the exceptions they have made and tell the people in their community, “This is why we did it and now you can say whether you think it was a fair and good idea or not.”

I am not going to judge them. I have no intention of wasting the time of the House by passing judgement on people who are kings in their own domain, which is the local council in their own area. By then, they will have full power, but they will have to do it after consultation with the people and they will have to review all these exceptions. The people will decide.

Mr. Philip: The minister says she will not judge them, but in fact she has judged them. She said some of them abuse the system, and in so doing --

Mr. Dietsch: Are you saying there aren’t any?

Mr. Philip: The ex-mayor of Uxbridge, who probably wants his voice noticed so he can remain well-known for running for mayor after the next election --

Mr. Ballinger: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: That was not me. In fact, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is confused, as usual.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I mistake one bullmoose call for another. They all sound alike and none of them gets up in the House and makes corrigible arguments.

It is the minister who judged the municipalities. She said they were abusing the system. She has labelled all the municipalities by failing to name those that have abused the system. I say to her she is insulting not only the intelligence of the population as a whole, but also the integrity of the municipalities out there.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I have put in place or I will have put in place a bill that will properly give the people the authority to judge and speak to these. I am content this is the first time the people in the municipalities will have the opportunity to address such exceptions before they are put into place. Now they will have it, thanks to this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Rainy River at this point wish to present his motion?

1530

Mr. Hampton: I have a few questions I would like to ask as well. I listened very carefully to the questions asked by my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. He accepted the minister’s comment that there were over 100 communities that had used the existing legislation to pass bylaws. Some of them may have passed a bylaw so that the local fruit stand could open on Sunday and some may have passed a bylaw so that the arts and crafts store could stay open on Sunday. That is true.

The minister keeps insinuating that some of these communities either acted improperly or somehow used a loophole and the effect of what they did was improper. Would the minister please tell us which communities and what it was they did which was in effect the using of a loophole? We want to know which they are.

Interjection.

Mr. Hampton: You want to answer for her?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I have said, the municipality will have to provide the opportunity for the people to decide whether it used loopholes or did not, because under the new bill it will have to speak to the people and will do so.

Mr. Cureatz: It behooves me to participate in this very energetic and active debate. If memory serves me correctly, we are discussing section 4 of Bill 113.

I want to refresh the minister’s memory that the committee had the opportunity of travelling hither and yon across Ontario examining some of the specific aspects of Bill 113. Interestingly enough, section 4 played a rather vital aspect in all the representations that were made before the committee.

As the minister lifts her eyebrows, doubting whether that was the case, I want to review with her for a moment one or two aspects of the committee’s investigation as documented by me in my banana box, which I brought along.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Although it is no seagull or indeed gull, I can tell the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) that the feeling of people across Ontario about Bill 113, and more particularly section 4, is that it is bananas.

It is unbelievable that after all the heated debate that has taken place on section 4, the municipal option, we have come here to this tyrannical situation after the closure motion which, I say to the Minister of Education, I did not have the opportunity of discussing, and so I am going to be making up for it now.

I want to review with the minister some of the travelogues of experience on section 4 in which she did not have the opportunity of participating.

Mr. Pollock: Go ahead, Sam.

Mr. Cureatz: My wonderful and learned colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) has encouraged me to go ahead, to refresh the minister’s memory about some of the various aspects that we found on our sojourns.

I can only bring to people’s attention that of course we started out at Queen’s Park right here, in the lovely Amethyst Room decorated by Lorne Henderson such a long time ago. After a good week and a half of thorough investigation of section 4, it was decided to go on tour. One of our first places of stoppage was none other than Collingwood. We found no bananas in Collingwood to speak of. As I indicated to the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) -- wait until I get to his file, because it is here -- we were in his riding and will be reminding him what some of the fine people down there in the Niagara Peninsula had to say about this banana piece of legislation.

We went forth to Collingwood. It was a wonderful experience and a fine representation about the concerns of section 4, the municipal option under Bill 113. Of course, the surprising aspect was --

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Goodness knows, I can only say to the former mayor of Uxbridge, who soon will be, after the next provincial election, contesting the mayoralty of Uxbridge, because with this legislation 25 of these backbenchers are gone; they are history. Who knows, there might be another minority government. Who knows what the particular issues of the day will be and, no doubt, they will be to take a look at section 4 of Bill 113 and possible amendments thereto.

Mr. Ballinger: Get serious.

Mr. Cureatz: My colleague the member for Durham-York says, “Get serious.” Let him go and speak to the Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada -- not in Ontario, in Canada. I will tell members it is tough enough for me at times to take on the leadership of my own party, our former leader Bill Davis, but do members think I am going to take on the reformed churches in Canada? No way. Even I have my limits. Not so all those Liberal backbenchers and, more particularly, those who sat on the standing committee on administration of justice, as we toured.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, we went forth to Collingwood. Members should have seen the wonderful experience we had at the Blue Mountain Motel; I mean, the concerns the people had there.

The member for Mississauga East had a bad eye that day, although his ears were all right, and he was even blushing about the criticism that was coming forth on this section. As we sat for that day, it occurred to me that there had to be some kind of amendment brought forward, a reasonable approach to this legislation. Of course, there comes a time somewhere this afternoon when we will be taking a look at our proposed amendment.

Mr. Ballinger: Where’s Dianne?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cureatz: Let’s go to the press clippings: “Peterson to Ram Shopping Through.” This is the new open government. Let me tell all the newly elected Liberal backbenchers that during the days in 1985 under minority government I did not hear the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the member for Renfrew North, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) or the Attorney General talk --

An hon. member: The Four Horsepeople.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, the Four Horsepeople of the Apocalypse. I did not hear them talking about section 4 in Bill 113. No. What were they talking about then? Open government, no walls, no barriers --

[Applause]

Mr. Cureatz: Keep clapping away.

The information we got on our first stop, Collingwood, was something contrary. There was concern and animosity in that lovely community on that beautiful summer’s day. The member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan), who is the chairman, and I had a lovely drive up Highway 400 and thither and yon. The concern they had about the municipal option in this section 4 was staggering. Even I, even moi, who had thought I had seen it all, could not believe the disgust and concern that people had.

I said to myself: “I’m from eastern Ontario or thereabouts. This is sort of up in north-central Ontario, the southern part of the peninsula. Maybe that community is a little too strong about their opposing section 4 of Bill 113, which is the municipal option.”

I was waiting with anticipation to make our lovely way the next day down to Orillia, whose fine representative the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) was present to listen to the deputants on this piece of legislation. I listened, and does the minister know what? They had the same kinds of concerns. I know the way she is looking at me now that she can appreciate what people were saying there in downtown Orillia.

I say to the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, as we stayed in the Highwayman Inn, which I thought was sort of appropriate for the Liberal administration to place us in, lo and behold we heard the same kinds of concerns in Orillia about the municipal option.

We had there in attendance, among other people, the owner of the largest Canadian Tire store in Canada -- not just Barrie, not just southern Ontario or all of Ontario, but Canada. He came forward and he was exasperated. He was dumfounded to think that in 1985, with the new, so-called -- of course, the bloom is off the rose now. Even their own in-house party report says that.

1540

What I love about it is that the Liberal backbenchers have nothing to do with it. They get back home in their ridings and the phones are ringing off the constituency hook and they are taking all the flak for the front bench. I love every minute of it; it looks good on them. And it ain’t over yet on the municipal option, section 4 of Bill 113, because we in the Conservative Party and my colleagues in the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, are going to be reminding people about this piece of banana legislation.

It is absolutely unbelievable, when the Liberals came to power in 1985 with this new openness, they then had put up the walls, put up the barriers and closed the door on what people across Ontario have to say.

I thought to myself: “Self, maybe this is just Orillia. Let’s take a look around at some of the other communities to see what they have to say.” The committee, I will say hard-working as we were, decided, in our esteemed judgement, to go on tour that very day from Orillia to London, Ontario.

And perchance, who represents London? Let me think. I make no excuses for my learned colleague the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), as I taught her so well, I say to the Liberal House leader; she can look after herself.

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: I say to the Chairman, the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) is not in his seated place --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cureatz: -- but that does not seem to be a care to the Chairman of the committee. There is one rule for the government and one rule for the opposition, as we found out in the closure motion. I say to the House leader of the Liberal Party, he is lucky that I did not have my chance to speak on that closure motion, because it would have delighted me, with great glee, to read over the antagonistic approach he took when he was sitting over there in the opposition in the Liberal Party, condemning none other than the Conservative Party of Ontario for bringing forth closure on the wage restraint bill. Oh, the statements! Actually, I would even be embarrassed to quote him, so it is a darned good thing. The people in Kendal and Orono would have been embarrassed for him, and especially those in Pembroke.

I am off topic. I want to get back, but I could not resist, because he is wandering around with such a smug little smile to think that section 4 of Bill 113 is finally going to be resolved this afternoon -- but not without a fight, I say to him, and not without my reminding the minister that we decided to go to London, Ontario. Among other people, besides the honourable member for London North, who represents that wonderful town, is none other than the Solicitor General.

There is another person from the city of London who I thought would have some kind of sway on section 4 of Bill 113. What is his name?

An hon. member: Is it David?

Mr. Cureatz: David --

An hon. member: Peterson.

Mr. Cureatz: Peterson. David Peterson, the Premier. How could I forget? It just slipped my memory.

