The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES
The Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1990-91. The members will find a copy placed in their desks in the chamber.
REPORT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSION
The Speaker: I also beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the second annual report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1991.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS
Mrs McLeod: In January 1991, the Minister of Community and Social Services accepted a report of a review of safeguards in children's residential programs undertaken by Joanne Campbell. The report recommended actions to enhance the wellbeing of young people in residential facilities licensed by her ministry and the Ministry of Correctional Services. This report was commissioned by the Liberal government as a partial response to allegations of abuse made by former residents of St Joseph's and St John's training schools.
This weekend, new allegations were made by former residents of Grandview Training School for Girls in Cambridge. Women now in their mid-30s say that as residents of Grandview in the mid-1970s they were victims of physical and sexual abuse and assault by guards at the facility.
We are all concerned to determine the best way to prevent incidents such as this from occurring, but there are clearly some steps that this government must immediately take to improve the safety and security of young people in residential facilities. Joanne Campbell has provided us with a blueprint; it is now the responsibility of this government to implement her recommendations.
The Minister of Community and Social Services, in her response to the Campbell report, had one major omission: It failed to address the split jurisdiction over young offenders between the ministries of Community and Social Services and Correctional Services. Recommendation 29 of the Campbell report, that the split jurisdiction be reviewed with a view to consolidating responsibility under one ministry, should be acted on immediately.
CANADIAN LIVER FOUNDATION
Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to advise members that I have three visitors today in the gallery. I would like the members of the House to welcome Rachel Whittaker, Alexandra Eadie and Michael Riewald, who were good enough to pay the Canadian Liver Foundation for my services as luncheon host and tour guide.
On 21 May the foundation had an auction to raise money for research and education into all diseases of the liver. I was proud to participate as this organization means a great deal to the two million, or 1 in 12 Canadians, who suffer from some sort of liver or liver-related disease. The foundation, which was established in 1969, donates grants for research, training and scholarship. As well it has set up education programs to inform the public and to encourage prevention of liver diseases. It holds workshops to bring together experts to promote the development of higher levels of applied research and patient care. It also helps fund the liver pathology research centre, located at the Toronto General Hospital, which assists with the diagnosis of liver biopsies and the study of liver pathology.
I was honoured to be asked to assist this worthy cause. I have thoroughly enjoyed myself while helping those in need and I would encourage other members to do the same.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr Ferguson: I want to applaud the Premier's decision to keep the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and the Minister of Northern Development in the Ontario cabinet. Accepting their resignations will not serve any useful purpose.
The two ministers admit they broke the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines, but that is not the only issue here. Violence against women and children is everywhere. For years victims have gone unheard. People suffered silently and the abuse continued. For years activists like the minister responsible for women's issues and the Minister of Northern Development have fought to give these people a voice and today they are speaking out against this injustice.
Clearly errors of judgement were made by the ministers but they acted from a deeply-felt concern for the welfare of women and children. They did not act for personal gain or profit and they were willing to resign for their actions. Their errors did not warrant the loss of job. The Premier's decision is the right decision.
In opposition this party fought for pay equity, more women's shelters and better programs to combat sexual assault. As a government, these two individuals have defended women's interests and are giving real substance to these goals. The record number of women in our cabinet also demonstrates the commitment of the NDP to equality for women in Ontario. Ontario cannot afford to lose the dedication or the energy or the compassion of the minister responsible for women's issues or the Minister of Northern Development.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr Offer: I would like to comment on the continuing failure of the NDP government to tackle the issue of job loss in Ontario. On Friday, Stillmeadow Farms chicken processing plants closed in Elora, throwing another 150 people out of work and into this recession.
The latest Statistics Canada report indicates that while Canada is starting to pull out of the recession, Ontario is being left behind. Across Canada there were 31,000 fewer jobless in May while in Ontario there were 12,000 more in the first month after the NDP budget. The NDP attempt to spend its way out of the recession with a $10-billion deficit has backfired and in fact Ontario is spending its way back into a recession.
What is the Premier's answer to the loss of jobs that is devastating the province? More punitive ill-conceived policies and an attitude which best displayed itself in an interview with Emilia Casella of the Hamilton Spectator. The Premier was asked, "Are you optimistic you can bring some of those jobs back?" The Premier replied, "The question there really is, what more can we do to give a sense of pride and a sense of patriotism to industry?"
Jobs are leaving the province because of the NDP policies of heavy debt, heavy taxes and heavy-handedness. But the Premier seems to think it is because industry is not patriotic enough. How many jobs does the Premier plan on creating with this new sense of pride and patriotism? Or is the question, how many more jobs can the province afford to lose as a result of the Premier's policies?
MISS VICKIE'S POTATO CHIPS
Mr J. Wilson: I rise to inform the House of yet more steps the NDP government is taking to drive jobs out of the province. Last week, this government refused Miss Vickie's potato chips the right to buy Ontario potatoes. Miss Vickie's is a popular Ontario company that has become so successful that it has plants in Quebec and British Columbia. In my riding of Simcoe West, Miss Vickie's employs some 100 people and uses over six million pounds of potatoes annually.
The NDP government now says that Miss Vickie's will no longer buy Ontario potatoes but must import from Florida and the Carolinas. Ironically, Vickie's plant in Quebec can purchase all the Ontario potatoes it wants, but here in NDP Ontario Vickie Kerr is breaking the law if she buys potatoes grown by her own husband.
Bureaucracy and red tape have reached unbelievable levels here in Ontario. The previous government and now the NDP have created rules that can only be met by multinational processors. Smaller processors such as Miss Vickie's and Randy Guzar in Hamilton are being forced out of business by this government's policies.
As a resident of Ontario, Vickie Kerr wants to buy Ontario potatoes whenever possible. An inflexible government bureaucracy will not let her. One hundred jobs and a successful business in Simcoe county are at stake. It is time for the government to take some overdue steps to allow Miss Vickie's to buy Ontario.
1340
PELHAM HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Mr Hansen: I would like to inform the House that the Pelham Historical Society Resource Centre in Lincoln riding, located at 495 Canboro Road in Fenwick, is open to the public this summer, weekdays from 1 to 4 pm.
Members of the public are encouraged to take advantage of this valuable source of local history. Materials include municipal records, maps, photographs and artefacts. Many people enjoy using the fairly extensive geographical file in order to trace the history of their ancestors in Pelham. The society also invites the public to come in and see its exhibit of a working telephone switchboard from 1900.
The society has acquired letters written by Henry Giles who came to Fonthill in 1840. One letter even suggests that it was Giles himself who proposed the name Fonthill. Thanks to the generous donation of Leo Giles, these letters will be published by the society and visitors to the resource centre will be able to get an accurate account of what it would be like to live in Pelham in the early 1900s.
In addition to the resource centre, I would suggest that visitors take the opportunity to visit our local wineries which are second to none in the world. There are many attractions in the area, including the Jordan Historical Museum, which offers the opportunity to step back into the past and experience a bit of history. The many attractions, coupled with the natural beauty of the Niagara Escarpment, provide for a wonderful experience in our area of Lincoln.
TOURISM INDUSTRY
Mr H. O'Neil: The warm weather is now upon us as we enter the beginning of Ontario's busiest tourist season. This should be a prosperous time for our tourist operators who look forward to receiving visitors from all over the world who come to see what Ontario has to offer in the way of its vast park system, clean lakes and rivers and our cosmopolitan cities and small towns.
Tourist operators in Ontario, however, are suffering from a government that seems determined to put them out of business. This year's NDP budget only brought tax hikes on alcohol, gasoline, cigarettes and small businesses. These tax hikes only serve to reduce the competitiveness of our tourist operators. The budget did not address the concerns of our border communities whose hotels, restaurants and retailers are losing business at an unprecedented rate to the United States.
The new Sunday shopping legislation has also added another level of bureaucracy and cumbersome criteria that tourist operators have to meet in order to be able to open on Sundays. Last week, during the budget hearings that we held around the province, I was told by one of the large tourist operators that his business from the United States has dropped from approximately 47% down to 3%.
There is still time for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to get after the Premier and the Treasurer and to jump-start that tourism business and bring some of these people in from the United States to a business that needs help.
SEXUAL ABUSE
Mr Eves: A number of weeks ago I made a statement in the Legislature commending the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for unanimously endorsing the recommendations of the task force report which proclaimed an absolute intolerance for sexual abuse of patients by doctors.
Most important was the recommendation that stated the college adopt the philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse by doctors and then change many college procedures and policies to be more effective and sensitive to such abuse. I have also previously stated that the recommendation that changes in the legal and legislative systems to correct the bias against sexual abuse victims be adopted.
This afternoon I will be introducing a private member's bill that will address this very issue. As the college recommended in its report, I am today introducing amendments to the Health Disciplines Act to provide that where a member is guilty of professional misconduct constituting sexual abuse, the act be changed to empower the discipline committee to (a) revoke the licence of the member and withdraw any recognition of specialist status; (b) prohibit reapplication for a licence, and (c) impose a fine.
I think it is about time we moved in this very important area.
MARION MCGEE
Mr Fletcher: Today I would like to recognize Marion McGee, one of my Guelph constituents. Marion has won the International Single Parent of the Year award. This award is given by the organization Parents Without Partners. It recognizes individuals like Marion who have excelled in their involvement with their families, communities and professional life.
Marion, who is seated in the members' gallery, was chosen for this honour from parents across Canada and the United States. She has long been recognized in Guelph for her activities. She has raised two children, taught elementary school for 23 years and has worked tirelessly for a number of organizations. She is past-president of the Wellington County Women Teacher's Association and she has also served on a number of committees and boards, including the University of Guelph Alumni Association and Harcourt Memorial United Church.
I first met Marion on the opposite side of a bargaining table. After serving as a negotiator for my own union and as labour council president, I found myself sitting as a school board trustee and negotiating against Marion, who was representing her fellow teachers. I learned to admire her fair and evenhanded approach to things and we became friends. In fact, I thank Marion, who is a member of our provincial riding association, for nominating me to run in the last election.
Marion has many friends and colleagues who know her to be a dedicated and also warm and caring person who is always ready to do more than her fair share and who rarely has a negative word to say. Marion has finished a year's sabbatical and she becomes a teacher again in September at Brant Avenue Public School.
I extend congratulations to Marion for the recognition she has won. It is well deserved and long overdue.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ÉQUITÉ D'EMPLOI
Hon Ms Lankin: This government is committed to full equality in the workplace. We are also committed to making the Ontario public service a model workplace, one where there is fairness, access and full participation for all employees.
Yet today there are groups of people in this province who are under-represented in the OPS as a whole and within certain job categories as a result of barriers in recruitment, training and promotion. These groups are aboriginal people, francophones, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women.
We have listened to the concerns of these groups. Their criticisms are borne out by the results of the employment equity program to date. Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities are seriously under-represented in the ranks of the OPS; francophones still encounter workplace discrimination; racial minorities are still scarce in executive ranks, while women remain clustered in lower paying occupations.
These people have made little headway in the OPS despite the fact that an employment equity program has been in place since 1987. This is because several key components and the funding necessary to achieve employment equity were missing.
We will dedicate $10.9 million this year to accelerate the employment equity program for the Ontario public service. This will allow us to (1) supply resources and support mechanisms to ministries to ensure policies are implemented; (2) introduce accountability measures for achieving results, and (3) receive direct input from those most affected, both inside the OPS and outside it.
As part of this activity two major programs will be announced in detail later this year. Workplace discrimination and harassment prevention, as well as accommodation in employment for persons with disabilities are important vehicles for securing barrier-free working environments.
To identify barriers to employment equity and reform hiring and promotion practices, each ministry will be required to involve its employees in a review of its employment systems.
Guidelines are being drawn up that will clarify when direct intervention in hiring and promotion is necessary.
Nous serons ainsi en mesure d'atteindre les objectifs de l'équité d'emploi. Ceci est particulièrement important pour nous permettre de réaliser des changements importants au niveau des cadres supérieurs de la fonction publique de l'Ontario.
Nous aiderons les chefs de service et le personnel de la fonction publique à promouvoir et à réaliser l'équité d'emploi en élargissant les programmes de sensibilisation et de formation dans ce domaine. La formation sera de nature pratique et particulière, et elle visera principalement à modifier les pratiques qui auront été identifiées dans le cadre de l'examen des politiques d'embauche.
1350
In addition, to ensure the success of these measures, we are clearly defining management and ministry accountability. Employment equity principles will be built into all management decisions, and managers will be responsible for achieving employment equity results. We will openly report all the results.
In the summer of 1992 we will issue the first public report on the Ontario public service employment equity program. It will document the progress of the program, both centrally and by ministry. The public will be able to monitor and measure our success.
To get the job done, we need the help and knowledge of many others. Work has been done with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and OPS employees from the designated groups. We are making a commitment to strengthen these ties and are forging partnerships that will provide us with the insight and feedback we need to make the program successful. These partnerships will include external community organizations representing the interests of the designated groups.
The OPS, as an employer of 90,000, has an obligation to lead the way in employment equity policies and programs. The government intends employment equity to extend to the private sector. As members know, my colleague the Minister of Citizenship will be bringing forward -- after consultation -- legislation for all sectors in the province.
Our experience and expertise will serve as a role model and resource for other employers. For example, we can share the outreach recruitment directory, employee tracking systems and processes for undertaking employment systems reviews.
We believe employment equity is not just a matter of social justice, but one of good business. If Ontario is to remain competitive, it cannot afford to exclude or underutilize segments of its labour force.
By embracing these measures, the government of Ontario is investing in this province's greatest resource, its people.
SKILLS TRAINING
Hon Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to announce details about funding of $10.5 million for programs to assist laid-off workers to upgrade their basic skills. This funding is part of the $25 million that was previously announced by my colleague the Minister of Labour and is in addition to the Ontario basic skills funds announced last week.
It is important to look beyond recessionary times. We must be creative in helping workers to plan for new jobs. We must foster a society in which economic change signals new opportunities for people and their communities.
This funding is intended to enhance existing ministry programs in providing services to workers in areas where there have been plant closures and layoffs. There are four program areas which will receive additional funding to assist laid-off workers.
First, $4.4 million will be provided to adult basic education programs. These programs improve workers' chances of finding jobs or preparing for further education or skills training by providing basic skills training through local school boards.
Second, literacy and basic skills training programs will receive $4.8 million. This training is provided by colleges of applied arts and technology and local community groups. Training assists workers to upgrade communication, reading, writing, basic numeracy, science and basic computer skills.
Third, counselling and vocational assessment services will receive $1 million. These services are available for the 15-to-24-year-old age group through the youth employment counselling centres.
Fourth, the independent learning centre will receive $0.3 million. The centre offers distance education courses for adults who want to upgrade their basic skills and/or to complete high school.
Workers will receive information about these programs through their local labour adjustment committees. Labour adjustment committees have been set up in firms faced with layoff or closure. These committees consist of representatives from labour, management and government. They are responsible for ensuring that laid-off workers receive the vocational counselling and access to academic upgrading they need to help them find new jobs.
Our goal is to ensure that the people of the province have the education and training necessary to maintain their standard and quality of life. I am pleased to be a part of the movement's comprehensive plan to assist laid-off workers.
ELLIOT LAKE ASSISTANCE / PROGRAMME D'AIDE POUR LA RÉGION D'ELLIOT LAKE
Hon Miss Martel: For some time I have told this House that Ontario Hydro has a clear obligation to Elliot Lake and the communities of the North Shore. After consultation with the provincial government, Hydro has delivered on its promise.
This morning my colleague the Minister of Natural and minister Resources responsible for native affairs; Marc Eliesen, chair of Ontario Hydro, and myself were in Elliot Lake. I am pleased to say that we were joined by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and the federal member of Parliament for Algoma. On behalf of the government I announced a comprehensive adjustment and diversification package for Elliot Lake and area communities.