I thought this committee going to London would inevitably be overwhelmed by the support that would be -- oh, I forgot the whip; where is he? Who else represents that area? The member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft). That is three Liberals representing the city of London: the Premier, the whip and the Solicitor General, for whom I have a slight bit of criticism this afternoon, if members have not noticed.

I thought: “That’s it for the committee. We’re finished. We heard the delegations up in Collingwood, we heard them in Orillia; they were all against section 4, the municipal option. Now we’re going into the fox’s den. For sure the fine people in that community would be somehow convinced to support the legislation.”

Do members know what we found?

Mr. Pollock: What did you find?

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you. They were against it. I was dumfounded. I had to go up to the Holiday Inn bar -- happily enough the Liberal member, the member for Durham-York bought me a Perrier -- and I had to recover from the fact that those three high-profile Liberal members of government who run the show around here had not convinced their own community about how wonderful the legislation is. I was dumfounded.

There was one fine lady from the Bruce Peninsula along Lake Huron who tried to make a point or two about the legislation. The minister was not there, although I know her cohorts of staff, who were intermingled throughout the audience, were on the phone to her by the minute. They were back there in the lobby phoning in all the things that were taking place. It was unbelievable what I found in London. It really was.

I said: “That’s it. Surely this government will” -- and who else did we have? I could go on and on but I will not have time for all that, my goodness. I have files and files. We had the church leaders. We had the vice-president of Loblaws stores for southwestern Ontario come to speak with us, members of the United Church and the Anglican church bishop for that area of southwestern Ontario --

An hon. member: Leo Garnsworthy.

Mr. Cureatz: You know whose name I forgot? I am sure the Solicitor General remembers -- very dignified, came clothed as he should.

Do members know what?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: What?

Mr. Cureatz: They were against it.

I thought: “That’s it. There goes the committee. No more per diem, because it is finished.” The people in London would obviously convince their own member, the Premier, the Liberal whip the member for Middlesex and the Solicitor General to do away with the legislation.

But do members know what?

Mr. Faubert: They didn’t.

Mr. Cureatz: They did not. That is right. They handed it back to us on a platter. I thought to myself, again: “Self, these Liberals are fallible. They can be defeated. They have stuck their heads in the sand on this piece of legislation and are so antagonistic of getting it through that they are going to set aside all the concerns of -- who? All the religious organizations; businesses both large and small; unemployed people; employed people; nonunionized people; unionized people --

Mr. Pouliot: Municipalities.

Mr. Cureatz: Municipalities, thank you; a cross-section of Ontario I have never seen before against this piece of legislation.

But they wanted to forge ahead. “Where do we go next?” somebody said. Do members know where we went next? The capital of Canada: Ottawa. Do members know how many Liberals are from that city?

Mr. Ballinger: Six.

Mr. Cureatz: Six; is that how many? That is about six too many. I want to tell members there are going to be zero after the next election, because when we went to Ottawa -- this is my Ottawa file I have here -- do members know what else I did? I thought for fun I would write down the members who represented that area. We have the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty); the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli); the member for Renfrew North; the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morn); the Chairman of the committees of the whole House -- I will be gentle on him -- and the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître).

Most of those Liberal members did not take the flak; I will give credit to none other than the member for Ottawa West, who sat there and had a press conference outside the hall of the hotel in Ottawa; the Liberal House leader was there. It was the wildest press conference I have ever seen. He was badgered from one end of the hall. He had to finally retreat into the men’s washroom, it was so bad. The press were after him with the microphones, demanding his stand on section 4 of Bill 113, and he was humiliated. Even I felt sorry for him, as cutthroat a Conservative as I am. I thought, “What punishment could be dished out to this Liberal member?”

1550

Where were all those other Liberals I named? Were they in Ottawa representing their communities? The member for Ottawa South was there. Do members know where he was? In the back row of the committee, having a coffee, which was very nicely made available to all of us at the hotel. Then he quietly slipped out, as he did on the committee more times than not, to have a cigarette. We will comment about the nonsmoking legislation later on. At least he showed up, and I give him credit for that, but none of those other Liberal members did, outside of the member for Ottawa West.

Do members know why? Because we found out, among other things, the number of people who were opposed. Here is what we found out about section 4 of Bill 113. Do members think the Ottawa Carleton Board of Trade was in favour of section 4, the municipal option? No. How about a representation from the Canadian Tire store in the Ottawa area? Do members think they were in support of section 4 in Bill 113? No. How about the Sparks Street Mall Business Improvement Area? Do members think they were in support of section 4 in Bill 113? No.

How about, at 11 a.m., the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping; in attendance, Arden Brooks, chairman; Hans Bleeker, director? Do members think they were in support of section 4 of Bill 113? No. How about the mayor coming all the way from south of the city of Ottawa at 11:20 a.m., from the city of Cornwall? Do members think he was in support of it? Guess.

We then had a lunch break and then we had further representations. Without dilly-dallying, just perusing some of those in attendance, at 2:20 p.m. we had the Christian Council of the Capital Area. Holy smoke, the Christian Council. Do members think those who represented them, members of the United Church and the Baptist Church, were in support of section 4 of Bill 113? They were totally against it. How about at 2:40 p.m. the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union?

If I might for a moment refresh members’ attention, we had an independent businessman in attendance from the Canadian Tire store; we had the business people in general represented by the Ottawa Carleton Board of Trade; we had a coalition of business people, the Sparks Street Mall Business Improvement Area; we had politicians, the mayor of Cornwall and Michael Cassidy, former member of provincial parliament and leader of the official opposition a long time ago; we had church organizations; and then the union workers, both the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. They said no.

The day was not finished yet. The Renfrew St. James Lutheran Church, Reverend Jim Slack, was in attendance. He was against the municipal option.

Then at 7 p.m. we had -- and I at least give the parliamentary assistant the credit for sitting there hour after hour getting hit over the head with a baseball bat while the Solicitor General was back in Toronto, no doubt attending to the affairs of the ministry, although she should have been on the committee, because if she was, she would have withdrawn this legislation and not be at this state, as we are now.

At 7:20 that evening, the Catholic Women of Faith, Life and Family were against it. This is all in the capital of our country. Then there were the Citizens for Public Justice, and I see in attendance under the guests’ gallery for opposition members the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association. They were against the legislation.

We concluded with none other than the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Guess what their position was? Interestingly enough, on our sojourn to Ottawa, they were against the legislation. I thought now, “Is that not interesting?”

We went to Collingwood to discuss section 4 of Bill 113. We went to Orillia to discuss this section. We went to the home town of the Premier and the Solicitor General to discuss the legislation. They were all against it in the majority. We then went to the nation’s capital. There was an onslaught of people I have never seen before against this section.

So I said to myself, “We might as well finish off that tour of eastern Ontario and let us make our way forward, down the Rideau Canal by highway to the former capital of Upper Canada, Kingston, Ontario. Let us find out what the fine people in Kingston would have to say.” Of course I would be neglectful if I did not mention --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Do you have intentions of going on for much longer? May I remind you of the very limited time we have? There are other members who would like to present amendments and motions and maybe subamendments to the entire bill. Can I ask you if you plan to go any longer, in all fairness to all members?

Mr. Cureatz: I am only one tenth of the way through my banana box. I have only got to Kingston. But through your enthusiasm, I will make my way forward for another five or 10 minutes to allow all those Liberal members in attendance the chance to stand up so that they can tell the people in their ridings how supportive they are of this legislation.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Under which standing order?

Mr. Pouliot: Notwithstanding the historical value of Kingston, on a more serious note, if you will allow me -- and your point is extremely well taken, Mr. Chairman -- we do have some very serious amendments to put forth. We would hope, given the time limitations imposed by the government, that we will have a fair chance to do so.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Durham East may take that into consideration.

Mr. Cureatz: I know my colleague is so enthusiastic because he was not on the trips with us across Ontario. I wanted to bring to his attention some of the flavour that we encountered so that when he is bringing forward his amendments, he would feel, from within, the enthusiasm that I feel after travelling hither and yon during that fine month of August discussing section 4 of Bill 113.

We will stop at Kingston and just review for a moment --

Mr. Offer: Besmirching character right now. That’s a personal shot that’s uncalled for.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, that is right. Thank you. I will conclude with that remark about section 4 of Bill 113, although I will not be too critical because the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) very kindly organized a birthday luncheon for a particularly outstanding member of this chamber, whom I will refrain from naming in particular. It was a joyous occasion of two hours, approximately, until we got back into the committee. But the member for Kingston and The Islands, of course, did an admirable job in trying to deflect the onslaught of criticism, I say to the new chairperson of the committee very quickly, from those who were concerned about section 4.

There was another Canadian Tire owner, the Downtown Kingston Business Improvement Area Coalition Against Sunday Shopping, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Shoppers Drug Mart, the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, the chamber of commerce, the Prescott Business Improvement Association, the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, the Christian Reformed Church. That all took place from noon till about 10 o’clock at night in Kingston. They were all against this section.

We would like to continue on and we will work into our various amendments, which have already been tabled, a further discussion as to why there can be an approach different from the municipal option. We want to bring the minister’s attention to the Progressive Conservative Party’s motion that we brought forward, a formula to try to help alleviate the concerns out there. Time and time again we had heard, as I indicated, from the various groups just from those areas that I have refreshed everyone’s memories on -- I can tell you we hope to cover the rest of it yet some time this afternoon -- a possibility of negotiating with those groups, which were concerned that there should be a common pause day; that those groups would participate in the formulation of a definition of a tourist area that municipalities would be able to adopt so they could exempt themselves in those particular spots in their communities. Of course, our proposal was to set up a board called the Retail Business Holidays Exemption Board to allow the review of whether that particular organization or individual would be exempted under a set of criteria and allowed to open on Sunday; upon that review, the decision could carry forward.

I know my learned colleague has a comment or two to make with supporting amendments and we are anxiously waiting to listen to his proposals; I will be participating in a debate or two on them.

1600

Mr. Philip: I want to thank my colleague for doing so much to help the opposition win this debate.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 4 of the act be amended by adding section 4(9) to the bill:

“4(9) Despite the provisions of any municipal bylaw which may be passed under this section, no retail business establishment which has more than four employees may open on a holiday as defined in this act.”

Mr. Philip: We have received numerous deputations on this matter in support of this amendment. Various business groups which are, of course, familiar with what is going on in other provinces have pointed out that the Manitoba manner of handling this is quite workable. In particular, just to read one of the letters I have received as late as January 12 from the Ontario Working Group on Sunday Shopping Policy, and there are similar presentations they have sent from other business groups:

“The undersigned favour applying the government’s proposed municipal option to retail business establishments only provided that the number of persons, including the owner, employed for the sale of goods or services on the holiday does not exceed four.”

The statement goes on to say: “This reasonable limitation would help to achieve the government’s policy objective and respect the integrity of Bill 113. This concept is an adaptation of a similar provision of the Manitoba Retail Business Holidays Act. This legislation has the public support of all parties in Manitoba and works well in practice. With the municipal option, it should work even better in Ontario.”

Basically what the various groups out there have been saying over and over again is: “We disagree essentially with your giving all of the responsibilities to the municipalities. It simply doesn’t work. But we’re willing to work out some kind of compromise since you are so rigid in your approach in this bill.” We have a group of businessmen who are saying: “We know that this works in Manitoba. Those of us who have visited Manitoba know that it is working and we see no reason why the government should not accept this as a reasonable amendment that will still allow some flexibility at the local municipal area while at the same time protecting the value of a common pause day for a majority of those in the retail businesses in Ontario and the integrity of the very document that the Solicitor General signed.”

Mr. Hampton: I just want to say that the Manitoba legislation was tested before the courts and the Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled that the legislation, in terms of limiting the number of employees in this sort of situation to four employees, has been upheld.

The interesting part of this amendment, and why we are favourable to it and why we have proposed it, is simply that you allow those stores who want to open on Sunday to do so. If they feel that they can handle a large store with four employees, they can do so. If they feel that they can open only a medium-sized store with four employees, they can do so. If they feel they want to open a super-large store with four employees and take some of the risks that might entail, whether in terms of losing control over their inventory or not being able to provide efficient service, that is their choice to make.

The point is it improves and protects the integrity of the common pause day, something which is not protected by the government’s legislation. True, the government’s legislation provides a provincial framework, but it then goes on to provide so many loopholes and so many leakages that the protection for the provincial framework is virtually useless.

If the government is really serious about protecting the common pause day, if it really has integrity in terms of protecting the common pause day, we would suggest this amendment. Let those stores that want to, open. If they feel they can operate a super-large store with four employees, that is their choice.

I think what the government will find, because it has been the finding in Manitoba, is that the stores that will open will be those, generally small stores, that provide a convenience or some specialized service for the public. Other enterprises simply look at it and say, “It’s not worth it,” and so the integrity of the common pause day is protected.

We strongly advise the government to look at this. We think it would be a very good amendment. We think that, instead of having to go through some of the linguistic challenges that the government has undergone in the past year in terms of saying, “Yes, we’re in favour of the common pause day but, yes, we’re also in favour of the municipal option and, no, we don’t want to open Sunday shopping up totally but, yes, we want to see Sunday shopping,” instead of having to go through those kinds of contortions, this is a very effective way of protecting the common pause day but allowing those who want to open on Sunday to do so.

As I say, we recommend it highly to the government. If the government is in any mood to compromise at all on anything, I would suggest that this is perhaps the best place to compromise.

Mr. Cureatz: Notwithstanding my honourable colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, as biting and sarcastic a comment as he had, of course the reason he is annoyed is he knows only too well that the Conservative Party of Ontario has taken this initiative from the New Democratic Party, so that the focus of attention of the people of Ontario has been brought to bear upon this legislation and, more particularly, section 4.

That is not to say that I will not be supporting this wonderful amendment. Indeed, as my colleague who was on the committee from time to time had learned, of all the groups that made the representations -- if I could say 99 per cent, and we have not made our way into the Peterborough file yet -- the majority of people were against the legislation and indicated, as my colleague who made the proposal to add subsection 4(9) indicated, this kind of approach: “No retail business establishment which has more than four employees may open on a holiday as defined in this act.”

1610

The greatest concern was generally that they wanted Sunday not to be open. That is it in a nutshell. You know us politicians. We try to encompass that and say, “Let’s have a common pause day.” That is what we were talking about at our various hearings across Ontario. As we had discussed in those previous visits to the other communities, including the city of Peterborough, represented by none other than the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) -- the hearings in Peterborough took place to cover the other areas of the region of Durham, of which Liberal members were none other than the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner), the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong), the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) and the member for Quinte (Hugh O’Neil).

The hearings took place in Peterborough so those Liberal members would have the opportunity of coming forward to express their concerns as outlined in my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale’s proposed amendment to try generally to have a common pause day. Those Liberal members did not show and have yet to discuss in these chambers how supportive they are of it.

I am looking forward to the free vote the Premier said we are going to have at the end of the day to see whether they are going to support my colleague’s amendment.

Mr. Philip: Does the minister not have a response to this? Oh, she is going to pass the buck to her parliamentary assistant. I guess that is to be expected.

Mr. Kanter: I have listened with some interest to the proposal put by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the support, I think, from members of the third party. The proposal that there be a limitation in terms of the number of employees may find favour in some municipalities. It may be appropriate to some municipalities. It may not, however, meet the needs of all municipalities. Some may find it too permissive.

We have heard from some of the deputants and from the opposition parties from time to time that they are opposed to Sunday shopping. They want a common day of pause. Yet they have now introduced an amendment that would permit Sunday shopping throughout the province as long as there were fewer than four employees.

On the other hand, their proposed amendment may well be too restrictive in some locations. It was my experience -- and I did have the experience of going on the same travelling committee the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) referred to in such evocative terms earlier this afternoon -- that it might well be too restrictive for some of the communities we went to that had Sunday shopping.

I remember Collingwood. I had the experience of being in Collingwood, as did some other honourable members of this House, and going to visit downtown Collingwood. It was a very prosperous and well-preserved downtown and it happened to be open on Sunday; at least, stores could be open on Sundays. My recollection is that there were some fairly large stores that would almost undoubtedly have more than four employees. So in Collingwood, in one of the cities that we visited, the four-employee limit would be too restrictive.

Let me speak just a little further about the experience we have had in Ontario. The members speak about Manitoba, and I have a great deal of respect for people in Manitoba. But we are not legislators for that province; we are legislators for this province. Let’s look at the experience we have had in Ontario with restrictions on the number of employees, because the current legislation contains a restriction on the number of employees in drugstores. Yet we have seen, as I think all members are aware, that there has been a proliferation of very large discount-type stores selling some drugs.

In fact, that has been one of the reasons for this legislation. We have had unfair competition and responsible retailers who want to be closed on Sundays have come to us and said: “Look, there are these very large stores selling all kinds of things competing with us unfairly. They can be open and we have to be closed. Please do something about it.” The government has done something about it. We are responding.

I think experience has shown in Ontario that a restriction on the number of employees is very difficult for local police forces to enforce. They are not willing to go into stores and question every clerk and find out whether people are clerks or customers or visiting or on lunch hours or breaks. The experience in Ontario has shown that this has not been very successful.

Let’s look again at the practical consequences. Let’s suppose a municipality in a resort area chose this sort of option. Let’s suppose Huntsville or Muskoka or some such municipality chose this option. You might find, whether on the main street or in a mall, that certain stores on the same street might be open and other stores would not be open because they would be too large to be manned or personned by four employees. The same situation might arise in a mall.

It is our impression that there may be some limited merit in this proposal. We are not rejecting it out of hand, but rather it is one that can be incorporated into the broader, more flexible option that the government has provided. We feel that to limit municipalities to this option would be less fair, less workable and, probably most important, less enforceable than the proposition put forward by the government. Therefore, we will not be supporting this motion.

Mr. Philip: The parliamentary assistant to the minister makes a couple of arguments. I am shocked that after all this time he is so unfamiliar with the existing legislation. He says that there are problems and that under the existing legislation we do have a restriction. Then as the example of the abuses, of how the present legislation is not working, he uses the example of drugstores. In fact, drugstores are exempt from the provision in the present legislation that would restrict the number of employees. I thought that he would have read the bill, the existing legislation, and been aware of that.

Second, he says there is feedback from out in the field and in fact the people would find even this too permissive. Of course, he must not have had his people at the press conference of the Ontario Working Group on Sunday Shopping Policy of February 1, the press conference that basically presented the last-minute attempt to change the government’s mind or to have some reasonable compromise on behalf of the four million people that it was representing.

Mr. Ballinger: Oh, cut it out.