For years the Elliot Lake area has been dependent on a single resource -- uranium -- and that dependence has led to the kind of economic instability which is all too common in northern Ontario. During the last number of months in particular, residents of Elliot Lake and the North Shore have experienced even more uncertainty regarding their future while negotiations with Denison, Rio Algom and Hydro were under way.
Le gouvernement est parfaitement conscient des difficultés qu'ont causées ces mois d'incertitude. Malheureusement, nous avons dû attendre la fin des négociations confidentielles entre Ontario Hydro et les compagnies d'exploitation d'uranium pour établir les détails de notre programme d'aide.
En tant que dernier acheteur de l'uranium extrait des mines d'Elliot Lake, et compte tenu de son rôle important dans la croissance et le développement économique des collectivités minières de la région, Ontario Hydro doit assumer les responsabilites qui lui sont propres à l'égard des collectivités de la rive nord. Hydro aidera cette région à s'adapter aux nouveaux liens contractuels qui existent entre elle et les compagnies minières de l'endroit, Denison Mines et Rio Algom Ltd.
I have said in this House before, and I would like to repeat it again, that a renewal of the Elliot Lake uranium contracts would force Ontario Hydro to pay a premium of about $1.4 billion over the next decade. That is the equivalent of a subsidy of about $113,000 per year for every mining job. The province felt that this expenditure could not continue.
Therefore, in consultation with the provincial government, Ontario Hydro is winding down its extremely expensive Elliot Lake contracts. This was a tough decision, but one which makes good sense for the province's electricity ratepayers. It also makes good sense for the long-term viability of North Shore communities. Hydro will help fund their transition from a precarious dependence on uranium to a more diverse and dynamic economy.
I am pleased to announce the creation of a $250-million adjustment and diversification package targeted to that goal.
Le programme économique que nous avons présenté ce matin à Elliot Lake est le fruit de la collaboration des ministères du Developpement du Nord et des Mines, de l'Énergie et des Richesses naturelles et d'Ontario Hydro en consultation avec les collectivités de la rive nord, dont Elliot Lake, Blind River, la première nation Serpent River ainsi que les cantons de Shedden et de North Shore.
In order to meet community needs for short-term adjustment and long-term diversification, Ontario Hydro will contribute $65 million to the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. This money will be held in trust for North Shore communities. The heritage fund, of which I am chair, will oversee the allocation of these funds.
I would like to point out that a portion of this funding has already been allocated; $9.6 million will be set aside for short-term job creation. These jobs are directed at miners laid off last fall.
Another $8 million to $10 million will be used to reduce the municipal debts of Elliot Lake and Blind River. This will give these communities the fiscal stability they need to take advantage of future development opportunities.
After consultation with regional representatives, the remaining funds have been directed to a number of important initiatives which include (1) a major business development fund to help stabilize and expand local businesses and attract new ones; (2) support for essential community services and social programs, and (3) assistance to offset municipal costs that may arise as communities make the transition away from uranium dependence.
Les collectivités de la rive nord nous ont indiqué clairement qu'elles avaient besoin de temps pour s'adapter à tous ces changements. Elles ont besoin d'emplois sûrs dans le secteur minier pendant qu'elles diversifient leur économie et créent de nouveaux emplois.
We have listened to the communities and responded. Ontario Hydro will continue to purchase uranium from Rio Algom until 1996. The revised contract with Rio Algom, finished just last week, will create approximately 75 new jobs. That means there will be up to nearly 600 mining jobs at the Stanleigh mine for almost six years. This will give the North Shore the breathing space that it requires to diversify. This new agreement will cost Ontario Hydro an estimated $160 million in premiums over and above current market prices.
1400
Our provincial utility has also earmarked $25 million for a number of energy initiatives in Elliot Lake and area. These include a local energy efficiency program, developing co-generation potential and accelerating consultation and environmental planning with a view to development of hydraulic potential in the Patten Post area on the Mississagi River. After consultation with the province, Hydro has also agreed to accelerate its discussions with first nations and other local groups about the planning process that could lead to this development in the Patten Post area. The development of hydraulic potential in this area could involve $300 million or more in additional economic activity in the region. Ideally, construction could begin in 1994 pending completion, review and approval of an environmental assessment.
Discussions with affected aboriginal communities will be carried out within the political framework of the government's new statement of political relationship with the first nations.
Avant que ne soit décidée la réalisation de ce projet, Ontario Hydro et le gouvernement se sont engagés à prendre l'avis des autochtones concernés. Toutes les questions seront analysées et résolues à la lumière des retombées eventuelles de ce projet.
J'aimerais aborder brièvement le processus de consultation qui nous a permis d'offrir l'ensemble de mesures d'aide auquel je faisais allusion plus tôt. Au début d'avril, le groupe de travail d'Elliot Lake et des environs a été créé. Ce comité est formé de représentants des collectivités locales concernées, des premières nations, des Métallurgistes unis d'Amérique, du Conseil du travail, du monde de l'enseignement, du monde des affaires et du gouvernement.
Within six weeks, the working group put together a thoughtful and impressive submission of proposals and priorities. This was used as a guide for the package I have described. The Elliot Lake and Area Working Group will continue to play a significant role in the implementation of the adjustment and diversification package.
I have touched on the efforts of the provincial government and Hydro to assist the North Shore communities at this crucial point. But the provincial government, Hydro and the working group cannot do it alone. We need the co-operation of the federal government if these communities are to have access to all the support programs they require.
Therefore, I have written a letter to the Honourable Tom Hockin, Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and the federal minister responsible for northern Ontario and a letter to the Honourable Jake Epp, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have stated that Ottawa has an obligation to participate as a full and active partner as North Shore communities strive to diversify their economies and take advantage of opportunities now before them.
In particular, this government will be pressing the federal government to accelerate the process of proper mine decommissioning at Elliot Lake. This will meet the goals of environmental protection while preserving jobs for local workers. The Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada is responsible for ensuring timely and effective decommissioning at those uranium mines which have closed. The AECB must also ensure that the mining companies have provided financial guarantees where required to cover the cost of mine decommissioning at Elliot Lake.
I would like to say a word about the miners of Elliot Lake and their union, the United Steelworkers of America. They have borne the brunt of job losses in the mines and have had to deal with uncertainty for far too long. They are showing great resilience as they work with their North Shore neighbours to build a viable community for their future.
J'espère que l'initiative que nous prenons aujourd'hui contribuera à transformer les collectivités de la rive nord en des collectivités fortes, saines et dynamiques. Nous continuerons de collaborer avec elles afin d'assurer leur prospérité et le maintien de leur croissance.
RESPONSES
ELLIOT LAKE ASSISTANCE
Mr Brown: I am responding to the statement by the Minister of Northem Development in my capacity as her critic and also as the member for the constituency of Algoma-Manitoulin representing Elliot Lake and the North Shore. The first thing I am compelled to point out is that this is not the minister's promise. She promised quite clearly on a number of occasions that she would purchase 100% of Ontario Hydro's requirement from Elliot Lake, and this is not it. Therefore we are not very happy.
Second, I am compelled to point out that the minister came to Elliot Lake and announced the last 700 miners are being laid off, and that is what this is about.
Third, the minister or Hydro has decided -- and I am surprised the Minister of Energy did not make this announcement, because it is all Hydro's money -- Ontario Hydro is providing $250 million for this. We are happy about that, but we are not happy that the government seems to think the crown corporation can carry the load for all of what is going on in Elliot Lake. I think we know the provincial governments were involved in the decisions taken in Elliot Lake over time and that the provincial government is responsible for what is going on. We are looking forward to the creation of some new permanent jobs. There is not one word in here about new permanent jobs.
Fourth, we are concerned about public policy. We are concerned about how the minister decides which Hydro projects are taken out. Which ones come out? As the minister knows, there are a number of Hydro projects in the 25-year plan along the North Shore and she has chosen one. We are interested to know how the minister chose that one and why not some of the other ones. Those are questions we will be pursuing because we think there is far more opportunity for employment along the North Shore than the minister has given us.
SKILLS TRAINING
Mrs McLeod: We can appreciate the programs that have been announced today by the Minister of Education and the kinds of benefits that those programs will bring to laid-off workers, but we continue to be concerned about the fact that we see piecemeal announcements coming from the government about this very critical issue.
We are continuing to look for what we would expect to be a comprehensive and integrated plan to respond to the needs of laid-off workers, the kind of plan that would see a co-ordination of the efforts across a number of ministries and that would also bring about an integration of the resources that are available in communities to provide the kinds of programs that are needed.
We also continue to express our hope that this government is going to begin to anticipate the need for labour market adjustment programs before the crisis of layoff actually occurs. As well, we address the fact that this is $9 million in training programs for laid-off workers of the total $25-million labour market adjustment originally announced by the Minister of Labour. We questioned at the time how much of that money would actually be going to direct programs and services for laid-off workers. We think a very large amount of that money has gone to create bureaucracies and set up new committees without there being direct programs of immediate benefit to laid-off workers.
Finally, we express a concern that following an announcement in January, we have waited a further six months for the announcement of some of the specific programs that would be put in place. We feel that is a very long time for laid-off workers in a crisis situation to have to wait for the programs to actually be provided.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr Elston: I rise to reply to the statement by the Chairman of Management Board. Although the announcement was made today, one may very well take notice of the words that were used. It says, "Each ministry will be required"...there will be a "review" of "employment systems...guidelines are being drawn up...employment equity principles will be built into all management...managers will be responsible...we will openly report."
All of these things are so much in the future that it lets one believe they were rushed to make an announcement today. Although they put a number beside the money being allocated to it, it has not really provided us with the material we need to understand how they are going to put these things together. These people have tried to tell us they are going to be developing new guidelines, and every time this government talks about developing guidelines and clarifications we over here shudder.
1410
SKILLS TRAINING
Mrs Cunningham: I am responding to the statement from the Minister of Education. I will start by saying that when I saw this statement, I thought it was the same one that was given last week. In looking at it, though, if one really reads it carefully, one will find that there are other programs, all of which we support and expect to happen. I have to say it is pretty hard to keep up with this govemment. There is a very scattered approach delivering these kinds of programs.
I take this opportunity to say that I had hoped today we finally would have an announcement on skills and apprenticeship training. We are looking for a change in ratios and a change in wages for apprenticeships, and we are looking for a co-ordination with the school system.
Young people in this gallery right now would love to work with their hands. They would love to have opportunities to do more technical education programs. They would love to know they are being trained for a job for tomorrow and today as well. They would love to know there are jobs out there for them at all.
All I can say is I am looking for the big announcements. I have been sitting around here for almost a year right now and nothing has changed.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr Tilson: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Chairman of Management Board. It is certainly admirable to try to remedy the discrimination and harassment against minority groups and others in the government, but I hope this is not the start of the quota system we have been hearing so much about that is coming from the government.
We should not be trying to take away the initiative to do better, make a profit or improve or to take away excellence. These are the values our province is built on. The province should not be developing hiring policies based on the quota system, which is what I believe this government is moving towards.
To qualify for a committee or anything else this government sets forward, it depends on what minority one is a member of. The women are asked to become judges not because of their excellence in law, but because they are women.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Tilson: The whole issue of excellence is out the window. Policies are now in existence where it does not matter whether one is qualified, but whether one is of a particular minority group. There are even situations where women are discriminated against, and that is in this government. The Minister of Correctional Services is a specific example.
These policies are doing away with excellence and are insulting to the minority groups of this province. We hope this province stays away from discrimination and develops policies opposing discrimination and harassment, but we hope it hires those people who are the best qualified.
ELLIOT LAKE ASSISTANCE
Mr Eves: Just briefly in response to the statement the Minister of Northern Development made today about Elliot Lake and other communities on the North Shore, it would appear that Ontario Hydro's mandate is changing daily in this Legislature. Ontario Hydro is now going to do what the government should be doing with respect to solving social problems in northern Ontario. I have a couple of questions about where the money is coming from. Are we increasing the rate base of Ontario Hydro across the province? If so, by how much and over how many years?
I find it strange that the Minister of Energy in the same government is considering a moratorium on nuclear energy, and yet the Minister of Northern Development is standing up to call for a continued purchase of uranium at the same time. Does anybody know what they are doing over there? Do they talk to each other? Do they have any game plan as to what they are supposed to be doing?
I also note that Ontario Hydro's commitment to the northern Ontario heritage fund now appears to be somewhat larger than that of the government itself. It is larger than the Ministry of Northern Development's commitment to the northern heritage fund. I find that somewhat passing strange, to say the least.
I do not know why the government just does not accept its responsibilities and get on with governing the province instead of finding ways after the fact, scurrying around and, in this case, having an Ontario crown agency trying to do the work the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Northern Development should be doing themselves.
VISITOR
The Speaker: Before continuing, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon Mavis Wilson, the former member for Dufferin-Peel.
ORAL QUESTIONS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr Nixon: With the examples of political leadership from last Thursday still dazzling the House and the people of the province, I would like to point out to the Premier the undoubted fact that the responsibility for the oversight of his cabinet colleagues still lies totally with himself. Can he point out to the House what response he has entered into, not just on the basis of the resignation of the two ministers that he rejected last Thursday, but with the realization that eight specific ministers in the last six months have stepped over the bounds and guidelines of the conflicts of interest he himself has established? What is he going to do specifically to see that this situation, which must be embarrassing to him and must undermine the confidence in which his government is held, is stopped?
Hon Mr Rae: Ultimately the people will decide the confidence they have in our government, but it seems to me worth our reflecting for a moment on one simple fact, and it is brought home by the exchange we had last Thursday, in terms of the particular civility of that exchange.
I want to just emphasize again with respect to the two ministers the Leader of the Opposition referred to, whose resignations I, on reflection, decided not to accept, that there was no allegation of any kind of any personal benefit or gain by them. There was no allegation with respect to any advancing of any private interest by them. All they were trying to do was to put forward and to protect the public interest. That is the essence of what took place in that situation.
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, when he says, what is it that I now propose to do, I have made it very clear what I propose to do; it is what has been there for some time. I have asked the standing committee to give us its advice with respect to changes in the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and I look forward to receiving that advice.
Mr Nixon: The Premier, as usual, is answering a question which was not asked. He has attempted to justify the actions taken by his two ministers, in spite of the fact that his original decision was to accept at least one of the resignations. I suggest there is no question that the guidelines were broken.
In attempting to assist both these ministers and others who may be tempted to follow their example, is he undertaking to give them some special instruction; is he, on the other hand, informing the deputy ministers he expects them to advise the ministers on any possibility that they may see fit to contact any judicial or quasi-judicial body; and can he assure the House that these ministers were not so advised by any of their officials or anyone in the Cabinet Office before they took the action which resulted in their resignations?
Hon Mr Rae: I think it is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to know that the two members in question have taken responsibility for what has taken place and I, as well, have taken responsibility for exercising judgement, which I may say I exercised after being asked to do so by the Leader of the Opposition in the exchange that took place last week.
The purpose of any guidelines or of any law in this area is to protect the public. I am satisfied that what motivated the ministers entirely in this instance was the protection of the public interest with respect to a particular situation in North Bay.
Mr Nixon: I just want to reiterate for the benefit of the Premier, who does not seem to listen to the question, that there is no question that the guidelines were broken or transgressed. This is the eighth instance that it has happened in six months. The original question was, what is he going to do about it, and he fails to answer that in his attempt to shift the blame to me for what is apparently his own inability to make an appropriate decision, which is precisely what he just did.
I would like to ask the Premier why he and his colleagues, I would say, including the present government House leader, were so positive when they were in opposition what the appropriate actions were for cabinet ministers, when now that they have the responsibility, they are unsure: so unsure that the Premier cannot educate his colleagues as to what their responsibilities are; so unsure that he fails to instruct the deputy ministers or, according to his answer, the political advisers to these ministers that they cannot assist them. What is the answer, other than for the Premier to bluster after his cabinet ministers have been shown and seen to break the guidelines which he himself established with so much fanfare and pride?
Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me make it clear that although the Leader of the Opposition may have found my answer blustery and he may have thought I was trying to somehow ascribe responsibility to him, that is not at all true. First of all, let me make it very clear that I take full responsibility as first minister for my decision on Thursday, after being asked to reconsider by the Leader of the Opposition --
1420
Mr Nixon: Which decision?
Hon Mr Rae: -- after being asked to reconsider by him, if I may be allowed to proceed, if I may be allowed to answer. I take responsibility for that.
I do not pretend that these matters are easy. I do not pretend that these decisions are instant. It was a moment last week when, during the course of the day, given the seriousness of the situation which the ministers were trying to respond to with respect to convictions against a doctor on four counts of sexual assault, with respect to their concern for the protection of the public and with respect to their motivation in that regard, I decided, on balance and on much reflection, that since there was no attempt by them to advance their own interest or any private interest on their part, one had to look at all those circumstances in exercising a judgement. That is exactly what I did in exercising my judgement as Premier.
Mr Scott: I suppose the good news is that the Premier can bounce from penitent Premier on Thursday to his regular holier-than-thou status in little short of a weekend.
Everybody in the House admires the step these two ministers took. We think they were forthright and honourable and we have no questions to ask of them. What we have are questions to ask about the process in the Premier's mind and in his office.
He told us on Thursday that he met with the minister for women's issues for half to three quarters of an hour, discussing the matter with her. He elected to accept her resignation. Her printed statement indicated that he had accepted her resignation and he told the House he had accepted her resignation. Would the Premier now tell us what he regarded as sufficiently serious that he would, by 1:30 on that day, accept the minister's resignation?
Hon Mr Rae: I had a chance on Thursday morning to speak relatively briefly with the minister and to go over with her the circumstances, of which I was entirely unaware until that morning. I then came into the House, and I scarcely had had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister of Northern Development and we did not in fact have an opportunity to discuss that. Then we had the exchange in the House.
The member for St George-St David talks about the change in the House. I would say to the member for St George-St David that for a brief moment there was a time when the Leader of the Opposition and I were able to have an exchange that dealt with the substance of a matter and that was not overly tainted by the obscurities and rhetoric of partisan politics. That was a unique moment in this House.
In good faith, the Leader of the Opposition asked me, and I am quoting from Hansard: "Would he consider reconsidering his acceptance of the resignation of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues? I think there is a clear understanding of what has happened here."
The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.
Hon Mr Rae: In good faith, that is what I did. I discussed the matter carefully with both ministers, and on reflection I decided that their apology to the House was full and complete, that there was an understanding in the House as to the seriousness --
The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.
Hon Mr Rae: -- of the issue they were attempting to deal with, and it was on that basis that I decided I would not accept their resignations.
Mr Scott: This Premier cannot talk straight to the Ontario people. The question is, what was it before 1:30 that he regarded as so serious that he should accept the resignation? I am not making any criticism of the ministers. Then the supplementary question is, what was it that happened, what facts came to his attention or considerations were brought to bear between his decision to accept the resignation at 1:30 and his decision not to accept it at 5:30? What was it in the facts or in the mix that changed?
The reason we want answers to that question is not because of the ministers, but because the Premier's ability to make a sensible judgement one way or the other is clearly at stake.
Hon Mr Rae: It is hard in the time allotted to answer fully, but let me just try to say to the member for St George-St David that if I had to point to one factor which led to my making up my mind as I did, in addition to the point that was made to me and the point that was put forward to me by the Leader of the Opposition, I would have to say it was the circumstances surrounding the fact that a physician was convicted of four counts of sexual assault in the community of North Bay. I had an opportunity through the day to reflect more seriously on that question. One can argue about the appropriateness of the way in which the ministers responded, but the fact is that this is a serious question, this is a serious issue and it is not surprising that ministers as human beings would respond to that kind of situation when confronted with it and when asked to do so by their constituents.
If I had to point to one factor alone which pointed me in the direction I took, that is the factor, the fact of the seriousness of the circumstances in North Bay, and the fact that we are dealing with children, with vulnerable people and that there was an attempt in this case to advance the public interest and not to advance any private interest at all in this circumstance.
Mr Scott: The major concern that commentators both in and outside the House have to this is the sense that, for better or for worse, he may have made the wrong decision, but the Premier made a principle decision at 1:30. Then, when he found he could make another decision with impunity, he strove to make it by 5:30, as he promptly did. We are glad he did, but what we are concerned about is the ability of the capacity of our Premier to decide.
In May 1989 a mother of four and a grandmother of many was awakened at her summer cottage in the middle of the night. She heard from a distraught young female teenager that a young man had been arrested and was being held by the OPP and being assaulted. That grandmother got dressed in the middle of the night and went down to a police station for four minutes, at which time she asked if the boy was being treated properly and was told yes.
Here is what the Premier-in-waiting had to say on 25 May: "I don't want any investigations. The critical question is the judgement of the Premier. If that isn't improper, I must be living in a different province. I want her out."
I want to ask the Premier if he ever, in the privacy of his own room, has any nagging doubts about the wisdom of that judgement, or does he have a rationalization to offer us about that one too?
Hon Mr Rae: I can only refer to the circumstances which I was confronted with on Thursday. The member for St George-St David seems to think that if someone is asked by the Leader of the Opposition, who is the dean of this place, to reconsider, somehow it is a sign of weakness or of indecision to do so. I make no apology for the fact that I found this a difficult decision to make, that it was a difficult moment for me on Thursday. I make no apologies for that. I think, on balance, I made the right decision on Thursday. I tried to exercise some compassion and some judgement. The issue before me as Premier is what to do with respect to these two ministers, and that is the question I resolved on Thursday.
1430
Mr Harris: My question as well is to the Premier. Last Thursday this government saw its eighth controversy in nine months. The most recent blunder involved three players. Two of those players have admitted they made a mistake; two of those players have taken responsibility for their actions; two of those players have apologized to the people of this province. Two of those players have done the honourable thing. The third player in this latest chapter of the Bob Rae soap opera has not apologized; he has not admitted he made a mistake.
In this whole area of conflict in ministerial guidelines, when is the Premier going to stand up, apologize and admit it is his inconsistency, his inability to explain the guidelines, to explain the importance of the guidelines, let alone the substance of them, that has been the real problem?
Has the Premier considered resigning, or at least accepting responsibility for minister after minister after minister treating the guidelines like that?
Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the advice of the leader of the third party. I would tell him it is my intention to stick around as long as the people of Ontario will have me. I say to him that I have exercised my judgement. I have found in discussing this with people and in listening to people over the last few days there are some people who disagree with me and there are many who agree with me, and that is the judgement I have to exercise. There is no question that the buck stops with me and the consequences for taking the decision rest with me and with me alone.
Mr Harris: I did not hear an apology in there, but let me bring forth something else. When the member for Victoria-Haliburton broke the law, the judge said this, "Here is a person who, as an elected member of our provincial Parliament, displays very little respect or recognition for the rule of law, which is the very foundation of the system which elected him." That is what the judge said at that time. What did the Premier say? The Premier said, "I am proud of him." The Premier said, "I am proud of the cause that he was fighting for and as long as it's a cause I believe in, or one that he was fighting for, or one that he believed in." The Premier condoned that action.
The Premier sent out at that time a very clear message to his caucus and to his cabinet: "If it's a cause Bob Rae believes in, if you act with good intentions, then it's okay with me. You can break the law, you can break the guidelines, you can do whatever the hell you want." Does he not understand that the way he has handled these cases beginning with the member for Victoria-Haliburton, with caucus member, with minister after minister, it is his interpretation of the guidelines that is the problem here, not his cabinet ministers.
Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the leader of the third party that when he looks at the circumstances surrounding the two ministers I had to deal with on Thursday, and having a chance to consider it through the day; when he considers the fact that there was a great deal of concern in the community expressed to the two ministers as well as to many others -- I find it is a question there of judgement involving trying to put forward the public interest and doing it in a way that perhaps was something that could be criticized.
For heaven's sake, the purpose of conflict guidelines is to prevent people from taking private advantage of a situation. There is no private advantage here. There is no private advantage involving the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. There is no private advantage involving the Minister for Northern Development. There is no benefit to them at all. There is a cry of anguish on behalf of families who have asked them to intervene because they are being asked to go to a doctor they do not want to have to go to. That is what we are looking at.
Interjections.
Mr Harris: The Premier does not seem to understand. There are guidelines governing conflict and there is the rule of law. Then there are codes of conduct of which we are talking about in these cases -- the rule of law and the codes of conduct, not conflict for personal gain.
In the Premier's throne speech seven months ago, he said:
"My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. We will set clear standards of behaviour for the conduct of ministers, members of the Legislature and senior government officials."
When the Premier brought the guidelines in, he said: "We must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny, but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of the government."
Does the Premier honestly believe his actions in how he has dealt with these 10 ministers in eight situations and the member for Victoria-Haliburton come anywhere close to living up to the rhetoric of his 10 years in opposition, to his rhetoric of the throne speech, to his rhetoric of the promise to the people, to his rhetoric of his guidelines? If not, when is he going to stand up and do the honourable thing, apologize to this House, to his cabinet, to the members of this Legislature and to the people of Ontario?
Hon Mr Rae: I can only quote back to the member, the leader of the third party, the words spoken both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Parry Sound when the member talks about integrity. It was interesting in listening to the responses on Thursday, both of them made it very clear that there was no question -- and I am surprised the member would even raise it in this context -- of the integrity of the ministers involved and if I may say so --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Rae: Let it be on the record, Mr Speaker, the member for St George-St David said it is my integrity which is in question. I want to say to the House --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please. I realize this is a very contentious issue. There are two things which would be very helpful: first, if members would attempt to give each other an opportunity to be heard and, second, if those who are addressing questions and responses would address the Chair. That would be very helpful.
Mr Harris: I have a new question. The Premier may want to answer about how the fruit trees are growing in Florida, which has as much relevance as his answer to me and the question I asked. I am not questioning the ministers' integrity; I am applauding their integrity. It is the Premier's integrity that I am questioning; it is his integrity at stake here.
When the member for Victoria-Haliburton broke the law and went to jail, he was given a promotion. When the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations posed in a shirt and tie for a newspaper, he was turfed from cabinet. When the member for Oakwood broke a labour law, he was dumped from caucus. When the Solicitor General's office wrote to a judge, he was defended by the Premier.
Mr Drainville: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the record needs to be clear. I was not given a promotion after I was convicted and came back from jail; I had the position of Chair of the government caucus before that time and I am happy to have that position now as well.
The Speaker: If not a point of order, certainly a point of disagreement. If we would come to order, please.
1440
Mr Harris: When the Solicitor General's office wrote to a judge, he was defended. The Premier keeps changing the rules, his guidelines. I suggest to him --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I trust members do not want to shout their way through question period. A member has asked to raise a point of order, I shall hear it.
Hon Mr Farnan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: All kinds of allegations are being put forward in this statement. The member made reference to the Solicitor General's office. Nobody on the payroll of the Solicitor General, nobody in the Solicitor General's office ever wrote to a justice of the peace.
The Speaker: It would be very helpful if members who have an interest in raising points of order could do so outside of question period, and I would appreciate it if the leader of the third party could succinctly place his question.
Mr Harris: The point of all this is that the Premier seems to be, apparently is, and in many cases exactly is, changing the rules to suit the certain circumstances as he sees fit. Does he believe these guidelines, these actions of what the law is and these codes of conduct, as he has alluded to again today in the House, are subject to being interpreted on the basis of what he, the Premier, thinks is morally and politically correct? Is that what the Premier is trying to tell us?
Hon Mr Rae: What I am trying to say to the member and to the House is that I have to exercise my judgement with respect to the question of resignations being demanded of individual ministers, and that is frequently a judgement a Premier has to make. It happens all the time when people are demanding a resignation or putting it forward as something that needs to happen.
My judgement on this instance with respect to the conduct of both ministers was that, given the very serious nature of what it was -- what was the problem they were attempting to respond to? The problem was that there were four counts of sexual assault against an individual doctor, and the ministers were approached by a number of families with respect to responding, and they responded. I decided that, given all those circumstances, to demand their resignation was too much and it was quite appropriate for them to apologize fully to the House, and that in the circumstances, the admission of the mistake was in itself sufficient. That is what I decided.
Mr Harris: I know I was not here on Thursday. I did not hear anybody demand the ministers' resignation. Did anybody ask the Premier to demand their resignation? I heard the ministers ask if they could resign. That is all I have heard from anybody on this side of the House or from around this province.
I suggest the Premier is playing a game called situational ethics. He changes his principles to fit the occasion. On 6 July 1986 the Premier said this:
"If the government is not willing to enforce the guidelines, it does not matter what they are, how comprehensive they are, or how great they are -- they could have been devised by Moses and brought down from the mountaintop -- but if we do not have a Premier who is prepared to enforce the guidelines, they will not make a difference."
He is now the Premier. Since we have not seen one shred or iota of evidence that he plans to live up to that responsibility in the first nine months, can the Premier tell us today when he plans to take seriously and live up to his responsibility as Premier?
Hon Mr Rae: I hope I live up to my responsibility as Premier every day. That does involve exercising judgement in each instance.
I would make one other point to the leader of the third party. The premise behind his question is that the only way one can enforce any guideline or any law is to demand the resignation of ministers. I do not share that view at all.
With respect to the rest, I have already said I am looking forward to hearing from the standing committee with respect to how we can improve the law. That is exactly what we are waiting to hear from the committee on.
Mr Harris: I am very sorry, but the Premier keeps seeming to allege that I am calling for something, asking for something, that he has never heard. It is in his mind; he is making it up. If he is embarrassed about answering the question, he should just say so. If he does not want to answer it he should say so. But he should not make up answers to questions that are not asked.
At least 10 of the Premier's ministers that we know of have in some way misunderstood, misread or ignored and broken his guidelines, so we are not dealing with an isolated incident. Thursday was not an isolated incident. Clearly his cabinet does not understand either the substance or the importance of the guidelines.
For nearly a decade in opposition in Ottawa and at Queen's Park, the Premier has said on many occasions that he has known exactly what the ministers should do in these circumstances; he knew exactly what the Prime Minister should do; he knew exactly what the Premier should do. The Premier does not want me to take the time to quote back all those quotes. The Premier knew exactly. In fact, I would suggest to the Premier that he has had more experience with this than any other member I have ever heard of or known in the history of politics.
The Premier knew. He was the expert. He knew exactly. Now, in 10 months, we have seen example after example after example of inconsistency, of lack of understanding.
The Speaker: And the supplementary?
Mr Harris: In fact, I suggest to the Premier that we have cause to feel sorry for his cabinet because they have no idea what the guidelines are or what they mean.
The Speaker: Is there a supplementary?
Mr Harris: What has changed between that 10 years when the Premier clearly had all the answers, knew what ministers should do, knew what premiers should do, and the past 10 months, when he does not seem to have any idea what he should be doing in living up to his responsibility?
Hon Mr Rae: I was in northern Ontario for much of the weekend and in southwestern Ontario for a bit on Sunday. I must confess, I do not think the public has any difficulty understanding the nature of the decision that I had to take on Thursday. I never had a sense from talking to people that the public feels it was an easy decision. I do not feel there was any lack of integrity in the decision that was made.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.
Hon Mr Rae: It was a decision made with integrity because we are concerned as a government with ensuring that the public is protected. We are also concerned that when mistakes are made apologies are given, which is exactly what happened on Thursday with respect to the situation. I had to decide then whether I would accept or insist on the resignation of the two ministers. I decided that no further public interest would be served. All those decisions were made. They were made very publicly and, if I may say so, they were made with as much integrity as I am capable of as a human being.