Mr. Philip: I can prove four million people are represented by the coalition better than the minister can come up with where the abuses are in the tourist exemption.

They had as their second proposal, in this attempt to reach the Premier, “That the staff be restricted to four persons.” That was one of their proposals. That is the coalition. Those are the people who were in fact out there making the presentation. It was Gerry Vandezande himself who delivered this paper, only on February 1.

1620

I realize that the Premier refused to meet with him and the coalition on several attempts, including the last attempt on February 1, at which time he held his press conference. But I am sure that the parliamentary assistant or at least the minister would have been aware of what they were asking for, and that is exactly what they were asking for.

Mr. Kanter: I want to rise to be quite clear on one point that the member opposite may have misunderstood, perhaps inadvertently, and that is with respect to drugstores. This is a motion that, like all the motions, we have taken very seriously. It is the principle of the restriction of the number-of-employees test. That is found in the current act, the Retail Business Holidays Act, clause 3(2)(c), where it deals with drugstores. It says that a drugstore is now permitted to be open only where “the number of persons engaged in the service of the public in the pharmacy does not at any time exceed four.”

I represent an urban riding, as does the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. It has been my observation that there are drugstores in my riding, not terribly large drugstores, drugstores of somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet, that are open on Sundays and that have more than four employees. It is also my observation that there have been numerous ads in the newspapers, going back five, six or seven years, for very large drug superstores -- I have been in them on occasion, mostly to check out the provisions of this bill -- where again there are many, many more than four employees, in contravention of this legislation.

I want to point out to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale that the number-of-employees test has been, in a sense, field-tested in Ontario over the past 15 years and experience has shown it does not work very well, at least in the drugstore sector. The experience we have had in Ontario is that it simply does not work.

Mr. Hampton: I want to correct the parliamentary assistant’s interpretation of our amendment. The amendment does not say that in all stores you may have four employees. It allows for the provincial framework that the government is so proud of, that is, everyone shall remain closed, but it says that if a municipality passes a bylaw, any store that is open under the bylaw is restricted to four employees. It does not make it too loose for some places and not loose enough for others; it simply says the provincial framework shall be maintained and, if a municipality passes a bylaw, there is a restriction to no more than four employees in a store.

I want to comment upon the other point made by the parliamentary assistant. I think it is fair to say -- and many of the municipalities out there and many of the business groups and many of the trade union groups that appeared before the committee said this -- that the reason why the four-employee limit in terms of drugstores was unenforceable in Ontario was because the government did not try to enforce it, because the government did not make a point of saying, “This shall be enforced.”

The fact of the matter is that in Manitoba, where the same four-employee-limit rule applies, both Conservative and New Democrat governments have made it a policy to enforce that clause of the act. In fact, you will see stores in Manitoba that simply have a sign on the door saying: “We do not open Sundays. We would be limited to four employees. We don’t feel we could run our store with four employees, therefore we won’t open.”

Let’s hope that a Liberal government does not come to power in Manitoba, because presumably there it would find the same thing unenforceable that has been found unenforceable here. Manitoba has had no problem enforcing the four-employee-limit rule. The only reason it has been difficult here in Ontario, and municipal groups have said it, is because the government has not wanted to enforce it. They made that very clear at some of the stops the committee made. It is enforceable and the government could have enforced it but chose not to. It is a problem of the government’s own making, not a problem inherent in the law itself.

Mr. Sola: I would like to show one discrepancy in their argument. That four-employee limit would go against the grain of the religious exemption, because it was specifically told to us in the committee by various groups that if they could opt out of Sundays on the basis of their religion, they wanted the same size store, they wanted the same number of personnel operating their stores on the day they chose as --

Mr. Hampton: The Supreme Court judgement on Edwards Books and Art.

Mr. Sola: Well, our exemption allows people of different religions who would be closed on Friday or Saturday or whatever day they chose to be open Sundays, no matter how large their store. Therefore, in order not to discriminate against them, we could not limit the number of employees.

Second, although I appreciate the input of the member for Durham East, Sanctimonious Sam, he does represent a party which set up a task force in 1985 to check into this very question. Here are two of their proposals.

Mr. Hampton: At least they had the sense to reverse themselves.

Mr. Sola: Yes, by getting themselves out of power.

Mr. Cureatz: With the support you got from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Sola: That is fine. As long as the members filibuster their own time, I do not care.

Here are two proposals that they wanted to make: One is, “Give effect to the genuine demand for additional pre-Christmas shopping hours by permitting Sunday shopping on some Sundays prior to Christmas.” The other is, “Permit shopping on Boxing Day.”

Mr. Philip: What does that have to do with the number of employees?

Mr. Sola: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale asked what that has to do with it. The way I read this thing, it is leading to more Sunday shopping, and the opposition is attaching its amendment to a format presented by a party that was proposing more Sunday shopping on the basis of the report issued by its task force.

I find the direction it is going in very suspicious. On the one hand, it claims to be opposed to Sunday shopping; on the other hand, it is attaching an amendment --

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The amendment was fairly specific. It deals with the number of employees in a retail store. It has nothing to do with Boxing Day, it has nothing to do with the number of holidays, and I ask that the Chairman call the member to order.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sola: I am glad the Chairman is showing some objectivity, unlike the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I would like to say again that, even if the amendment was in order, just the fact that it was attached to the proposed board that the member for Durham East has suggested makes it questionable.

The other thing I would like to point out is that the approach of both opposition parties shows them to be very bullheaded, but the substance of their arguments is usually more closely linked to the other extremity of the very same animal.

1630

Mr. Harris: I just briefly would like to indicate, in response to the member for Mississauga East, that I do not think any of his comments were particularly relevant to the amendment we are discussing at this stage.

I want to indicate that, concerning the Conservative Party task force that he referred to, as irrelevant as the conclusions he cited were to the particular case, I think it incumbent upon me to at least correct the record in a couple of areas.

One, the recommendations were made as a total solution to what was becoming an increasing problem and stood by itself in isolation of the particular bills that are before us.

They may not have been perfect, quite frankly, they were not perfect; we appreciate that, but it was a compilation of what was brought before the task force. But I suggest to members that most Ontarians, I think, would argue that they would much rather deal with that task force report, perhaps with minor amendments here or there, than they would with the two bills that are before us now.

Second, if it appears to the member as though we are changing position, he should not forget that the whole lay of the land has changed. We are now trying to make the best of what is a terribly bad situation and a very bad piece of legislation.

Third, I am shocked he would want to quote what former members in former parliaments had to say on this issue when the minister, who is bringing in this bill, is the one who, some time around the same time he is quoting our task force and before the last election, stated very unequivocally that to proceed with a municipal option was wrong, that it was a chicken way out, that it would lead to disaster. It was 180 degrees from the direction in which she has now proceeded in her new, resurrected life.

Finally, the member for Mississauga East indicated, I thought in a very arrogant way, that he appreciated some of the comments that were made being brought to his attention. I want to answer that arrogance by saying we really are not speaking to him. We do not think he listened in the committee. We do not think he does anything other than what he is told to do by the power, emperor supreme, the Premier.

The remarks we are making are not addressed to the member at all. Quite frankly, clearly, it does not matter whether he hears them at all because he is going to do exactly what the Premier tells him to do, as is the minister, which is 100 per cent contrary to what her true feelings were some six, eight, 10, 12 and 18 months ago.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Philip: I would just like to put on the record once again that the vast majority, 93.9 per cent, of the presentations on section 4 were opposed to this section. Before we take that vote on section 4, as amended, I want to have that noted to the Solicitor General.

She does not have the support of business for section 4. She does not have the support of municipalities. She does not have the support of women’s groups. She does not have the support of church groups. She will learn, as has happened in British Columbia, that section 4 will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping. This has happened --

Mr. Faubert: Nonsense.

Mr. Philip: The member says it is nonsense, but it is not nonsense to the 55 --

Mr. Faubert: It is nonsense. You cannot prove it.

Mr. Philip: I can prove that in British Columbia now, 55 of the major municipalities are open. In fact, a majority of British Columbia is wide open as a result of this.

I point out that this municipal option created so much anarchy in both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that the Liberal governments there, after two years’ experience with it, had to rescind it. I say to the minister that in two or three years’ time, we will be rescinding section 4 because it will be proved to be unworkable; either that or we will have wide-open Sunday shopping.

It will probably be another government that will have an opportunity to rescind it, because the people out there will know exactly that those people did not listen to them, that this is the section of the bill they opposed, that they did not listen to the business community, that they did not listen to the citizens, that they did not listen to the churches, that they did not listen to the people who are most affected. This is an unworkable section. It has been proved to be unworkable in three provinces that have tried it.

You seem to be unable to learn from the experience of others. I say to you that either you are very, very stupid in what you are doing or you simply are very, very insensitive.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I believe the member has used unparliamentary, childish language.

Mr. Philip: My language was a lot more temperate than that of some of the mayors who talked to the members of their own party about this.

The Deputy Chairman: Could I invite the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale to withdraw a comment that many would find to be insulting.

Mr. Philip: Which comment, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: I asked the question of the Chairman. If he is asking me to withdraw a remark, I ask that he tell me which remark he wishes me to withdraw and I will be happy to withdraw it, if it is unparliamentary.

The Deputy Chairman: The remark I take exception, to and find to be abusive or insulting language as defined in the rules, is the remark wherein the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale called the Solicitor General and minister of the crown stupid.