TAXATION
Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Treasurer. It deals with perhaps some of the statements of the old member for York South when he was in opposition. When he was talking about taxes, he said his tax manifesto will include a very simple pledge against the GST. "We reject an amalgamated sales tax." He said that in August 1990. On 22 August 1990 he said: "We are committed to making taxes fair by saying from the beginning that we will have nothing to do with the Mulroney tax."
Now I see various reports coming forward that the Treasurer, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Revenue and the Premier are all talking about some kind of harmonization with the GST, even though they indicated so clearly before the election that they were not. The Premier said in Thunder Bay that "there is nothing coming next week." I believe it. I suspect it is coming next month, when the Legislature is not sitting.
I would like to ask the Treasurer this question, since it was reported in the Financial Post that he was considering this harmonization matter. Considering that this would mean an additional 8% provincial sales tax would be placed on haircuts, funerals and other things that are not taxed now and that it will result in a massive additional amount of revenue to the province, can he confirm or deny that the NDP government is actively considering this policy?
Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. I can make a declaration in that regard, which the member has asked me to do. I should clarify somewhat the whole issue because I think the member for St Catharines is under some kind of misapprehension. What I said, and also I believe what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said, was that the whole question of harmonization is not under active consideration by this government. That was said by me, and that was said by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology as well. So I am not sure what more assurances the member for St Catharines needs, but I am sure I shall find out.
Mr Bradley: I have concerns because I notice in the wording of the answers that are given to the news media and the wording of the answers in the House to the Leader of the Opposition and to others who have asked these questions that there seems to be an evasiveness when it gets down to talking about, not the word "harmonization," but the words "having the same tax base."
Is the Treasurer considering expanding the sales tax base of the province -- the provincial sales tax, so that it corresponds exactly with or is close to that of the federal GST?
Hon Mr Laughren: What the government did was it made a couple of decisions, one in the fall and one in the spring. In the fall we made a decision not to impose the Ontario retail sales tax on top of the existing goods and services tax. We forgave almost $500 million in revenues by doing that because we wanted that money left in the pockets of taxpayers to spend and help stimulate the economy.
This spring, when the Fair Tax Commission was launched, I wrote to the commission as part of a series of requests and asked it, in view of the fact that there is now a sales tax both federal and provincial at the retail level in the province, to look at a way in which the administration of those two taxes could be made more efficient. I think that is probably where some of the confusion comes in, because of my request to the Fair Tax Commission to look at that.
SEXUAL ABUSE
Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier on this whole issue surrounding the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and the Minister of Northern Development. Why did his government not address the crux of this issue, which was the suspension of the doctor's licence, when the issue first arose?
Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to thank the member for his question and say that I noticed today when he stood up in members' statements that he is bringing forward a private member's bill on that matter. That is obviously going to be considered by the Ministry of Health. It is something that is dealt with by the health professions legislation review.
But under the current law and under the current situation, I think the member would realize that government intervention of that kind is not, as I understand it, that easy. That is obviously something which, as a matter of public policy, will need to be discussed in this House and is something that will be discussed in this House.
Mr Eves: I would beg to differ with the Premier on that issue. As a matter of fact, under section 3 of the Health Disciplines Act, I would like to briefly read him subsection 1 and paragraph (a) headed "Duties of Minister" -- not powers of the minister; duties of the Minister of Health.
"It is the duty of the minister to ensure that the activities of health disciplines are effectively regulated and coordinated in the public interest, to have appropriate standards of practice developed and ensure that these are maintained and to ensure that the rights of individuals to the services provided by health disciplines of their choice are maintained and to these ends to,
"(a) inquire into or direct the appropriate council or councils to inquire into the state of the practice of one or more health disciplines in any locality or institution," and it goes on and on.
I would suggest to the Premier that there was more than ample authority here under section 3 of the Health Disciplines Act. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to suggest that it was the duty of the Minister of Health at the time to look into, to inquire into and to direct, as the act dictates and says. It is that minister's duty to address this situation. It would have helped everybody concerned, especially the people who were sexually abused.
Hon Mr Rae: The member will know, and I take his views very seriously because he is somebody who has considerable experience in this area and whose knowledge and whose interest I think everyone in the House takes seriously, that it has been the view of the ministry that other revisions in terms of the law to deal with this question are going to need to be looked at. That is exactly what is taking place. But I would say to the member for Parry Sound that, given that there was a criminal trial under way, there were some very general discussions between the ministry and the college with respect to the general matter, but it was difficult to focus in on the individual situation.
When the member says the act could have been changed, I can only say to him that to change the act to deal with one particular problem would perhaps not be quite as easy as the member might suggest. But I am not dismissing for a moment what he is saying and I think there now will be an opportunity for the House to consider the points he is making.
ONTARIO PRODUCE
Mr Mills: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is no secret that in Ontario it is getting tougher for farmers to sell their food products because of cross-border shopping and free trade. I am just wondering what his ministry is doing to promote the market for Ontario food in Ontario.
Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to thank the member for the question. First of all, in a general sense I can say that we have launched, through the market development branch, a very aggressive campaign to promote Ontario produce this summer. The main part of the program is centred on television and seven different TV commercials that are going to talk about the quality and the freshness of Ontario produce and how it is superior in many ways to the imports we get.
We hope that through this, consumers will be more aware of the importance of agriculture and food in Ontario and will seek out Ontario produce and products when they do their shopping.
The second part of the member's question deals with cross-border shopping. We in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are working on some initiatives with five border communities. Ministry staff are working with retailers in those communities to develop some aggressive promotional programs for in-store promotion of Ontario products. We are co-operating with the retailers to do that and we will be providing some of the funding to allow them to use promotional in-store materials to get the people of Ontario to appreciate the importance of buying Ontario products. This will not totally eliminate the cross-border shopping issue, but I believe it will go a long way to raising the awareness of the importance of Ontario food and agriculture in Ontario.
1500
LAND REGISTRATION
Mr Conway: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Six weeks ago it was announced in her department that there would be a consolidation of registry offices across the province in the interest of better service, better access and more efficient use of public dollars. Having regard to that announcement, I would like to focus for a moment on the decision as it relates to the county of Lanark.
Can the minister help me understand how, in light of the several objectives that the policy speaks to, the public interest is going to be served in any of those areas by the closure of a brand-new, $1-million government office, opened just eight or nine months ago in the town of Almonte, with the best possible access that one could imagine? How is the public going to be served when it sees a $1-million government building, just opened, closed and all the facilities transferred and consolidated in the town of Perth, where the registry facilities are currently located in rented space that, according to the public inspection panel, is very much a fire hazard?
Hon Ms Churley: First, the decision was to integrate all the land registry offices to make it more cost-effective and more efficient, and the reality is to have one office per county or united county or municipality. The reality is there were 14 areas within the province that had duplication of services. It does not make sense. It cost taxpayers extra money to provide the duplication of services.
In the process of rationalizing the system across the province, unfortunately in my view, there were a couple of offices that were fairly new. Most of the offices were in fact quite old and inefficient. This office was built under the previous Liberal government. We will be looking at new uses for that building, but we are equalizing the system across the province and making it more cost-efficient and more efficient in general. Unfortunately, in the whole of rationalizing the system, that one had to be included as well.
Mr Conway: The minister can understand what this looks like to the taxpayers of Lanark county. They have seen, at their cost, the expenditure of nearly $1 million to build a beautiful new facility in that part of Lanark county. She made a statement six weeks ago that said, systemwide, operationally this rationalization is going to save, she expects, about $1 million annually. Well, $1 million was just spent in that beautiful new government-owned office. She is going to close that down after seven or eight months of operation and move everything down to a leased facility in Perth that, according to the public inspection panel, is fraught with all kinds of fire hazards.
Surely she understands that to the taxpaying people of Lanark county that appears to be madness. The question, among several they would want asked, is, how much money, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars is the government going to spend in Perth to address the several occupational health and safety questions raised in the public inspection panel's concerns?
Hon Ms Churley: The reality is that a lot of the offices that will be closed have incredible occupational health and safety problems. In fact, in closing a lot of these buildings, the taxpayers will be saving at least $8 million in capital costs. When one puts the whole thing together and looks at the integration of all the offices, it is an incredible --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order.
Hon Ms Churley: The opposition cannot have it both ways. On one hand, they are calling for us to save money, they are complaining about the deficit, and on the other hand they are saying, "Don't save money, leave the offices open." I am sympathetic to the problems of moving the offices. My staff are working very hard to make sure the integration happens well, but it makes a lot of sense to save taxpayers' money in this case and to make the system more efficient overall.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Premier, if he could resume his seat. It has to do with what some might consider questionable behaviour on the part of other members of his caucus and deals with letters written by the Minister of Government Services and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture and Communications, I believe, the member for Kingston and The Islands. These are letters in respect to a very controversial matter in the provincial riding of Frontenac-Addington written to a municipal council and the planning commission, with copies to the municipal council urging an official plan amendment. I am wondering if indeed the Premier considers those kinds of interventions in municipal matters as appropriate behaviour by members of his caucus.
Hon Mr Rae: The member has been good enough to send me over the two letters -- this is the first I have seen of them -- but I would say to him at first blush that there is nothing unusual in members of the assembly writing letters with respect to projects in their ridings or with respect to situations affecting things and nothing unusual about their writing in a very public way to municipalities or to various people with respect to activities in their council.
The member says it is an area of some controversy. Well then, we are elected people. We will get involved in areas of discussion in the local community. There is nothing wrong with that or unusual in that. I would regard it as strange if members decided upon election they were never going to do anything on behalf of their constituents or stop saying what they think. Surely to goodness members are entitled to say what they think about a given problem and to try to respond to it. What could be wrong with that?
Mr Runciman: That was discussed within our group as well, and I must say that in my 10-plus years as a member of this Legislature I have never made that kind of intervention in respect to a municipal zoning or planning decision. In fact, we have one member, the member for Kingston and The Islands, who was writing on ministry letterhead in respect to a zoning decision in a riding other than his own. I question that behaviour.
Obviously, the Premier's standards are much less sufficient than those in the Progressive Conservative Party. I think that is clearly indicated by the things he said here earlier today. My point is that we indeed believe this to be inappropriate behaviour. This is a decision that is going to impact on the community. We are talking about a secure facility that is going to house individuals convicted of very serious crimes indeed, and we have someone writing on ministry letterhead urging a municipal body tribunal to make a decision in favour of a minority in that community. I would like to hear the Premier's views on that.
Hon Mr Rae: First, the member said on what letterhead? It is on Legislative Assembly letterhead; the two letters I have seen are on Legislative Assembly letterhead. Those are the two letters I have seen.
Just so the public will know what terrible thing the members have done, they have said:
"I am writing in support of the new facility which has been proposed by the St Lawrence Youth Association to be located on Taylor-Kidd Boulevard in Ernestown township.
"The St Lawrence Youth Association has proven itself to be an invaluable asset to the community in its capacity to provide a rehabilitative service to young people making the often difficult transition into mainstream society."
I can remember a time when Frank Drea, when he was the Minister of Community and Social Services, had the guts to take a strong stand on behalf of community homes and youth homes and support for people in the community. That used to be the position of the Conservative Party, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with members taking a position and members expressing a point of view. Robust discussion in a community is not wrong; it is a healthy thing.
1510
Mr Morrow: My question is to the Minister of Labour --
Interjections.
The Speaker: I realize we are all happy to be here. If all members would come to order, then the member for Wentworth East could place his question.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr Morrow: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I want to congratulate the minister on his recent announcement of the new construction regulations. I was glad to see the support these changes received and I know these measures will increase safety for workers on the job. However, I do understand the date these measures go into effect is 1 August and would like to be sure this date is one which it is possible to meet. Can the minister comment on these concerns?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The industry has been expecting the amended regulations for some time. The 1 August deadline gives them adequate chance to take a look at the amendments and digest them. There has been extensive consultation with the industry and the workers involved over these regulations. It has been going on for a considerable period of time. I might say a considerable period of time too in terms of the amenities, like being able to wash your hands, on a construction site. This has been well discussed and well debated within the industry before we drafted the regulations.
HOCKEY FRANCHISE
Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Premier. The Premier is aware there is a major Ontario Municipal Board hearing under way regarding the Ottawa Senators' Kanata Palladium site.
Last Tuesday, because of the ongoing hearing, the Minister of Agriculture and Food told this House he should not comment on the hearing, yet in the same answer he said, "We think there are alternative sites." Also on Tuesday, the owners of the Senators offered to freeze 500 acres of their holdings for at least 25 years --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Chiarelli: -- to which, last Thursday, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who said he should not be commenting, told the media he was interested in the proposal, and: "If there is no legal impediment, I am prepared to take a serious look at it and see if there is something we can do. We are taking a look at the proposal put on the table to see if it can be made into a legal agreement."
Last Friday, the ministry's $1,000-a-day special legal counsel, Mr Lederer, told the media that "there was never to be a statement from the minister."
How can the Premier reconcile his minister's telling this House he cannot comment, then saying there are alternative sites, then publicly debating a proposed settlement and then having the minister publicly reprimanded by legal counsel, who said there was never to be a statement from the minister?
Mr Bradley: Dalton Camp was right.
Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines says "Dalton Camp was right." I want to point out the Beverly Hillbillies was a series which lasted for several years, and now it is in syndication and it can go on indefinitely. That is what we are seeing.
Let me say in answer to the serious question from the member for Ottawa West that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has taken a position with respect to the preservation of agricultural land. That hearing is going on quite independent of the government, and the OMB will reach a decision independent of the government.
Mr Chiarelli: The facts on this issue show clearly this matter involves executive political action and does not require a show trial at the OMB to make a green statement. The former government asked officials to assist in the approval of this project. The minister, with advice from the member for Ottawa Centre, instructed them to strongly oppose it. The minister has now publicly said he supports a team in Ottawa and he is prepared to consider the compromise proposal.
Will the Premier instruct his minister to immediately negotiate a solution to this matter and further act to facilitate a solution that meets the needs of the ministry while also serving the needs of Ottawa-Carleton? Who will be accountable to the people of Ottawa-Carleton when thousands of jobs are lost: the minister or the ministry's $1,000-a-day lawyer who said, "There was never to be a statement from the minister"?
Hon Mr Rae: The hearing is under way and proceeding and I reject categorically the member's description of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing as a show trial. I think that is rather strange wording from a member who knows full well there is a law with respect to the preservation of agricultural land. The law with respect to the preservation of agricultural land and rezoning is in place. The Ontario Municipal Board hearing is scheduled according to the law of the province. To describe any such hearing as a show trial, I think, shows a serious lack of understanding by the member of exactly what is involved.
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today during the question period, as on other occasions, we have had people who have stood on what they pretended to be points of order. They took up a fair bit of time. On two separate occasions on points of order we had a very long orchestrated standing ovation for the Premier which took up another several minutes.
Mr Speaker, I ask that you again address the issue of points of order which in fact are known full well by the people who have raised them not to be points of order but points of view perhaps, points of interest to them perhaps. I ask that in the next several days, as we approach the end of the session, when these points of order are raised you add an appropriate amount to the clock for the question period, particularly in situations where those people who are now in this House are very much fully aware of the fact that there are no points of order about whether or not they have a different point of view.
With respect to the standing ovation, we know full well that there are orchestrations of activity in the House to take away from the question period drive of the people in the opposition, that there are meetings almost every day now before question period, at 1 o'clock, wherein there is an attempt to take us away from asking the questions. When we hear barracking that is going on over there -- and I understand, Mr Speaker, there are likewise replies from this side -- when we find that it is so consistently being done now by the government side, I wish you would intervene and replace on the clock the minutes lost to those terrible, inconsiderate interruptions.
Hon Mr Wildman: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I hope you will treat that line of poppycock for what it really is.
Mr Drainville: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I want to be very clear that this House is a deliberative body and when information is put into the record which is patently wrong, it needs to be refuted. That is what was happening and I was glad to do that.