Mr. Philip: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest you take your ruling under advisement and check the record. I did not call the minister stupid; I said it was a stupid decision. Furthermore, the word “stupid” is not on the list of unparliamentary language.

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of the passage of the bill, I will withdraw my objection.

1640

The Deputy Chairman: The objection has been withdrawn. We are dealing with section 4 and concluding remarks with respect to section 4, because we do not have any further amendments presented to the table. I would like to know if there are any other comments or questions regarding section 4.

Mr. Pouliot: To broadly summarize, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity, I echo the sentiment and the words of my distinguished colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I too find it somewhat surprising that a party which prides itself on being practical, which has the latitude of not really having any philosophy to adhere to, which at times can commit a multitude of sins under the heading of being reasonable, would choose not to pay attention to all components in our society. They have had, and it is a very significant number, almost 500 presenters who were somewhat unanimous, to the tune, let’s say, 92 per cent or 93 per cent.

Mr. Philip: It is 93.9 per cent.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes, 93.9 per cent I am reminded, composed of all denominations across this province of 9.4 million people: clubs, organizations, consumers, business people, chambers of commerce, conglomerates, some people the Liberals can relate to perhaps better than the official opposition, movers and shakers, and they have chosen not to listen. When my distinguished colleague comes up with proposals that will make this legislation a little more palatable, they are so dogmatic and set in their way to the point of being perverse that they do not want to listen.

Recall what happened with Bill 51. The opposition in its wisdom came forth trying to help the government, because it is supposed to be a collective effort, and came up with dozens of well-thought-out, well-worded amendments. The government is paying the consequences for having it its way. Every time we come up with a proposal, because we do so on this side of the House, they very deliberately and systematically choose to ignore it. What they are doing here under section 4 is only fuelling that kind of approach, that kind of style, that kind of method. Then they have the audacity to accuse the opposition of being systematic and deliberate in its stalling tactics.

It ain’t so. If they had the least intention to listen to what the people out there are saying, especially on a moral issue that goes to the very foundation of the society in which we live, they would at least listen to people, to the people paying their wages, who are saying, “You have stolen Sunday from us.”

We are giving them the ammunition to salvage a situation that is not really what the people of Ontario desire. That is all my colleague has tried to say. In terms of food for thought, I really feel that every time we stay awake at night thinking of proposals to make this situation a little better, almost inevitably, unless they come from the government side of the House, we are turned down. Please do not tell me it is an open process.

Our patience, too, as the group of 19 soldiers we are, is wearing a little thin. It is okay for the government House leader to say we have abused this and we have abused that. He did exactly the same things with more passion and more vengeance when he was on this side of the House, but now that his turn has come, he has forgotten about ethics and we are the culprits. We are not going to take it any more. This is as good as it gets.

While there is still time before Monday, let’s take a look at the wording. Never mind the bias and the prejudice and the arrogance the Liberals are becoming famous for. Let’s deal with the words of wisdom prepared so well by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and let’s proceed with it.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I want to say briefly that in section 4 we have recognized two very important principles here. The first is the importance and the right of people to design a municipality of their own choosing. Sault Ste. Marie has demonstrated by referendum what it considers to be a municipality of its own choosing. We do not want to restrict them from having this right to so express and act upon the will of their citizens.

On the other hand, this bill means that for the first time municipal governments will have to address their own communities before they can change and bring in bylaws that open stores. This particular clause prevents what happened a few days ago in the municipality of Sharon. I am told a bylaw was passed at the very tail-end of a council meeting with no reference to the people.

The local people know what they want, whether they are in London or Brantford where they seem to prefer a very closed situation, or whether they are in Sault Ste. Marie where they seem to prefer a more open situation. They will have a law that allows them to enforce their will, and furthermore, allows them to express to the council what they want before the council can act.

This is the first time the people in the municipalities have had this option to speak to the council before it can act. We are very pleased to give this to the people because it is the people in the local area who know what is best and right for their community.

Mr. Farnan: I will just take two minutes on section 4 because it is very important to the bill. Indeed, the Solicitor General in her own words said the municipal option is the essence of the bill. Not only did she say it was the essence of the bill, but also from the very start, during the public hearings and throughout clause-by-clause consideration, she said it was non-negotiable.

The Solicitor General has said today there are various principles involved and she talked about these principles. I want to say directly to the Solicitor General that there is one principle involved. That principle is the principle of democracy.

The minister did two things that are totally unacceptable in a democracy. First of all, there was a parliamentary committee sitting to have hearings into this, listening to the people of Ontario. She interfered with that process. While the people of Ontario were giving their views to the parliamentary committee, she prejudged the outcome of the committee by saying that no matter what the people of Ontario said, she would not listen, that it was non-negotiable. That is not democracy.

Second, after the people of Ontario spoke with a very unanimous and unequivocal voice, she rejected what they said. As for the principle at stake in this legislation, she is quite right. The municipal option is the essence of the bill. The principle at stake is the fact that she is not prepared to listen to the people of Ontario. She does not allow parliamentary committees the freedom to go out and listen to the people of Ontario because she prejudges.

This is dictatorship, pure and simple. The minister has gone out to the people. She has heard what the people had to say. She is saying: “We do not care what the people of Ontario want. We, David Peterson; we, Madam Minister Solicitor General; we, the Liberal Party will do what we think is right and to hell with the people of Ontario.” That is dictatorship. It is not democracy.

1650

Mr. Sola: I would like to bring into question the honourable member’s judgement. The honourable member travelled around the province with the committee with a mascot. In every city of this province, the honourable member identified the mascot as a chicken in order to apply it to his preconceived notion. He received expert advice in every city and from the honourable member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero), and still to this day he maintains that that mascot is a chicken. Even to my city-bred eyes, that mascot was a duck.

If any member, despite such sage advice as was offered by the member for Lincoln, would still insist that a duck is a chicken, how can the people of Ontario trust his judgement on what is democracy, on what is Sunday opening and on what is Sunday closing? I wish they would take that judgement into account and then take it from there.

Mr. Farnan: I am so delighted to respond to my colleague. First of all, he is absolutely correct.

I want to tell the members a little story. I went into a store, looking to buy a chicken. They did not have one. This looked almost like a chicken, so I said, “Well, I’m dealing with Liberals, so they’re not going to know the difference.”

So I put the chicken on the desk, and for two weeks we travelled around the province and then one afternoon, one of the Liberals came in and he looked at this and he said, “Hey, that’s not a chicken; it’s a duck.” After two weeks, the Liberals were able to recognize the difference between a chicken and a duck, and these are the people who want to legislate on very important legislation. It is absolutely extraordinary.

Before I sit down, I want to say why I chose the symbol of the chicken. It symbolized a government that wants to pass on the tough decisions to the municipalities. It symbolized a Solicitor General who says the municipal option is the chicken way out. It symbolizes the rows and rows of Liberal backbenchers who are absolutely spineless and will go in and vote exactly the way they are told.

But I want to apologize to all the ducks for the subterfuge that took place. Indeed, I should say that it is sad that I have to compare these chickens and ducks with Liberals, because unfortunately these Liberals will not just be ducks, they will be dead ducks come the next election. They are going to go ahead, not listening to the people of Ontario, and there is a political price to pay.

My friends, 94 Liberals will come in here later today and they will come in like chickens and they will do exactly what they are told. Is it not extraordinary? I did not intend to speak about chickens; I did not intend to speak about ducks. But the only thing of substance the Liberal Party could come up with to discuss on very important legislation affecting millions of people across the province is that the member comes up and he wants to talk about a chicken.

The Liberals ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have absolutely nothing to say and they come in here on a very important debate and want to talk about chickens. They are a disgrace to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Sola: I would like to point out to the members here present an extraordinary thing. The member for Cambridge has made a confession. He has made a confession on behalf of himself and his whole party.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with an important piece of legislation and we have these jackass comments about chickens and ducks. We have three quarters of an hour and I have an important amendment that I wish to move.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Sola: As I was saying, the member has made a confession on his own behalf and on his party’s. He said it appeared as one thing, but he could sell it as another. That is what he is doing with Bill 113. He says, “It is Sunday closing, but I can sell it as Sunday opening,” and he has been doing that from day one. He made the confession on behalf of himself and his party, and I am glad he did it. It is in Hansard, and I think this will justify the actions that we have taken.

Mr. Chairman: May we now proceed? Are we ready to look at section 5? Would the member for Rainy River like to bring in an amendment?

Mr. Hampton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe you have the amendment in front of you.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I think there has to be a vote taken on section 4, as amended, does there not?

Mr. Chairman: Not until after all the questions have been put in the stack. After the stacking, once we have finished looking at point by point, we shall take a vote on each of the sections, including section 4, but not at this time.

Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 5(1) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by striking out the words “another day of the week by reason of the religion of the owner of the retail business” in the fifth and sixth lines of the section, and adding the words “the preceding Saturday” following the word “throughout” as it appears in the fifth line of the section.

Mr. Hampton: This section of the bill is known as the Sabbatarian exemption. The government, on various occasions, has said it favours the wording of this Sabbatarian exemption. The reason we have proposed this amendment is because, in our view, the government’s version of a Sabbatarian exemption, as given in the bill, is in fact inviting Charter of Rights scrutiny by the courts. What the section, as written in the bill, is saying is that someone may open on Sunday if he closes on another day of the week by reason of the religion of the owner. What would be involved here would be an examination of the religion of the owner.