The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, who raises a number of points, some of which I have drawn to members' attention not only today but on other occasions, it places the Speaker in a very awkward position when a member rises to raise what she or he believes is a point of order. The Speaker does not know what it is until having heard it. I have asked members if they would, if at all possible, refrain from raising points of order or privilege unless absolutely necessary until outside of the question period time. No doubt that, plus other extraneous sounds not connected with actual questions or responses, does utilize a considerable amount of time.
Like not only the member for Bruce but, I believe, all members of the House, I am most anxious that we be able to accommodate as many members as possible to ask questions. Some days we are able to do that and others we do not do it so well. As we head into the last few days of this sitting, apparently, perhaps members could be a bit more restrained in the extra sounds that are emitted and we could conduct the public business in a very efficient way.
1520
MOTION
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
Miss Martel moved that standing order 85 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bills Pr31, Pr33, Pr34, Pr42, Pr50, Pr63, Pr65 and Pr75 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 19 June 1991.
Motion agreed to.
PETITIONS
HEALTH INSURANCE
Mr Ferguson: I have a petition signed by a number of residents in my community as well as communities throughout southwestern Ontario. In part, it says:
"We, citizens and taxpayers of Ontario, petition the Minister of Health and the Ontario health insurance officials to hear our request for fair and equitable rates to be paid to US facilities to take care of Ontario residents undergoing treatment, especially adolescents 12 to 21 years of age."
WASTE DISPOSAL
Mr Abel: I have a petition with approximately 150 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:
"We are opposed to a waste disposal site for composting on 63 Parkside Drive in Waterdown.... The activity would appear to be illegal both under the town's bylaw and under the Environmental Protection Act.
"The subject property is bordering on residential homes and dangerously close to residential subdivisions and the Guy Brown public school. Excessive trucking, heavy equipment noise, blowing dust on to the homes, road damage, rotten offensive odours, potential well water and land contamination, rodent infestation and surrounding devalued land are all consequences of this operation."
I have signed my name hereto.
INTRODUCTION OF BILL
HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SCIENCES DE LA SANTÉ
Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act.
M. Eves propose la première lecture du projet de loi 127, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les sciences de la santé.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
Mr Eves: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Health Disciplines Act to provide for the permanent revocation of licences of members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario who are found guilty of sexual abuse of current and former patients.
Subsection 60(5) of the act currently gives the discipline committee discretion to impose any of several penalties if a member is found guilty of professional misconduct. Professional misconduct is defined in the regulations and includes "sexual improprieties."
This amendment defines sexual abuse to include the more serious kinds of sexual improprieties and requires the permanent revocation of licences of members found guilty of such behaviour in addition to the imposition of a fine of up to $10,000. The penalty extends to cases involving current patients, all former patients of a member who practises psychiatry and, in the case of former patients of members other than psychiatrists, to persons who were patients less than two years before the occurrence took place.
The bill amends only the English version of the Health Disciplines Act because the Legislature has not yet adopted an official French version of this act, and that is something that perhaps we should all take pains to clarify as well.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
EXTENDED HOURS OF MEETING
Miss Martel moved government notice of motion 20:
That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 27 June 1991, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.
Hon Miss Martel: If I may make an initial statement and then have a go-around on this, I am moving the motion for extended sittings over the next two weeks and I have included within the notice sittings for each night of this week, four days, and for next.
I would like to make two points. Members will recall that several weeks ago a decision was reached that in exchange for hearings on the budget this summer the government would put forward some of the legislation which it felt it had to get done before the session ended. Indeed, over the course of two House leaders' meetings we came to what I think is a very amicable resolution with respect to what business has to be done.
Within that time frame, I suspect we will sit two nights this week and two nights next -- that is, Monday and Wednesday of this week and Monday and Wednesday of next -- in order to deal specifically with two of the bigger bills the government has put in late in the day; that is, the bill with respect to Sunday shopping and, second, a bill respecting rent control. We have blocked those two evenings to allow for a very full discussion and for as many members who wish to participate at this time.
Second, we have also within the schedule tried very hard to arrange off those evenings where various caucuses indicated they had particular functions they would like to attend which were very important to them. We have one as well. We have tried -- that is, the three House leaders -- as best we can to respect the various functions that people need to attend and to work around them.
I am moving this motion, because we have some business that we must conclude, as part of the arrangement we made in order to have public hearings this summer on the budget. I do not expect it will be an onerous task, but it will allow members who want to get their points of view on the record with respect to Sunday shopping and rent control to have the time to do that.
Mr Elston: I must say this is becoming a bit of an annual event, and while I do not wish to criticize too roundly the steps taken so far to manage our business through this past session, I must say we might have performed much better in this House had there been some consideration of reaching an agreement much earlier between the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing, and the member for York South, the Premier of this province.
The points that were being raised by the member for Nipissing were of course real and felt to the depth of his right-wing soul. I know he felt very strongly about his point of view. The point of view shared by the caucus of the New Democratic Party with its Premier was likewise firmly held and I can understand its resolve to resist even a modicum of movement towards some kind of reasonable discussion with the third party because of its desire to display its macho credentials to the public in Ontario.
But I have to say it has been destructive of the process of studying and developing the issues in this House and has prevented us as members of the Legislature from displaying an ability to consult and speak our minds in this House in the manner in which we ought to be allowed to express our views.
That having been said, on behalf of our party I am not going to resist the extension of the hours this evening. We are prepared to go along and sit until midnight if that is the will of the New Democratic Party, but I can tell members that it would have been very easily avoided indeed had there been some prior decision taken by the Premier that he would allow a reasonable review of the budget material in a committee of the Legislative Assembly.
There are other areas in which we might very well use this motion to make our points of view known with respect to the manner in which the Premier is managing his overall governmental affairs. There are concerns to no end about the manner in which he exercises the use of his principles or extends his principles with respect to the operation of ministerial business. There is no question about the lack of confidence that the people have in the ability of this government to manage the day-to-day economic issues. We might very well have taken our time to expose the New Democratic Party for what it is in being unable to manage not only the business of the House but also the business of the province.
We might very well have decided to make a very concerted effort to use this debate to talk about the inability of the New Democratic Party to manage the economic welfare of this province. As a result, the extended sittings might very well be used as an occasion to point out to the people in the province that these individuals are solely and entirely responsible for a whole series of misadventures by not only ministers but several other people who live in this province as well.
1530
I cannot say how difficult a position the province is being placed in by the inactivity of the New Democratic government, how difficult by reason of delay in the implementation of several policies and proposals which should have been here on the floor of the House, except for the machismo that the Premier had tried to display in the early showdowns with the leader of the third party.
It is to me a sad comment, the government's resort to the extended sittings as an answer to getting some business done when it might very well have arranged on a consensus basis to have the issues dealt with in a timely fashion here in the Legislative Assembly. There are so many things that could have been done better, except they thought they would like to show us the bottoms of their boots. That is perhaps the way this government will continue to carry on, as they display a total disregard for developing, in a consensus fashion, a way of managing the affairs of the province. It extends to labour-business negotiations; it extends to management of the economy; it extends to their dealings with the federal government.
All of these things could make me speak for hours on end. However, I have decided that in the interests of getting on with the business of the day we will acknowledge the superior numbers of the New Democrats and their mindless adherence to the Premier's party stance. We will let this chamber get on with the debate of the Sunday shopping bill, which is for my friend the member for Scarborough North more important than dealing with the speech from the member for Bruce, who says he wants to express concerns about the way this New Democratic government has displayed its inability to manage the province's affairs. We will not oppose this. Let's just get it out of the way. Let's get on with business.
Finally, because they are in a hurry to get away from here for their holidays, these people may want to process some business instead of making some grandiose gestures of concern, and we will help to process the business through.
Mr Sterling: I think it is important to note that the government has the right to introduce this motion and limit debate on this motion going into the last two weeks of each period of our session. We do not deny the government the right to extend the hours this evening and each of the evenings for the next two weeks if that is necessary in order to carry the business. Therefore we will be supporting this motion. We think it is perhaps unfortunate, but I think those of us who have been here for a long period of time recognize that it is almost a necessary evil. It seems to happen all the time in just about every session. Therefore, let's get on with the debate.
Hon Miss Martel: I appreciate the support from the member for Carleton. I would only say in response to the comments made by the member for Bruce that there was a time when I sat on that side and the former government House leader sat over here. In those times it was a fairly regular practice of the Liberal Party as well to move this motion. While he may talk about how we should have organized our business better, etc, I would remind him that this motion was moved twice under the Liberals and it was moved twice under us. It is becoming, as the member for Carleton says, a regular part of this business, and I expect it will, but I hope that we can get on with it. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, if I might, I shall go in search of the Solicitor General, since he is moving this bill. My apologies to the House.
Mr Elston: I think, Mr Speaker, there ought to be a recess until he is found. Since the Solicitor General is unable to attend the business of the House, we should have a recess until he is found.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that there be a recess? Any recommendation as to how long this recess should be?
Hon Miss Martel: May I make a suggestion? If you would give us five minutes, I shall go in search of him.
Agreed to.
The House recessed at 1535.
1542
Hon Miss Martel: The minister is on his way. I apologize to the House. We had been advised by the official opposition that there would be several speakers on this motion. We had assumed they would be vociferous and eloquent, etc, and so did not gauge our time accordingly. That is the reason for what has happened here today.
The Deputy Speaker: The minister has just arrived.
RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFLANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL
Mr Farnan moved second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.
M. Farnan propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.
Hon Mr Farnan: It is with great pleasure and a considerable degree of pride that I move second reading of this important legislation. This government is committed to providing Ontarians with a common pause day, a commitment that was made in the November speech from the throne.
Bill 115 establishes a common pause day for Ontario while at the same time encouraging tourism, an industry that is vital to the economy of many areas of our province. There are two parts to the legislation.
The first amends the Retail Business Holidays Act regarding the operation of retail businesses on Sundays and other enumerated holidays. It supports and protects Ontario's tourism industry by providing province-wide criteria for an exemption for tourism-based businesses regarding holiday closing requirements.
The second part protects retail employees by giving them the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work without risk of losing their job or facing disciplinary action from an employer.
Tourism is a vital part of our economy. The changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act acknowledge that by providing a mechanism to meet the needs of this important industry. It is important to note that Ontario's tourism industry is a unique industry with unique requirements. No existing or previous legislation has ever adequately addressed this fact. Indeed, this government is the first to address the significance of tourism.
Under the current act, municipalities are granted powers that are virtually unrestricted to enact bylaws. This holds the potential for an inconsistent application of the law across the province, thus undermining the importance of providing a common pause day for Ontario. The amendments before the House will establish province-wide criteria for tourism. These criteria would have to be met before an exemption can be granted. This provision strikes a balance between responding to local needs and the need to have a fair and uniform law that promotes a common pause day for the citizens of this province.
I remind members there is a transitional process to minimize confusion during establishment of the new system. Municipal bylaws regarding retail operations on holidays that were in force as of 3 June 1991, the day before first reading of this legislation, will continue for one year from the date of proclamation of these amendments or until the bylaws are repealed, whichever comes first.
I also remind the members that this government regards the common pause day issue most seriously, as indicated in the fact that the amendments set out minimum fines for breaches of the law.
As for the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, they will strengthen the rights of retail workers by giving them the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work. Even if employees initially agree to work on one of these days, they can still change their mind and refuse the holiday work if they so advise their employer within 48 hours. In addition, the amendments guarantee an employee 36 hours of rest in every seven days of work.
The sooner we can pass second reading and send the issue on to the standing committee on administration of justice for public hearings, the sooner these benefits will flow to the tourist industry, retail workers and all Ontarians.
1550
Mr Curling: I have looked forward with great anticipation to speaking on the amendments to this act. Although a few minutes ago I thought the debate would not take place, I must commend the government House leader for finding the Solicitor General so he could make his opening statements. I am glad to hear him so that we are able to make our comments. We will be making comments in more detail as it goes to the committee and the public has an input into this bill that he has put forward here.
As the Solicitor General first stated, the intent of the amendments by the government is to provide two basic things; one is a common pause day with the exception for the tourist industry and the other is the absolute right of refusal of holiday work for retail workers.
Whether or not these amendments have accomplished this will be judged when we take a closer look at what was done. As a matter of fact, we do not even have to take a closer look. I think the way some of the comments have been made recently realize that this is not a well-thought-through bill at all.
The history of Sunday shopping goes as far back as 1845. I do not intend to take members through this long history of Sunday shopping, but here we are in 1991 and I should say that when the Liberals were in power, we moved very far in addressing some of the concerns that were daunting us for years. Today we are here to address the amendments before us.
I want to begin my comments today by quoting the words used by a certain member of this Legislature during a debate on this very subject, the legislation to regulate Sunday shopping. Not so long ago, that member during justice committee hearings placed a stuffed yellow chicken and a sign saying, "I am not deaf, I am just ignoring you," on the corner of his desk. His colleague who is sitting beside the member, and I will not name him here, recalls very well that those were the gimmicks done by the now minister.
The same member was thrown out of the Legislature for calling another member a hypocrite. Can anyone imagine that this honourable gentleman, who came forward today to present this bill, called one of the most honourable members in this Legislature, the then Minister of Health, a hypocrite? Of course, I am speaking of the Solicitor General, who is now putting this bill forward.
Surely the people of Ontario have a right to expect the government to implement after it is elected what the government promised before it was elected. Surely the people of Ontario have a right to some honesty and integrity in government. Of course, election time is a time to make promises. But again, we are all honourable people, advocates of all of the concerns of the little people or common people, or whatever the NDP put forward. Of course, we are advocates to an extent that sometimes we can even break the law to advance the cause, but people look for honesty and integrity and sometimes a bit of consistency.
This legislation represents yet another series of NDP broken promises. The Solicitor General promised special exemption for border communities. He has not proven at all that he can deliver on that. He criticized the current legislation, the municipal option, and then with this legislation handed to the municipalities what promises to be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare. We heard the comments after the press conference of some of the interest groups as to what the minister has put us into.
The Solicitor General also promised a province-wide common pause day. He has not yet defined what that is. This bill does not do that, as the minister would acknowledge. Of course, it provides that in his opening statement.
It does not matter to the government of the day that this legislation is poorly drafted, very complex and, no need to say, unworkable. I will comment on that later on. What matters, they say, is that it shows they are committed to a principle. As one of my colleagues, the chief whip in my party, stated, "If you don't like our principles, we have some more."
Taxpayers in Ontario have a right to know why the government is so intent on passing legislation which it admits to be flawed and unenforceable. As a matter of fact, the minister himself admitted that this legislation is going to place an onus and a very expensive burden on communities across the province.
The current Minister of Transportation, when he was a member of the opposition, once spoke of the importance of a government having the courage to admit it is wrong. The existing legislation regulating Sunday openings has been upheld as constitutional by the Court of Appeal. It did not lead to wide-open Sunday shopping as prophesied by this NDP government when it was in opposition. I consider that legislation, that direction by the then government, to have been fair, consistent and, most important, enforceable.
The NDP members should admit, which they are not likely to do, that they are wrong. They were wrong about the legislation as drafted by the previous government. They should in fairness withdraw this inconsistent, poorly drafted, unworkable legislation. But do they listen to us? No, I hurry to say, they do not listen; but yes, sometimes they do listen. They said they listened to our leader the other day when he made some comments to them. They said they based their judgement really on the honourable leader of our party, the member for Brant-Haldimand.
Let me just make some quick comments about some of the amendments that were put forward by this minister. One of the things that is stated in the bill is that a bylaw may only be passed to ensure the maintenance and the development of tourism. This is a rather restricted way of putting this point forward. We have yet to find out the definition of "tourism" or even the definition of a "tourist" in this bylaw.