We went through this in committee somewhat, but the answers we got from the government were not very satisfactory. The fact of the matter is, when you read the Edwards Books and Lord’s Prayer cases, one having been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, the other having been decided by the Supreme Court of Ontario, the courts are saying it is not appropriate or is appropriate only in limited circumstances to go on some kind of inquisition as to the religious beliefs of an individual or of individuals; that this kind of inquisition as to the religious beliefs of an individual or of a group is, in many cases, an infringement of the Charter of Rights.

The government says: “Well, really, any inquisition that would happen here as to an individual’s religious beliefs would be made in order to protect the individual’s religious beliefs.” However, if you look at what the bill is about, the bill is not about the protection of religious beliefs, nor is this section. This section is about promoting or permitting the opening of retail businesses on Sunday. What in fact would be happening under this bill is that the government would be making an inquiry as to an individual’s religious beliefs, in order to determine whether or not he should be allowed to open his business on Sunday.

1700

It seems to us that is quite some stretching of words to say that in doing that the government is protecting that individual’s religious beliefs or it is promoting the protection of that individual’s religious beliefs. In fact, we think what is very likely going to happen, if the members read the Edwards Books case or the Lord’s Prayer case, is that the court is going to look at subsection 5(1), and very soon it is going to say, “No, this cannot pass.”

We suggest that one of the things that might happen is that a court would be very likely to strike out the part of subsection 5(1) that says “by reason of the religion of the owner of the retail business” and simply say to the government of Ontario, “You have no business inquiring as to the religion of the owner of the business.” What happens to subsection 5(1) if you strike that part out? What happens to it is that someone can stay open any day of the week they want at any time because subsection 5(1) is then thrown wide open.

The Edwards Books case reviews the Sabbatarian exemption and it makes comments on it. It says that the existing Sabbatarian exemption, as found in the existing Retail Business Holidays Act, is an acceptable Sabbatarian exemption. It does not say it is the greatest one, but it says it is an acceptable one. What is more, it points out that the Sabbatarian exemption in this kind of legislation is there to permit a business to open when the day chosen -- in that case it is a Saturday -- is more suitable to the individual’s religion than, say, Sunday worship.

In our view, doing away with the words “another day of the week by reason of the religion of the owner of the retail business” in fact is doing away with something which is most objectionable in this legislation. No one, in our view, appreciates someone going on a lengthy inquiry as to what a person’s religion is. If the government contends that it is acceptable to go on an inquiry as to what people’s religious beliefs are, in order to determine whether they should be allowed to open their retail business on Sunday, then where does one set the limits?

Why can one not go on an inquest as to people’s religious beliefs for other reasons? Why can one not inquire as to people’s religious beliefs for the purposes of deciding what football team they can play on or what sports they can take part in? One comes to the same sort of situation. To go on an inquest, to make an inquiry as to people’s religious beliefs merely to facilitate the opening of a business on Sunday is surely not within the kinds of limits the Charter of Rights sets.

We say to the government that it is taking a very careless step here. It is inviting the court to step in and strike this down. If the court does step in and strike this down, then it is left with absolutely wide-open Sunday shopping across the province. Perhaps that is what it wants. I have to admit that many of the groups we spoke to in the committee said that: that what the government is really after is wide-open Sunday shopping and it is going to try to do it incrementally. If this section of the bill is struck down, they have certainly done it incrementally because as soon as the court strikes that section of the bill down, anybody can stay open any time of the week they want.

Our view is to simply remove any reference at all to religion and simply say that people may open on Sunday if they have remained closed on the preceding Saturday and they do that as a rule; not open Saturday one week and Sunday the next. If the government does that, it removes any reference to people’s religion, it removes any requirement to inquire into someone’s religion and it is not in danger of infringing on the Charter of Rights.

But, in our view, the way this legislation is written, not only will it offend many groups that they have to submit to some inquiry as to their religion, but it is inviting scrutiny under the Charter of Rights. It is pretty clear that if our amendment to section 1 goes, we would also want to wipe out section 2, because section 2 further delineates and further specifies the kind of religious inquiry one has to go through in order to follow the requirements of the bill as printed.

We urge the government to stay out of the question of religion altogether and put in -- if I may call it -- a nonsectarian Sabbatarian exemption, to simply say to people, “If you want to stay open on Sunday, then you must stay closed on Saturday.” It is a much safer route to go. It infringes on people’s rights much less, and the government does not invite the scrutiny of the courts, which may end up completely wiping out subsection 5(1) and therefore allowing stores to stay open on any day of the week, whenever they so choose.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I stand to support the amendment as presented by the member for Rainy River. I had a similar amendment to make and I would just like to read it into the record, because with less than 40 minutes remaining I doubt very much if we will get to any more amendments. My amendment is very similar:

I move that subsection 5(1) of the proposed amendment to the said act be amended by deleting “by reason of the religion of the owner of the retail business” and be further amended by deleting subsections 5(2), 5(3), 5(4), 5(5) and 5(6).

Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the amendment by the member for Rainy River? I am very disappointed that the government would get into this type of area, this religious connotation to the bill. It is extremely offensive in my mind that a person’s religion should be brought into the business community. It seems to me that it was only a short while ago that I was tabling petitions that the Lord’s Prayer not be used in the school system.

The Minister of Education in his wisdom decided that there should be certain changes made. The long and the short of it is that the Lord’s Prayer was taken out of the school system but is now coming into the retail stores of Ontario.

Mr. Fleet: It is a court decision.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The member for High Park-Swansea says, “It is a court decision.” As the member for Rainy River has stated, that very well may be the case for this piece of legislation. It too will end up in the courts.

Mr. Faubert: Well, let it pass.

Mr. Fleet: We are content to let the courts decide.

Mr. Faubert: That is what lawyers are for.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The comments that have been made by the members on my left are the very important considerations that the member for Rainy River was trying to impress on them: that this legislation is flawed. Why draft a piece of legislation on the understanding or even the hope that it will have to go to the courts for interpretation? It does not make sense.

Mr. Fleet: No, it will not. It will survive the test.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Why are you making reference to the courts if that is not the case?

Mr. Fleet: You are saying that the Lord’s Prayer decision was made by the minister and --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Wellington has the floor.

Mr. Fleet: He asked me a question.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to correct the record: The decision was made by the court and the minister responded to it, just as this minister will have to respond to the decision handed down by the court in future. I wonder if the minister really wants someone else to rule on the validity of this piece of legislation.

I would like to just make reference to clause 5(2)(b): “in the case of a partnership, the religion named in a written agreement between the partners which is the religion of one of the partners.” What in heaven’s name does that mean: the religion named in a written agreement? They can decide they are whatever? Is this an overnight conversion, that if it suits them to be a certain religion, that is what is going to be in the agreement? If there happen to be several partners, they could pick out whichever one suited the occasion? I hope that is not what is intended.

1710

Clause (c), “in the case of a corporation, the religion named in the bylaws of the corporation.” Could a corporation name whatever religion suited the case? A religious corporation: that sounds unique. What is a religious corporation? Will it be a marriage of convenience for this legislation? Will we have a case where a corporation can decide that it should be a certain religion because it is more financially beneficial to that corporation?

I just feel that the whole section 5 is going to lead to a lot of controversy, a lot of problems. It certainly infringes on the rights of many people in this province. I cannot understand how the question of a person’s religion can enter into the retail business in this province.

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to put a few comments on the record with respect to some of the discussions which have taken place in this Legislature. I have never in all my days seen as much misleading information as has been given in the discussions which have centred on this bill.

For one thing, for individuals who are of the opinion that this bill will create wide-open Sundays, that is totally false. What we are talking about in section 5 and other sections of this bill is an opportunity for local municipalities to be the authors of their own destiny, to have the right to make decisions close to them. I think it goes without saying that there are many decisions made in this House that seem to be weighted towards the Toronto base of all parties which centre in this House.

In the area I come from, St. Catharines-Brock in the Niagara region, nothing could upset people more than to remove decisions to Toronto rather than to reflect the thinking of people from the area. To say that what this bill does is create a wide-open Sunday atmosphere is totally erroneous. This legislation has clauses to protect the individuals who happen to share the opinion I share. I have been on the public record on a number of occasions as saying that I do not support wide-open Sundays. I still hold that feeling very close. Individuals who feel that this type of legislation is going to create a wide-open Sunday atmosphere are misleading the general public.

The amendments that are in place are going to allow individuals, first, the opportunity through public advertisement; second, the opportunity through public meetings and public forums, where they will have an opportunity to voice their concerns to local municipalities; third, it will give them an opportunity at the local level to make a decision to open or to close. That authority in the Niagara region, as an example, will have to have the approval of the regional level. That is a safeguard for those individuals who feel very strongly.

I would like to concentrate for a moment with respect to the religious aspect. I sometimes think in my mind that there could be a bit of hypocrisy in some of the statements that are being made in this House. Look at the opportunity for an individual who happens to work in a gas service station, for an individual who happens to work in a restaurant or for an individual who happens to work in the arena where everybody likes to go on Sunday with the family. Does that mean to say they are any less religious or have any fewer Christian beliefs than anyone else? I can tell members I would defy anyone who could stand up and point to any individual and say that because they work on Sunday they are less religious or they have less of a community life than anybody else.