A municipality must ensure, the bill states, that prior to passing the bylaw, the area meets provincially devel oped tourism criteria. As I stated earlier on, when we had passed on this, when we considered the Sunday shopping bill, we felt that the municipalities had an extremely important role to play. We thought it was difficult for us at Queen's Park, along University Avenue, to dictate to all the municipalities around what should take place. We felt they knew exactly whether they would like to open their stores on Sunday, whether they wanted designated areas of tourism. We moved that responsibility, of course, into the hands or the jurisdiction of the municipality. Earlier on I commented that the member put out his rubber chicken and said that was a chicken way out. Today, the same minister is asking the municipality to take that responsibility.
We feel that as he flipped in some respects, in flopping and flipping from one position to the other, he has made it more confusing. Believe it or not, the minister has made it more confusing. What he has done or his party has done is decided to put certain provincial criteria and then pass it on to the municipalities and say, "Now you do it." I recall some time ago that his leader stated emphatically, and I quote from one of his remarks about the municipal option, "You cannot protect the worker's right to refuse, nor can you protect the notion of a common pause day, when you have legislation decentralizing all this power to the municipalities."
Some of the new members here may not recall or they may not have been following Hansard or they may not have been looking at the TV at night, but I was here. That was not even so long ago as a matter of fact; that was last year in June, just before the big promises came about in the election. The leader felt that abdicating our responsibility as a province to govern would not be the way to pass the power on to the municipalities. Members would not believe it is the leader of the party who had stated that. The flip-flop attitude of this government is quite evident, not only in some of the policy issues but in the basic principles guiding them in governing this province.
1600
Another point I would like to make about the bylaw they intend to amend is that a bylaw may only be developed following a request from one or more retail establishments, or within a regional municipality upon request of a local municipality. The members know that in our legislation we did not require an application for a bylaw to be made. It is rather interesting that the minister is asking the regional municipality -- I want him to help me understand this amendment he put forward. By helping me to understand, I think he will have the people of Ontario understanding this rather confused bylaw that he has put forward here.
I live in Scarborough. That is a municipality within the regional municipality, and the mayor is Joyce Trimmer. In the regional municipality we have a regional chairman by the name of Alan Tonks. If I have a law I would like Scarborough to put forward -- the mayor would like to -- for a tourist area, of course we have to appeal to the region for this. There is this confusion about the municipality asking the region if it can be designated as a tourist area. I want the minister, when he comes back, to explain this to us so we can fully understand what the process is and why he has to make it so adversarial and confusing in his amendments.
There is another point I would like to make. The amendments also make the final decision regarding the tourist exemption bylaw the responsibility of the regional municipality, following up on my point that the exemption bylaw is the responsibility of the regional municipality. If the regional municipalities say no, it is all over. What can individual retailers do to correct that? They would have to challenge them in the courts. I say to the minister today that while being a politician is the profession I am so happy about, if you want to make money I would advise many people to go into law practice because a lot of cases will be coming forth. Many lawyers are smiling today knowing that a lot of appeals will be coming down.
The amendments also prescribe procedures of municipal councils, the ability of the government to prescribe regulations and the ability to act for unorganized territories. That is not much of a difference and I understand that in areas that are unorganized, actually some of the legislation can be done here. I have not much complaint about that one.
The final comment I would like to make on this one is that the government has made minor alterations to the form the bylaw may take regarding classes of retail establishments like stores and other related requirements with regard to the establishment of, as I said, retail establishments. In addition to the amendments to section 4, they also intend to amend section 6 and section 7. This, as indicated, will allow the existing bylaws to continue for the first anniversary. I think that is sensible in a way because I know that for many people, as laws are changed, it throws in a lot of confusion. I can say yes, that as 3 June, as the minister has described, if laws are in existence then, the anniversary will be 12 months or a year after that. It gives them time to adjust.
I just want to make some comments about the other part on the Employment Standards Act. I know the NDP government feels that it is the greatest advocate for workers. If the members are sensitive to it, let me tell them that this amendment will not in any way protect anyone. It is unenforceable.
First, to begin with, it is stated that you could give 48 hours' notice if you wish not to work on a holiday or on a Sunday. I think that is rather inadequate considering the fact that if someone is going to work on a Sunday -- the minister does not have to answer until we get him into the committee -- and on Friday evening he or she states to his or her employer that he or she will not work on Sunday, he or she has lived up to the requirement of giving 48 hours' notice. I feel it places the employer in a peculiar position to find someone by the time it is Sunday.
I think when the government brings laws into place it must make them balanced in the interests of both sides or three sides or four sides, whatever the number of parties that are involved. Some of these employers, as the members know, are finding it very difficult to find skilled labourers, skilled work people. So I would like the minister to consider that on the employer's side of it. At times over on that side the NDP government believes only it thinks of workers. I think it must be a government for all people.
I am concerned too that if an individual, a worker, says he or she is unable to work on that day, and of course has legitimate reasons why he or she cannot work on that day, an employer may not punish that individual for not working on that day but may start enforcing some rather strict procedures on this individual for other days. Maybe that individual may not be able to work on a 6 o'clock to 12 midnight shift, or graveyard shift, and because the individual has indicated that he or she cannot work on a holiday or a Sunday, he or she may now be asked to work on a shift basis. Refusing to do so, of course, may result in that individual losing his or her job for not living up to the requirements of the workplace.
I am telling the minister that this bill is unenforceable. I think it was hurried. I think his government was unproductive, found itself coming to a time when the House would be adjourned and had nothing to show the people. Many promises it has made -- it was demonstrated in its rent control bill that it was not thought through. It is now demonstrated in this bill. It was demonstrated when we wanted some explanation about tourism exemptions. Then it said its tourism criteria were placed before us.
I am no lawyer, but the number of gaps or unexplained things in this will tell the members that it was not thought through. One of the areas stated that the area has to have historical or natural attractions. I do not know what that is. I do not know what its history is. Is it because it has been around a long time that makes it history? What is a natural attraction? I do not know.
The area has to have cultural or ethnic attractions. Again, I do not know what that means. If we have people of Irish descent living in an area, if we said there is much of an ethnic attraction there, of course there is a great attraction for the Irish people, but is that a tourist attraction? Will someone then apply to have the area designated as a tourist area?
It must predominantly provide for "shopping activities which feature a unified concept or theme, farmers' markets, the sale of heritage or handicraft items, the sale of items unique to the locale or of other specialized shopping activities catering to visitors."
1610
I do not know what a visitor is. I am saying to the minister that it was not thought through. The government has a couple of days to go before the House adjourns. It would like it to demonstrate to the people that it lives up to its promises. The members opposite are the government now. There is a big bureaucracy, a very well-oiled, good bureaucracy that can draft good guidelines and good legislation. This is not what we call a guideline.
Maybe that is why the minister said, "Yes, we thought there was more to it." We called the bureaucrats and the minister sent the bureaucrats on a trip to all the caucuses to explain what this was about. Let me report to the minister. He wants feedback, he said. They were telling us that there is a guideline to explain a guideline.
What a hole. What a gap. Someone described this bill as so wide open you could drive a $10-billion deficit through it. The government is causing chaos. It is going to be very expensive.
I have great respect for the bureaucrats. I have worked for some of the best bureaucrats in the world. As a matter of fact, I think the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Skills Development have the best bureaucrats in the entire world. I am sure that what they lacks is leadership to show them where to go and what to write. They do not need to be hurried. They do not need to draft legislation because they have a couple of days to show the people they have done something. Maybe they were too busy stumbling over each other, stumbling and getting into trouble.
I would say to the minister, since at times he seeks our advice, to withdraw this bill and come back when he has good regulations. He should come back when the regulations are not so wide open, not so unexplained. He should come back when we do not need a guideline to explain a guideline, so we can move expeditiously through the process and not make it up as we go along.
I told the minister that Sunday shopping -- he knows it too -- has been around a very long time. We thought about it and we put forward legislation. When we were in government we had placed this government on the right track. We told the government that one has to be sensitive to all the areas. As a matter of fact, they challenged us in court. We won that case, so we are saying to the minister that we have set the plateau. We set the road for this government. I think the problem here is that while they have roads, and while we have equipped them with limousines and chauffeurs, they do not know where they are going. The government has good drivers. It has excellent bureaucrats. They need to know where the government wants to go. They need to know, without any great explanation, exactly what it is the government wants. Tell them that what was promised in the campaign is not so any more. They will understand that. Tell us and we on this side will do our utmost to make it the best legislation around.
I tell the minister there is hope. The government has said it will not call a snap election, so it has a good time in which to carefully do that. I commend it for saying it is going to let the public have some input, but let me caution the minister on this.
We will not be fooled any more that the government will have open discussion with the public if it sends a memorandum around saying that we who are elected members must not participate. I think that is a kick in the face of democracy. I hope if I or any of my colleagues go to those hearings, the minister will allow that, not like his colleague the Minister of Housing, who decided that we shall not speak because, "We know better than anyone else and you, the elected members of this House, may not speak." The minister is not a man of that type of character. I know the Solicitor General well. If he attempts that, I will seek advice from all, from my leader of the House and the leader of the party outside, to make sure that the people are heard. I commend the minister for putting it through a public hearing.
We look forward with great anticipation to debating this Bill 115, if the minister chooses not to withdraw it, which is the best advice I can give him, but again, with the stubbornness and the determined aspect of this government, it will be put through. We are ready, and I have given the minister notice of the concerns that we have. I have given him notice that his guidelines are weak. His guidelines are things that we feel need much more explanation.
Mr Elston: And they have secret guidelines too.
Mr Curling: Yes, and also, not only the guidelines, not only guidelines to explain the guidelines, but also all the secret guidelines too. It is shown in their conflict of interest that they have other guidelines. It is difficult for us to deal with that. We do not like those hidden agendas that they have. Just for the record, because it is very important, the wonderful thing about this Parliament is that things are documented, just to remind these members here.
Some of the things I want to talk about include the protection of workers and some of the quotations here. In answer to a question, "By your own admission, though, the right to refuse work on Sunday is rather spineless, it is weak; it cannot be enforced," the honourable minister answered in his great fashion, so distinctly, so clear, "Let me tell you that there is no question what you say is true" -- spineless, unworkable, rather weak legislation.
When I heard the honourable member stated that in Focus Ontario, I was extremely proud of him that he admitted to the millions of people across Ontario -- his posture was of such honesty; he is an honourable man and an honest man -- that this is spineless, weak and unenforceable legislation.
Then we asked him in the House if he said that, and I know how uncomfortable the minister was at the time to do that. He said, "I didn't say that." He said he was interrupted, but for the record, members can get the script where he proceeded to talk about protection of workers and the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the typical way of not answering the question.
In another quotation from the people, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union on protection for workers, hear what they say, "Maybe no one will get fired for not working Sundays, but you can bet they'll get fired for something else if they don't." I brought the point up to the minister as I illustrated to him about those who may refuse to work on Sundays or holidays and who may be placed on shift work and be unable to do so. I caution him to look on those things.
One of the concerns that was raised had me a bit bothered, and I want the minister to take a look at this. The minister has given power or responsibility to individuals or organizations that they did not ask for. Here is a quotation that came about from that, "It's hard to understand how we have been placed in a regulatory position to a degree that we neither asked for, sought for nor wished to have, and all without any consultation from the government." This came from the president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
1620
This government should not take the people for granted, which it is doing, just by the decision that was made even on Thursday. I sense what the people want. Therefore, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce is asking the minister, "Why are you giving us this responsibility?" Maybe they would like it, but they said to the minister that they would much rather be consulted before these things are passed on to them.
I never like to include any other parties in this. It is funny, while I was doing some of the research, I saw where the Tories have changed their views now. I am glad to know they have started looking very seriously now at Sunday shopping. It seems to me there is a closeness between us here.
In some of the information that we have passed on, they state: "The Solicitor General is going to have a patchwork across this province, so they start focusing on Sunday shopping. He is going to have uncertainty. This legislation is a direct pathway to the courts, and I say shame on him." That is the honourable leader of the third party.
Things are coming together. I am saying to the Solicitor General that both sides of the fence here in the opposition are watching very carefully. Now that I have started watching about Sunday shopping and have a broader approach to Sunday shopping, not a one-sided view about it -- those are the Tories I speak of -- we watch very closely and anticipate with great excitement the fact of representation of all the people, taking into consideration this diverse multicultural society that we have, the sensitivity of regions, of tourism and border shopping, which the government promised and has now decided it will not do anything about. We are looking very closely and look forward to a very healthy debate.
Hon Mr Farnan: I want to recognize the member's introduction of debate on behalf of the official opposition. Apart from some personal and partisan embroidery which entered very briefly into his comments, I think he has started off the debate by addressing the issues in a substantive way. I want to commend him for that.
It is very important, of course, that we recognize the fact that we can disagree. We will deal with many of the issues as we examine the legislation through the debate and through the hearings.
But I think it is important that the member recognize there are fundamental principles at stake: the principle of a common pause day, whereby we wish to strengthen family and community life; the principle by which we want to protect retail workers; the principle by which we want to have an exemption for tourism because it is a cornerstone of our economy; the principle by which we want to work with our municipalities in partnership by providing provincial guidelines that allow for local sensitivity and responsible guidance from the province.
These are principles, and I do not want the member given some false signals. We are going out to listen. The principles are not up for negotiation. We are prepared to listen to other matters that surround the legislation that may affect fine-tuning, but this government is committed to a common pause day: committed as it was in the election; committed as it was in the throne speech; committed as it was in the Premier's public statements; and committed as it is in the legislation as it currently stands.
Gerald Vandezande, director of Fairness for Families, said, "What Mike Farnan emphasized today was the value of community life and family life." This is an organization representing unions, churches and retailers. We believe we are on the right track.
Mr Curling: I just want to comment on that and to say to the honourable member about the last quotation he made that I think he should get Mr Vandezande in and discuss with him too, because he has further thoughts, now that he has been able to digest this. He has a bit of indigestion. It is good the Solicitor General thought Mr Vandezande has worked extremely hard. Of course, coming from a very respectable riding, I expect the highest calibre of presentation from Mr Vandezande.
The member said I made partisan shots towards him. Everything is back to right here.
Again, as I said, I look forward to this debate when it comes to second reading.
Mr Harris: I regret that I cannot stay here all day and through until midnight tonight, because I do have a few other commitments on today, but I wanted to say a few words. I know there are a number of members of my party who have some very strong feelings about this legislation, about the intent of it and then its ability to live up to that intent. I think they all have some very constructive comments to make, either regarding the necessity for the bill, the intent, and then whether the bill meets those objectives or that intent.
It is an issue, of course, that I think there is a fair sense of disagreement on across the province from those pro and opposed to Sunday shopping. However, I want to briefly talk about changes to the Employment Standards Act before I get to the bill itself.
I appreciate the introduction of this section 3 of the bill dealing with the Employment Standards Act. I believe it could have gone further than it does in trying to provide for a day a week, a pause day, for members of families. It seems to pick on Sunday and say there is a possibility under this bill to choose Sunday and provide some degree of protection for that.
However, I believe most members would know there are many, many people in this province for whom Sunday, if the only option for them, does not suit their family circumstances. It may be because of religion. It may be that they are married to firepersons or to police persons or it may be that they are married to miners or it may be that they are married to shift workers, many of whom have to work on Sundays. It may mean they are married to doctors. It may mean they are married to nurses. It may mean they are married to ambulance attendants. It may mean they are married to politicians, in which case they never see us. There are so many people for whom having the option of being able to reject work on Sunday is of no benefit to be able to have a day with their family, with their children or with their spouse or whatever their family circumstances are.
It struck me that what we should be striving for is a piece of legislation to allow workers -- every retail worker in this case a choice. Many will say, "Why retail workers and not others?" Many of the others are dealing with necessary services, and we recognize that, I believe. I also think we are in a transition period in the retail business and a period of time with this type of protection might be very helpful to all full-time workers to allow them to choose a pause day that suits their family circumstances and religion.
What the minister is doing by zeroing in on Sunday is saying: "I'll tell you when's good for you. I'll tell you what is good, whether your religion and Sabbath is celebrated on Sunday or not. I'll tell you. It's Sunday. That's it."