I think of this legislation and the amount of discussion and dialogue that has gone on in this House and has gone on in committee. My good friend the member for Durham East has indicated that St. Catharines has indicated on a number of occasions its objection to the legislation that is before us. I would simply and very respectfully submit that is because individuals in their party and the opposition parties have done the absolutely admirable job of confusing the general public on what this legislation is all about.

The individuals in my particular riding will not in any way, shape or form, open their stores. That is my belief. They are vehemently opposed to shopping on Sunday. However, they recognize areas that cater to certain parts of their communities, such as in Niagara-on-the-Lake where the main street is open. The Queenston area is open. The Virgil area is closed and the St. Davids area is closed. I can tell you that that will not change. I have the fullest and highest respect for the individuals who will be making those decisions on that local council. I sat with them for a number of years and I know they will not in any way, shape or form, change the way of life they enjoy today.

When I look at the other area I represent in St. Catharines, I look at the area of Port Dalhousie being open and the rest of the city of St. Catharines being closed. I can tell members that in talking to the mayor and in talking to many of the representatives on city council, they do not want Sunday shopping and they have voiced that concern very strongly. But when I point out that the decision is not a decision that will be Toronto-based, that it is a decision that will be locally based, they are much more attuned to understanding that they will be authors of their own fate as to what is happening for their own future.

I think it is important to have those points clarified. I think it is important to understand the regulations for those who flout the law, as it happens in our nice city of Toronto here by the local furrier. The regulation that has been amended will make that rule that much stiffer, that much tighter and the fine that much higher. I can tell members that our friend the furrier will be thinking very seriously about opening that store and the flouting of the law that has gone on and on and on.

Those kinds of things that people look at, which are removed into the city of Toronto, are not the kinds of things that we like to do in the Niagara Peninsula. The respect for other religions that I hold, and that others in this House hold, speaks well for the types of regulations that individual municipalities will have the opportunity to deal with on their own local basis.

St. Catharines is not the same as Toronto and St. Catharines is not the same as Sault Ste. Marie. I personally would not like to see, and many of the people I represent would not like to see, individuals from Sault Ste. Marie dictating the future to St. Catharines and vice versa.

1720

I think it goes without saying that these are the kinds of positive steps that have been taken in legislation that will give that local autonomy, that local opportunity to make decisions, and take it away from that Toronto-based decision. It does not mean in any way, shape or form that the individuals who enjoy that community life will be any less community-organized or community-sponsored or community-living individuals in those areas.

I can say, with all due respect to a lot of the rhetoric that has been shared by some of the individuals from my friends on my right, that it goes without saying they have done an exceptional job of confusing the general public; but I, along with the rest of my colleagues in the government, believe that when all the dust and all the rhetoric settles and all the verbiage of heavy dialogue settles to the bottom, common sense will prevail and in our respective areas, people will understand that the decision is made on a local level, where they in fact have a higher and better opportunity for input.

My friend Gerald Vandezande, I read in the paper this morning, was quoted as saying that it will be easier to fight the battle on the local level, because they are more in touch with the people. I agree with some of his discussion. I agree, in part, with the discussion that at the local level people have an opportunity. Often, we do not see where these legislative opportunities for individuals to come here have filled to the brim, but at local council meetings, where I have had an opportunity to sit for a good number of years, they have in fact filled to the brim when people have been upset over local decisions.

I can say of our friends from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, of which I was a vice-president on that board and hold it in the highest respect, I remember only a few short years ago when we from AMO asked for more responsibility, to be able to take a more concise part in decision-making at the local level. It seems to me to be a bit of a shift in policy from where they are going now. I understand them now to say, “We want to have local autonomy and we want to make local decisions, but we don’t want the tough ones, so keep them aside.”

I can say that in terms of looking at local option, I think the legislation is in fact dealing with it the right way. Without doubt, there will be ongoing criticisms, but I would definitely like to see where individuals from a religious background can come forward and show me and my colleagues where anyone who works on Sunday or who participates on Sunday is any less of a religious individual than I or anyone else.

I can say that it seems, once again, a bit where I get caught in the hypocrisy of it. There were those who would say: “Isn’t there an opportunity for individuals who want to go down to the local gas station to buy gas on Sunday? Is there something wrong with that?” They might like to take their wives out for breakfast after church on Sunday, but they do not mind the waitress waiting on them: Is there something wrong with that? There are those who would say, “No, there’s nothing wrong with it,” but I seem to have heard the argument of late that there appears to be something wrong.

I appreciate the opportunity to go on record and say that I think the legislation has gone a long way to correct some of the areas of the law that have been twisted and I think it has gone a long way towards addressing the concerns of individuals so that they are in fact protected in Ontario.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have one brief comment and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has some more amendments to make.

I would like to point out to the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) that I was very disappointed in his comments, the rhetoric, hypocrisy and confusion, things of that nature. I do not particularly mind that, because I accept that he has to say something, but I would like to point out that when the municipal councils are forced to deal with this legislation and they have to define the religion of the owner, the religion named in the bylaws of corporations and things of this nature, and police it, they are going to be very pleased with the member’s comments and his reference to AMO. I hope he remembers it in the very near future.

Mr. Dietsch: With all due respect to the member, when I sit in this House and I hear comments like “stupid” and “sleazy,” I think comments that are put in the general context that I have used, I stand behind. I think that is the way I have accepted them. If one could clean up all the comments that have been made by the member’s colleagues, comments which have been made in this House, one would accomplish a great deal.

I know I chose my words very carefully. I feel most strongly that those opportunities degrade this whole House. I would be most agreeable to retracting comments like that if one could achieve the opportunity for all those other comments to be withdrawn as well.

Mr. Chairman: I can only take this opportunity to remind all members of all parties to try to use the best parliamentary language possible.

Mr. Ferraro: I have just been advised that we are not going to have a lot of time on Tuesday and I did want to get a few comments on the record in that I think I have the distinction of being the member of the Liberal Party quoted more than any other by the leaders of both opposition parties and indeed probably more so by backbenchers in the opposition parties. I think it is important that I get my two cents in. I am mindful of the fact that there are some other amendments that have to be proposed.

The leaders of the opposition parties have publicly and in this House indicated my personal point of view, that is, that Guelph should remain closed on Sunday essentially, that I am not in favour of Sunday shopping. They have quoted me correctly in that regard. The leaders of the opposition have indicated that vis-à-vis Bill 114 I have said it is not 100 per cent protection for the employees. Yes, indeed, they have quoted me correctly.

Quite frankly, in that regard I think it is logical to say from my perspective, if from no other, that I do not think you can ever give an employee 100 per cent protection, save and except in a communist or totally socialistic country, which of course does not work.

The leaders of the opposition have failed to tell the people in this House and in Ontario, the people in my riding, that I am in favour of the local option. Indeed, they have had the local option, as indicated by other members in this House, since 1950. They have indicated, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) that indeed his comments were made in conjunction with his attempt to advance my career. If that is advancing my career, then I suggest that if I were drowning, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would throw me an anchor very quickly.

I want to say in regard to the essence, if you will, the heart and soul of this bill, that indeed we are talking about the local option. I want to commend the opposition, because indeed we made a mistake. The mistake was that we said what we were going to do before we had the bill. The opposition, of course, seized upon that and immediately aroused the entire province and did a heck of a good deal of it. I commend them for it.

Emotionally, everyone was excited. I answered many letters, many phone calls. I participated in a debate with the member for Rainy River and my friend the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and the labour council. I had an open house, if you will, in my own riding.

1730

When I told them the facts, I told them -- and with great respect, some members of my own city council -- that they already had the option called the tourist exemption. In five minutes, if they wanted to, they could pass a bylaw declaring all of Guelph, the city -- or a store -- a tourist area so that they had Sunday shopping; they had the local option. That is the bottom line.

There is nothing wrong with divergence of opinion. The opposition will say that the tourist exemption, which is an option any of the 822 municipalities in Ontario can exercise as to whether they want to open, is still an option. The opposition can say it is not. I suggest to them it is. I just want to get on record a quote specifically for the purposes of the third party.

The quote is: “I do not think, Mr. Speaker, anything could be more flexible than to meet the great requirements and the varying conditions in this province. It is strictly democratic. The matter is placed in the hands of the people themselves and in the absolute control of their elected council. There is nothing wide open about this act. It does nothing to induce any community to change its pattern of life. It enables the people to settle their own affairs in their own way.”

That quote is by the former premier of Ontario, Premier Leslie Frost, a notable Conservative individual who obviously differs with the opinion of the third party today.

In conclusion, that is my state of the union address. I still am against Sunday shopping. I totally support the ideas presented by bills 113 and 114. They retain and strengthen the existing legislation and options that each municipality in Ontario has had since 1950.

Opposition members would say that the tourist exemption we have had since 1975, or the local option we have had since 1950 -- they would probably try to convince somebody that the two most noticeable things about Dolly Parton are her hair and her voice. Everyone knows, of course, that it is her ears.

I finish by saying and indeed agreeing with the previous speaker that nothing will change. The city of Guelph will remain closed because I have not heard any of my municipal councillors say anything to the contrary. There will not be a domino effect. I have not heard any member from Cambridge, Waterloo or Kitchener indicate he wants Sunday shopping.

If we have not had Sunday shopping since 1975, I suggest nothing will change. I suggest the apprehension, the emotion, the furor created by the opposition was purely rhetorical, that time will prove that nothing has changed, save and except that some of the businesses that are open today will have to close, because in my view this legislation is tougher anti-Sunday-shopping legislation.