I find that offensive. I think that is wrong in our society. I think it is wrong for many people in many aspects of jobs for the minister and the government to come out and say, "We'll tell you how to live your life; we'll tell you when to take your pause day." I object to that and I think it is wrong. However, I support the principle.
1630
I also want to address the issue of whether it is enforceable or not. I assume the Liberals are supporting all aspects of this bill, because it meets exactly what they thought was the solution.
First, it provides some worker protection. Even though I admit it is very difficult and not completely enforceable, I believe the minister goes a little bit further. I still have to say it is not 100% enforceable, there is no question about that, but I believe it is a move in the right direction. I believe it makes a statement, particularly if it were to allow family members, full-time retail workers, to pick the common pause day that suits their circumstances.
Second, I assume the Liberals are supporting it because this is the municipal option. It is saying to the municipalities: "You decide. Here are some criteria that you can use to make a decision, but the responsibility is yours." That was the Liberal solution as well.
I am not quite sure what the member for Scarborough North was talking about when he referred to the members of the Conservative Party and looked at me. I have been very consistent in my opposition to the Liberal bill, as I will be in opposition to this bill when it comes to the dumping off on municipalities. I oppose that aspect of it. I think it is wrong.
I agreed with the Solicitor General, who toted a chicken all around the province and said it is the chicken way out to leave it to the municipalities. I agreed with the former Solicitor General, Joan Smith, who said this is the chicken way out, and then she brought it in.
I guess I would have a little more sympathy if the Solicitor General just stood up and said: "Okay, we took the chicken way out. I said it was a chicken way out when the other government did it and now we're doing it too." If they would acknowledge and admit that, I might have a little more respect and understanding, because that is what it is.
Of course the issue is Sunday working, not Sunday shopping. Some people are having to work on Sunday who may not want to. I am of the view that it is this aspect of the Employment Standards Act that we should focus on, because if we can strive and find a way to give the right to every full-time retail worker in the province to be able to choose a pause day common for his family circumstances, common for him, that means something to him, not common according to the minister's definition or religion or circumstance but common to him, what need is there for the other piece of legislation?
I want to talk about the other piece of legislation. I cannot tell members how disappointed I was to hear the minister today saying that the whole reason for the legislation is to have a common pause day. The whole bill describes how we do not have a common pause day -- exemptions for this, exemptions for that, border communities can qualify, tourism areas can qualify, everybody can qualify. I am going to talk about the criteria; you can drive a truck through them. There is not a town, store or municipality that cannot open in this province on these criteria; not one.
Basically we have the Liberal bill, the municipality decides, with some criteria. Let's look at the criteria, because these are what are being touted as being new. The criteria start out with tourism. It is part I, Retail Business Holidays Act amendments.
"Persons carrying on retail businesses in a municipality will be able to apply individually or in combination or through a representative organization for a bylaw. The council will be required to hold a public hearing before passing a bylaw." Same as the Liberal bill; you have to have a hearing.
Even if the tourism criteria are met, council is not required to pass the bylaw. "The council's decision will be final." No provision is made for appeal to the province; ie, the buck stops at the municipality, at the city, at the town. The province is going to wash its hands of this, even though it is its legislation. Then you can appeal to the courts.
So we are going to have the patchwork, the quilt, we are going to have those municipalities open that wish to open, and those that do not wish to, for whatever reason, not open. It is a municipal decision.
I think we are going to have border communities opening. I think they are going to be competing with communities that border the border communities and will have very unfair competition. We are going to have the same unfairness that we have today, the same unfairness that we had when the former legislation was there. It made sense 20 years ago but does not make sense today.
Everybody wants to go back to 20 years ago. I have heard more people talk about the old Conservative bill, how it worked 20 years ago. Of course it did. Corner stores served candy and some pop. They were not full-blown grocery stores like they are today. We had drugstores that were drugstores and sold drugs. Now drugstores are hardware stores, clothing stores and grocery stores. It is very unfair. It is very unfair just even within a community.
As well, we have fruit stands. They are okay. Fruit stands are all right. Fruit stands are now full-blown meat markets, selling all groceries and everything else.
We have video stores. This government says it is going to exempt video stores. They will be allowed to sell videos or rent videos, but video stores also sell televisions, they sell recorders, they sell equipment. They compete directly with somebody across the street who cannot open. That is not fair. There is no fairness in this.
This government has to ask itself whether it can legislate fairness. If they really believed in a common pause day, if that was their goal, they could have shut everybody down on Sunday. Everybody. That would be common. No Sunday shopping. There might have been exemptions. Hospitals could dispense drugs if drugs were a necessity. If they want that, that is one choice. I do not happen to be a proponent of that -- I think it is silly -- but that is one choice.
What this government has done with this bill is it has made absolutely nobody happy. Municipalities are not happy. Those who want Sunday shopping are not happy. Those who are opposed to Sunday shopping are really not happy, particularly as they understand the bill.
Let's get back to the tourism criteria. We have retail stores under 7,500 feet and retail stores over 7,500 feet, two different cases. Stores under 7,500 feet with fewer than eight employees serving the public are automatically included in any bylaw in so far as they are contained within the designated area. So if Windsor says, "We're a tourist area," any store under 7,500 feet automatically gets to open. That is not appealable once Windsor passes that bylaw.
Then we have over 7,500 feet. Here is the criterion, "Retail business establishments in a geographic area may be exempted if the area has characteristics which fall under two or more of the following categories."
The first is that "the area has historical or natural attractions." I have not been to a town, a city, a community anywhere in this province that has not been proud of its history, of its historical or natural attractions. I have not been to one. I remember my maiden speech when I talked about North Bay, Nipissing, Verner and Sturgeon Falls. I have heard every member give speeches on the throne speech or on some other thing, it really does not matter very much, so that we talk about our ridings. I cannot believe there is an area that will not be able to have some kind of historical or natural attraction.
1640
"The area has cultural or ethnic attractions." There may be some that do not have; I cannot think of any. I think of my community, I think of the smallest towns and how proud they are of their heritage, of their cultural background.
"The area provides a concentration of hospitality services." I guess it depends on what your definition of concentration of hospitality is. They may not be able to qualify under that, but all they have to do is hit two and they are in.
Number 4, "The area predominantly provides for shopping activities which feature a unified concept or theme, farmers' markets...." Virtually every community has a farmers' market somewhere, so that is in; that community qualifies.
"The sale of heritage or handicraft items." Maybe some of the very small towns do not, but show me an area that does not sell Eskimo carvings or moccasins made by natives throughout many areas in Ontario. Many of them come from my riding in Nipissing.
Number 5, "The area provides access to hiking, boating, camping, fishing or other outdoor recreation pursuits." There may be some areas that do not border or are not very close to a lake or where there is no boating. I suggest we are into the majority of the province now. There may be some areas that do not have that, but show me an area that does not have some area to hike, to camp. There may not always be fishing, there may not always be boating, "or other outdoor recreation pursuit." Show me a town anywhere in this province that does not have some outdoor recreational pursuit -- cross-country skiing, tennis, baseball, cycling, hiking, walking, bird-watching, looking at the northern lights. I cannot think of one.
The municipalities can drive a truck through this. All they have to do is qualify in these two, and the courts are going to interpret them. The courts will interpret them, because there is no appeal to the province. What we have here is, virtually any municipality that wishes to open can open.
Then you have some other ones for stores over 7,500 square feet. All we have done so far is, if they wish, to open virtually every store in the province under 7,500 feet.
Now we have some other things. Retail establishments which are in excess of 7,500 square feet or have eight or more employees to serve the public have to meet these criteria -- we have already established they can all meet those -- and then they have to meet one of these other ones: "1. Is recognized for its historical features or distinctive architectural features." The Eaton Centre is envied all over the world. It obviously qualifies as a distinctive architectural feature. I do not think there is any question about that.
Presumably what you have to do, when you are building your mall, is have some kind of unique architectural feature in it. The Ghermezian brothers can tell us how to do that, except they all want to build in the States where they do not have to worry about the excess government. So I think most could qualify for that. Not everyone will be able to meet the historical feature criterion there. I doubt that everybody can drive through that one, but you need only one of these.
"Features items of cultural or ethnic appeal." I am sure the Eaton Centre has a hunk of soapstone somewhere in it, so now it is in. I checked around most stores. In North Bay there are all kinds of stores. I know in Shoppers Drug Mart you will be able to find some kind of cultural of ethnic item and if you cannot, if you want to open on Sundays and sell the other 99% of your products, you are going to doggone well make sure one of your 85 million products is a pair of nice hand-sewn moccasins. It might improve business for the natives in Ojibway band 10 in Nipissing. So it might do something there, but you could drive a truck through that one.
"3. Provides specialized goods or services, such as heritage or handicraft items." It is not too tough to do that. Canadian Tire can make sure that at least one of its 85,000 items is a heritage or a handicraft item. They can drive a truck through that. They have to meet only one of these criteria anyway.
"4. Provides goods or services necessary to tourist activities in the area served by the establishment." I assume shopping is a legitimate tourist activity. I do not know why else you have the tourist exemptions. If there happens to be a tourist anywhere, any time, who finds his way into Sturgeon Falls or North Bay, the store had better provide some goods or services that would be necessary to tourist activities. I guess if you sold charcoal briquettes, that would qualify, so everybody just has to sell those. Unless the minister is going to legislate that Shoppers Drug Mart, Canadian Tire and other stores have to limit themselves to those products, they cannot actually have products to serve tourists so they can meet the criteria. Maybe we are going to go that far with the legislation.
What we have here is an absolute joke. What we have here is the same as the Liberal bill with some excuse that there are some criteria here. What makes this even worse than the Liberal bill is that the government has set itself up and said: "We've done something. It's different." You have misled, in my view --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are many other words in the English dictionary. Would you please withdraw that word?
Mr Harris: This legislation, in my view, will mislead many people into believing that there is a common pause day.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you again withdraw that word "mislead"?
Mr Harris: No, I am sorry, I will not, Mr Speaker. "This legislation will mislead many people into believing," is what I said, not "this minister," not "this person," this legislation is what I am talking about.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the leader of the third party knows better and will withdraw that word. I will ask you to do so.
Mr Harris: If it makes you happy, Mr Speaker, I will withdraw it.
Many people, after listening to the minister, will believe there will be a common pause day and there will not be. Many people, after listening to the minister, will believe this is a province-wide decision and it is not, it is a municipal decision. That is the disgrace of it.
When the minister introduced the bill, the groups that responded -- and he will quote back all the groups that are happy with the bill because they read the minister's statement that said, "This bill will do this, this, this and this." People said, "Good, that's what we want." But now when they look at the bill they see it does not do all of those things the minister said it would do. Now they are saying, "We don't like the legislation." That is why I am dealing with the specifics of the legislation and pointing out why the statements of the minister do not jibe with the actual legislation and the bill that has been brought forward.
I asked a number of questions in this House. I asked the government if, during the period where there was no legislation in place, where it was ruled unconstitutional -- we had nine months in this province of self-regulation. Self-regulation is where those stores who wished to open could open and those who did not, did not. It did not require the courts, it did not require the police, it did not require hordes of bureaucrats, it did not require lawyers, it did not require anything; it was self-regulation. That was the first time in Ontario's history we had that period of time.
I said: "This is new information. We did not have it 20 years ago or 10 years ago; we did not have it when the Liberals brought in the bill; this was new information. Have you analysed what happened in this province? First of all, was there wide-open Sunday shopping without any legislation?" No, there was not wide-open Sunday shopping. Those who wished to open, opened; those who did not, did not. Many communities, districts, areas of the whole province did not open because they did not wish to. And they did not feel they were forced into it to keep up with the Joneses or this business or that business, they just made the decision and it worked fine. It cost nothing: no police officers, no judges, no lawyers, no legislators, no bureaucrats, nothing.
I asked the government if it did any analysis. It said: "No, we don't want to know that; that might make common sense. Don't bring us that, we want to hire more people, spend more money, tie up the court system, get the police involved. We want to pretend we're doing something. We want to show the people we're bringing in legislation." If it works on its own, my gosh, would that not be terrible? We would not need government if more things worked on their own. I scratch my head at that because that makes no common sense to me, absolutely none.
1650
I asked them if they had analysed church attendance. I mentioned that because a number of churches have raised concerns about Sunday. Obviously they are not the churches or those religions whose holy day is Saturday, Friday or another day. They are the traditional Sunday ones. I asked the minister whether he had done any analysis or had any information available on church attendance. I remember reading one article in the paper where my understanding was that church attendance went up 1% during that period. I know there was an exhaustive study done in Vermont where they went to self-regulation -- you could open if you want or not if you want. There was no Sunday closing law and church attendance went up in Vermont. I thought that was important information for us to have if one of our concerns is the ability of people to worship on their day of worship. The government has said, "That is Sunday, folks" -- but on any day.
Then I go back to the legislation. For every full-time retail worker to be able to choose their day I say, does that accomplish it? I think it does. I think if every retail worker has the choice -- virtually all of those who wish to open on Sunday have said: "We agree, that is no problem because many thousands of people want to work on Sunday, and even thousands more who have been thrown out of work since you rascals took office, that that is not a problem for us and we want to accommodate our workers. We are happy to have that." I asked if the minister had done a study or analysis of that. He said no. He did not care, that might make too much sense.
I have come to the conclusion that what we are dealing with is not legislatable and I think the minister has come to that conclusion too. He promised a common pause day. He is going to shut them down on Sunday and now we have a bill saying, with regulations you can drive a truck through, here is how you open on Sunday if you want. I believe he has come to the same conclusion as I have. I am prepared to acknowledge it, admit it and come forward and tell it like it is because the Liberals could not draft the bill for a common pause day. They tried to pretend they could and this government has not been able to draft a bill either to provide for a common pause day. What it has drafted is going to be expensive. It is going to be unfair. We are going to have some stores open selling exactly the same products as stores across the street or in another town that cannot open. There is going to be this patchwork effect. Eventually it will lead to all municipalities having to open or they will not have any retailers left.
I believe the government should look at the experience of the nine months of self-regulation and it may have to overcome some philosophical barrier these socialists seem to have that if government does not run it, legislate it; if there are not a whole bunch of bureaucrats required, then it cannot possibly work on its own. This government has to overcome that. I encourage it to think about that and see if it can overcome that philosophical problem I believe it has and use its head and common sense and think about what will work and what will not work. If the government does that, I believe it will be honest with people and up front. I think it will get great credit for that. I have not seen this party do that yet; it is about time it figured that out. That is one of the main reasons the public is so fed up with all of it.
The government will save a lot of money. It will save municipalities a lot of grief. It will free up a lot of court time. I suggest our justice system is on the brink of chaos when it comes to the amount of time available in the court. We see the kinds of people who are going off scot-free because the court system is so clogged up. We will free up a lot of police time. We will free up a lot of bureaucratic time. We will free up legislative time. We will save a lot of money and we will have the exact same result at the end of the day with a lot less unfairness.
It will be cheaper, more efficient, more fair, and I think the government will accomplish the same thing. In fact, I believe that if the government passes this, five years from now there will be more stores open on Sunday than there would be if the government left it to self-regulation. I think the government will find that. If it actually examines some other jurisdictions, it will indeed find that being open has not been the panacea many of them thought. They had a choice, and they did not have to do it to keep up with the unfairness of market share of others. They did not have to do that.
I have not even talked about cross-border shopping and the difficulty in border communities because I agree with the government on one aspect: that Sunday shopping is not the total problem. In fact, if we could address the issues and the problems it may not be that significant a factor, although there are still a lot of people who would like to shop on Sunday. If we could get our act together and prices on the US side were higher than ours, I still think they would shop on Sunday for the enjoyment, for the outing and that is their day. Some will, but surely not what is happening today.