I am proud to say that I will be standing in my seat supporting it wholeheartedly on Tuesday.

Mr. Kanter: I want to speak quite specifically to the amendment the New Democratic Party has moved. I want to say, in opening, that the balance between commercial practice and religious freedom is obviously a very difficult balance to draw.

I want to make a comment. There has been a lot of disagreement, disharmony, discord and dissension on this bill. On this issue, I was really surprisingly pleased by the amount of respect, tolerance and understanding of the fact that the minority in the province, or in any given community, did have some rights and had to be respected.

I want to say that most of the deputants, as well as most of the opposition members, almost all of the opposition members all of the time, respected that tolerance, that diversity. There may be some differences in degree, but I think the amendment put by the members of the official opposition today is a variation, but really a relatively small one, on the position the government has taken on this subject.

We have said there is a Sunday exception available to all those who close consistently any other day of the week by reason of their religious views. We feel that is appropriate because of the changing population of this province, not just a Christian majority and perhaps a Jewish minority, some of whom are very scrupulous in observing Saturday as the Sabbath, but other people as well, people of the Muslim, Hindu or other religious persuasions.

We feel it is important that if they close on other days, they should be open on Sunday without the kinds of restrictions found in the previous legislation. We feel that is supported by decisions in cases such as Edwards Books and Art that were referred to by the official opposition. We feel this is legislation to extend respect for religious freedom. We feel the point of cases like Edwards Books and Art is that governments can pass legislation that extends respect for religious freedom; they ought not to pass legislation that restricts religious freedom.

Let me be very clear about this. We are not suggesting a municipality ought to have the responsibility of defining religion. We are not suggesting municipal police forces ought to have the responsibility of reviewing religious practices. We are saying that the exercise of religious freedom ought to be an exception to the usual provincial closing framework. It ought to be something that is sacred, that is inviolate, that is not subject to municipal intervention. We feel this is not only something we should do as a matter of something that is morally correct, but something we must do, according to Supreme Court decisions like the case in the Edwards bookstores that was already discussed.

I want to be clear that I think the vast majority of deputants and all parties agree on the principle of a religious exemption. There is some difference in detail and some difference in practice. The NDP motion here before us does not go, in my view, as far as the government motion and is not as appropriate for the increasingly diverse population of the province. It would have an exemption for those who are closed on the preceding Saturday, but not for those who may close on other days for other valid religious reasons.

I know of situations in the community of Toronto, for example, not necessarily in the riding I represent but certainly in the community I represent. The bazaar at Coxwell and Gerrard is one that comes to mind, a very thriving area on Sunday where the merchants may choose not to close on Saturday -- that is not their day of religious rest -- but may choose to close on other days. It is our view that our amendment allows for that practice and the amendment of the official opposition does not.

In closing, in summary with respect to this amendment, our entire approach in this bill has been to try to strike an appropriate balance between a provincial closing law with stricter enforcement, a meaningful law, one that is actually enforced, and also to provide the necessary exemptions for those who do not wish to follow that law for religious reasons, and also a law that provides appropriate municipal exemptions.

This gets into the broader parts of the act that have been discussed, primarily in section 4, broader exemptions for those who choose to change or alter the provincial framework on a municipal level, but also for greater protection for individuals. The minister referred to that this afternoon. I think it is a very important point.

Probably the greatest single change in our bill from the previous bill that will affect most people is that before there is a change, before there is an opening or a closing, the average citizen will have an opportunity to have his say, so that we cannot have a repetition of the kind of thing that happened -- I think the minister referred to a smallish municipality in the region of York where late one night, at two or three o’clock in the morning, a law was changed to allow Sunday openings, without notice, without participation, without advertising to the citizens of that municipality.

I think that both with respect to the specific section we are dealing with, that is, section 4, and indeed the law as a whole, our bill attempts and in fact succeeds in establishing a much better balance.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I just want to advise the members of the House that as my parliamentary assistant has said, our intention was clear: to continue the protections that existed and to extend them to others of other religious persuasions.

1740

I wish to point out on the legal aspect of it that we had the best advice we could get as to how to do this, which is what we all intended. The court cases that are presently on the record were both brought about by people of Jewish religion who challenged the law under their religious rights; therefore, they referred to Saturday. But it is obvious this same law could be taken to the courts by someone of the Muslim religion and it would be thrown out, as the bill in British Columbia was thrown out, because it did not protect the religious rights of that individual.

Not only do we want to extend it; we feel that legally we must extend it to people of all religions so that everybody’s individual rights are protected. Otherwise, that individual will be able to overthrow it in the Supreme Court.

On the point raised by the member from the third party about introducing religion into bills and such, I note that Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court, in making his ruling on the Edwards Books and Art case, said, “The provisions which protect religious freedom may require someone to assert that they have a religious belief in order to protect that right.” He went on to say, “Inquiries which are genuinely designed as a means to give effect to religious freedoms will not be generally regarded as unconstitutional.”

I want to point out that after great study by the legal people within my ministry and the ministry of the Attorney General, this was structured in a way that we believe will stand any challenge in the courts and protect the individual rights of all people.

Mr. Chairman: Are we ready to take a vote on Mr. Hampton’s amendment? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye”.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 6.

I move that subsections 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the act as set out in section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) Every person carrying on a retail business in a retail establishment who contravenes subsection 2(1) or a regulation made under section 4 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine equal to the gross sales of the retail business establishment on the day on which the contravention occurred.

“(2) Every person employed by or acting on behalf of a person carrying on a retail business in a retail business establishment who contravenes subsection 2(2) or a regulation made under section 4 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a minimum fine of,

“(a) $1,000 for a first offence;

“(b) $10,000 for a second offence; and

“(c) $50,000 for a third and each subsequent offence.”

Presentation after presentation before the committee was that there be a minimum fine; that without that, there is no deterrent. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: You will have realized that you were moving an amendment to section 6 without our having touched section 5. That is purely technical.

Pursuant to the time allocation order, I am required to interrupt the proceedings of the committee --

Mr. Philip: Are you going to put the amendment?

Mr. Chairman: No, I cannot. I am out of time. If I can read this, you will know.

Mr. Philip: It is not a quarter to six yet.

Mr. Chairman: On the official clock, it is way beyond a quarter to six. I cannot proceed -- according to the order, if I may read the text. Pursuant to the time allocation order, I am required to interrupt the proceedings of the committee and put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of Bill 113 and Bill 114.

Mr. Philip: Perhaps we could have unanimous consent to at least have a vote on this important amendment.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Since you have a motion for section 6, shall section 5 carry?

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Philip’s amendment to section 6 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Now, if I may read, pursuant to the time allocation, I am required to interrupt the proceedings of the committee and “put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of” Bill 113 and Bill 114. By unanimous consent, the committee deferred all divisions to 5:45 p.m. and I remind the committee that the bells are limited to 15 minutes.

1801

Section 3:

The committee divided on Mr. Runciman’s amendment to section 3, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 10; nays 76.

The committee divided on whether section 3 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 72; nays 14.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4:

The committee divided on Mr. Hampton’s amendment to subsection 4(1), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 24; nays 62.

The committee divided on Mr. Hampton’s amendment to subsection 4(2), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Philip’s amendment to subsection 4(2), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Hampton’s amendment to subsection 4(7), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Philip’s amendment to subsection 4(8), which was negatived on the same vote.

1810

The committee divided on Mr. Philip’s amendment to add subsection 4(9), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Runciman’s amendment to substitute a new section 4, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Philip’s amendment to add subsection 4a, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Hampton’s amendment to section 5 of the act as set out in section 4 of the bill, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on whether section 4 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 6:

The committee divided on Mr. Philip’s amendment to section 6, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 24; nays 62.

The committee divided on whether section 6 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8:

The committee divided on whether sections 7 and 8 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

The committee divided on whether Bill 113 should be reported, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on whether Bill 114 should be reported, which was agreed to on the same vote.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported two bills without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, February 6, we will continue with the adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill 187, as well as with the second reading of Bills 149, 203, 169, 192, 197, 134, 135 and 128. Any votes arising out of these deliberations will be stacked until 5:45 p.m. on Monday afternoon.

On Tuesday, February 7, we will deal with government notice of motion 20, in this particular case that last of those sessional days for the third reading of Bills 113 and 114.

On Wednesday, February 8, we will consider the nonconfidence motion standing in the name of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

On Thursday, February 9, in the morning we will deal with private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) and the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett). In the afternoon we will consider the second reading of Bill 175 and Bill 194, and again any votes rising out of those proceedings will be stacked until 5:45 of that Thursday afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

February 2, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN ONTARIO ARTISTS AND CULTURAL GROUPS / ARTISTES ET GROUPES CULTURELS DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

NORTHERN ONTARIO ARTISTS AND CULTURAL GROUPS / ARTISTES ET GROUPES CULTURELS DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VOTING BY PRIVATE MEMBERS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

MARK AND HUGH WILSON

RETAIL STORE HOURS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

BEEF MARKETING

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

BEEF MARKETING

SKILLS TRAINING

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REGULATION

CANCER TREATMENT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

VISITOR

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

TRITIUM

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICES

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

MENTAL COMPETENCE

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN FILMS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

MINING

PETITIONS

CAISSE DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS / TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)