To compound this Sunday shopping problem, created by federal, provincial and municipal governments with all their taxes and regulations where we cannot compete -- we are not on a level playing field -- by saying to border communities, "We expect you to shut down on Sunday unless there is some compelling reason" -- I do not agree with the government's premise. Even though that may be the government's premise, its bill does not do that. You can drive a truck through this, if those municipalities want to open.
I do not want to go on any further. I could bring up the real estate industry and rumours, maybe not true, that somebody directed the police to start shutting down some of the offices on Sunday. Many of the real estate agents up my way are dealing with recreation property; people are not free to go and see it, to deal with it, to come into the office to talk about it, unless it is on the weekend -- a time-honoured tradition.
If you look at any newspaper -- when are all the open houses? They are on Sunday. Why do the real estate offices have their open houses on Sunday? They do not want to work on Sunday. That is when people want to go and shop around and look at houses. Is the government going to shut this down? I do not know. You get into border communities, I guess -- they are going across the border to live anyway.
One of the most shocking things -- I digress, but I am going to do it anyway -- to me was the number of calls from the Ministry of Transportation employees in anticipation of their transfer to St Catharines, inquiring, "Could we still work for the government in St Catharines at MTC and buy a house in the United States and live there where we can afford to live a lot cheaper?" Go ahead and check it, ask about the number of employees who inquired about that.
The real estate industry made me think about that, because in our whole combination of taxes and regulations we are not competitive there either. We are not competitive with Quebec, and people in Ottawa are flocking across the river. They want to live in Hull because it is so much cheaper, the taxes are so much less. The businesses want to locate in Hull because they have a chance to make a buck there. They have a government that says, "We want you to be profitable and successful and make some money, because we know that's what employs people," whereas we have one that says, "No, if you actually beat us, if you get through all our legislation and all our taxes and you make some, we just want you to know we have some idea of how we can get that money back off you anyhow." And the government wonders why they do not want to set up business here in Ontario.
1700
This legislation is wrong, expensive and ignores what I think is the most commonsense, logical solution that costs no money, frees up resources for other areas and in the long run will lead to less Sunday shopping than this legislation will. It would be fair if we left it to people to open if they wish with the labour legislation I have proposed and talked about. That is actually even stronger and more encompassing than this government's legislation, because I am concerned as well about the seven-day-a-week pace.
I believe there is great value in having a pause day for workers, for their spouses and for their families. I ask the minister to take a look at that part of the legislation and see whether he cannot accommodate those millions of people for whom Sunday just does not happen to be the pause day that will allow them to be with their families and enjoy that day off in that way.
I will not support this legislation. I do not know where this will come down when all my caucus members have had a chance to look at it, examine it and see what changes the minister may be able to make. I know there are some who believe that anything as badly flawed and disastrous as this is better than nothing. I encourage my caucus members to express those viewpoints as they believe they should, representing the wishes of their constituents.
I regret that once again we are going to spend I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars travelling the province, having hearings again and rehashing a lot of the old things this party and this minister fought so hard against over the past number of years.
I want to be clear on the changes to the labour legislation, which I think will be very difficult. If the minister actually comes up with something that is enforceable in a commonsense way without hiring another 100,000 police officers or labour investigators to enforce it and it makes sense, I will support that. I believe it will be difficult to have something that is 100% enforceable, using commonsense enforcement procedures, but I think we will cover 99% of the employees and of the employers. I think the will and goodwill are there not to have anybody work on Sunday who does not wish to. I cannot imagine employers in the retail business wanting employees working in their stores on Sundays when they do not want to be there. I do not know anybody who wants that.
I also know there are hundreds of thousands of people looking for work, and some 200,000 more since this government took office, who will be very happy to be able to work on Sunday.
Hon Mr Farnan: From the concluding comments of the leader of the third party, it is obvious he has presented his personal views on the matter and not those of his party, whether or not the third party at this particular stage has a view on a vital, critical issue that has been facing the province for many years.
There is a difference between previous administrations and this government. The Conservatives, in their time, did look at this issue, but they refused to define the critical and tough definition of a tourism exemption. The Liberal administration addressed the issue by washing its hands and simply saying, "The municipalities can have unbridled and unrestricted exemption for open Sunday shopping." On the other hand we said, "We want balance; we want fairness; we want to work with the municipalities and we are going to have local sensitivity, local responsiveness and provincial responsibility by providing provincial guidelines."
An hon member: That is leadership.
Hon Mr Farnan: Indeed it is leadership, because we are not running away from the tough issues; we are making the tough decisions.
I want to talk about one area on which members from both parties of the opposition have made comments: enforceability. We believe the absolute right to refuse work is enforceable. Workers believe it is enforceable because we intend to enforce it. Employers will know it is enforceable because we intend to enforce it. Workers and employers know it is enforceable because it is the clear commitment of this government.
Just because something is difficult to do does not mean one runs away from it. That might be the style of previous administrations, but not the style of the New Democrats. Because it is difficult, we will face it squarely and enforce this aspect of the legislation.
Mr Grandmaître: I find the comments from the leader of the third party, trying to compare our legislation to the NDP legislation, very strange. I realize that for 43 years the Tories did not know where they stood on Sunday shopping. They brought in legislation and let it lie. Now they are proposing self-regulation. This is the first time in six and a half years that I have listened to the Tories saying it should be self-regulated.
At least we had the honesty and distinction of bringing in legislation, and now that the new NDP government is trying to amend this legislation to make it more palatable, I find it very strange that this minister, the member who criticized the former administration for passing on more responsibilities to municipalities, is again pointing the finger at municipal councils and municipalities to become much more forceful with no --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Partnership.
Mr Grandmaître: -- appeal process. I do not call this "partnership." One will have to go before the courts. I ask the minister, who will pay court costs? The municipalities again, or will it be the individual business person? I think the government has put more responsibilities on municipal governments, and I am sure that after consultation he will find municipalities do not need this type of pressure.
Mrs Marland: It is unbelievable to sit in this House this afternoon and hear the Solicitor General talking about "the clear commitment of this government." If there is one thing that is unclear in this province today, it is about any commitment of this government to anything. This legislation further endorses the fact that the public has been betrayed by this government on every single issue in its Agenda for People. Every time one of the ministers gets up and makes a statement, it is reneging on all of those promises in the Agenda for People.
When this particular member for Cambridge or any one of the people in this House stands up and says, "Oh, the workers will be protected; they'll have a right to refuse work," how is it that they were so adamant that we needed legislation to protect the workers in the last session of this Parliament? It is unbelievable that they can say what they are saying today and think the public is going to believe them. It is an insult to the public, which fortunately, at the earliest opportunity, will be able to tell this government that they are not being fooled by the misrepresentation of policy and by the fact that the government is now suggesting there is a partnership with the very municipalities which this government knows passed a resolution asking not to have the responsibility for Sunday shopping. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario passed a resolution four years ago and reconfirmed two years ago that they did not want the responsibility for Sunday shopping.
1710
Mr Mills: I am very pleased indeed to rise here --
The Deputy Speaker: This is questions and comments.
Mr Mills: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker.
Mr Harris: I thank all those who commented. The member for Durham East was very pleased and what not to hear my remarks. I appreciate that. I thank the member for Mississauga South, who I thought was right on and marvellous in her comments, remarks and understanding of what I had to say.
The member for Ottawa East, who I see is moving on, wants to know why I as leader of this party do not have the same policies my party had 50 years ago. I do not apologize for that. Times have changed; the world has changed. What worked 50 years ago is not working and will not work today, particularly in this area. I do not make any apology for not having that position.
The minister says he is really proud that he addressed this issue head-on. Everybody knows you can drive a truck through the silly guidelines he says represent the definition of a tourist area. There is no municipality and no store under these guidelines that cannot open if they wish to open.
With reference to the minister's comments, I leave him with this thought: If he has met his commitment for a common pause day -- he said he had a commitment and this lived up to it -- why does he need labour legislation so they do not have to work? If his labour legislation is 100% guaranteed enforceable, and this is a Sunday working issue, why does he need the other legislation because with this bill, not one person in the province who does not want to will ever have to work in retail on Sunday? What more could the minister ask for?
Mr Mills: I apologize; I always seem to be jumping up at the wrong time. It is indeed a privilege and a pleasure for me to stand here today in support of the amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act.
During the election campaign I spoke at every opportunity of my commitment to the common pause day. I spoke of my commitment as I knocked on doors and at all candidates' meetings. I never wavered in that commitment and I am not wavering here today. At that time, I must say I was supported by many people in that stand. I think that support is reflected in the fact that I am here today, because I do not have to tell the members of the third party that Durham East was held for many years by the Conservative member, who stood aside after some dispute with the leader, I believe. Nevertheless, I am not taking away from the fact that my support of this common pause day actually helped to propel me into this Legislature.
With the introduction of the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act, our government is taking a leadership role in a matter that affects the quality of life for all Ontarians. When we speak about the quality of life, I think back to my own childhood in England. In those pre-war days, my father was required to work for six days a week.
Mr B. Murdoch: Are you going to tell us all about this?
Mr Mills: I think it is important. It tells members a little bit about where I am coming from on this issue.
He worked six days a week all year round and on Sundays we regrouped as a family. We all got together. We did not have much money but we did things together. We walked along the Brighton beaches, where I was brought up, and sometimes we cycled into the country. We picked blueberries and we picked primroses in the spring. We enjoyed each other's company and we grew together as a family. I think that growing together as a family has stood me in good stead in my life. I am very proud to say here today that I have been married to the same lady for 44 years, and I like to think that the family commitment in those days when I was growing up has helped me to where I am today.
Later on, the war came and of course our working habits changed. I remember personally having to work every Sunday for seven or eight years. As every Sunday came and went, I would often think back to those times together and wish we could get back to having Sunday off and being together as a family.
The issue today is no different from what it was then. Families really do need time together, time to regroup, time to grow as a family in the turbulent times we live in. The times are laced with a fair dose of broken marriages, broken homes, tension and stress, and a common pause day will go far to relieve some of those things I have touched on.
The issue of Sunday shopping continues to both divide and unite the people of Ontario. Religion, family values, economics, labour, multiculturalism, regionalism, nationalism and other important aspects of life in Ontario all play a part in the public attitudes towards Sunday shopping. This is an emotional and a contentious issue. In fact, in the history of Ontario perhaps no other single issue has generated as much correspondence between the people of Ontario and the provincial government.
Recently I looked back into the historical record of Sunday regulations in Ontario and I found that back in 1845, a Sunday observance law was passed in Upper Canada which banned virtually all activity but churchgoing and certain works of necessity and charity.
My friend the member for Markham is not here now. He is a Presbyterian, I believe a Presbyterian minister previously, and he would appreciate this. The Presbyterian Church lobbied effectively and successfully to ban the Sunday use of streetcars. I do not think the member was actually involved in that vote.
I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I have just been passed a notice that I should be in the justice committee for a vote. I am torn between two things.
In 1943, Toronto movie theatres opened on Sunday but only members of the armed forces could enter therein to see the pictures. That to me, you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, is rather a novel move.
I bring these facts before members today just to show that this issue has not suddenly crept up on us. It has been around for a long time, and it makes me think that if we live long enough, we will see everything at least once over.
In March, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the Retail Business Holidays Act is the law of the land. It has withstood Constitution challenges and now offers the framework from which to provide a common pause day while improving protection for the rights of retail workers in Ontario. Through this decision --
Hon Mr Allen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would it be appropriate to ask the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member to attend the justice committee and the rotation to continue and he can resume his place in the order at the point where he has left off?
The Deputy Speaker: If there is unanimous consent, the Speaker is always agreeable.
Agreed to.
Mr Mills: I would like to thank all members of the House for their generosity. I will bid them adieu and I will be back.
Mr H. O'Neil: Of course we are very pleased to agree with that. I think when a member is called away for an important vote like that, it is only right that he should be allowed to make the points he wishes to make on such an important issue.
I might also say that --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Are you not on the same committee?
Mr H. O'Neil: Does that mean the minister does not want me to speak on this issue? Could I have unanimous support that I could go ahead on it?
I will not speak very long on this, but it is a very important topic, one I know our government and previous governments and now this government is trying to find a solution to. But I do not really believe that this particular bill, in the way the minister has introduced it in the House, is going to solve many of the problems we have. I know our member from Scarborough North had a lot of very important things to say about the bill, as many of the other members had also.
I think what is going to happen in this particular bill is that a lot of municipalities and people in the province have not really had a chance to look at it yet. When they do see some of the problems it is going to cause, not only for the municipalities but also for many of the small and larger businesses, they are going to be very upset.
Of course, the process here in the Legislature is that we have had first reading, we are going to go towards second reading and then it will go to committee. I understand that people will be able to appear before the committee this summer and will be able to present their different points of view. I think the minister is going to find that many of the municipalities and many of the business people are going to have a lot of suggestions and are going to ask for a lot of changes to this bill.
One of the problems when we look at this, and one of the problems we had, leads me to ask the minister, when I have completed my remarks, if we could have him really define what tourism is. We had problems with this and I know that he has had problems, both he and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, trying to define what exactly tourism is.
We have that problem in the Belleville and Trenton area, in the Sidney township area where I am from. Our legislation, which I think was good legislation, whether people liked it or not, did turn it back to the municipalities. The municipalities feel that in many issues they want to be able to make the decision as to what suits their area. Many of them, even in my area, were upset. They did not want this thrown back on them. But after they have a look at this legislation and some of the problems that could arise from it, they are going to wish they now had the legislation that was put forth by the Liberal government.
Where Belleville, Trenton or the Sidney township area were going to be able to decide what they wanted to do, now they are going to have to look at these different regulations and the things this government has put forward as to whether or not they fit into this area. Of course, the conflict comes where in our area they may have turned down the tourism area, but we have an open area over in the Picton area, in the Prince Edward area. The minister in his regulations is going to have to define what a tourism area is. When can it be opened up? When is it going to be closed? He has to try to make everybody happy, and it is going to be very, very difficult.
Another thing the minister talked about is a common pause day. This legislation is not going to give a common pause day. There are going to be people in different areas who are going to define what a common pause day is. I am going to ask the minister also, besides defining what a tourism exemption is, what does he define as a common pause day?
I believe too, when the minister first brought this legislation in, he was asked on several occasions to come down to specifics. I am going to ask him to be specific about the Trenton-Belleville-Sidney area or why it is different in the Picton area. The minister was asked on several occasions about the Toronto Eaton Centre. Where will it fit underneath his rules and regulations? I am also going to ask the minister to touch on that if he possibly can.
Again the problem is going to arise, if a municipality fails to interpret the tourism criteria in a manner consistent with the provincial direction, what is going to happen? I believe what is going to happen is that the minister is going to have the different municipalities, the ones that wish to take a more open view of what a tourism designation is or again, looking at the regulations, the interpretation of this legislation is going to cause a lot of problems within the different areas of the province.
There are going to be some, if I can use the word, a little more liberal designations of these areas. People are going to come forward and possibly appeal it to the government, if that is where it going to be appealed to. Whether they be church groups or other tourist businesses or other businesses within those different areas, they are going to appeal it.
What I am afraid of is that the minister is going to have a lot of problems that he is going to create for himself. When this does come before the committee that is going to be looking at it this summer, these are some of the things the minister is going to have to look at, and I hope the minister has an open mind. As I say, it may be that he is not going to be as critical of some of the legislation we brought in.
What we all have to really be concerned with is that -- I have been up on several occasions over the last several months as the Liberal critic for Tourism and Recreation when I, hopefully in a very constructive way, questioned the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the first minister and the minister of finance. The tourism industry at the present time is having some very difficult times within Ontario. We have mentioned some of the issues that the government brought in with the new budget.
Likely some of the things we did too placed a heavy load on the tourism industry in the province, but the government has placed an greater load with its additional taxes on liquor and gasoline. It is becoming very difficult for the tourism industry to attract tourists from all over the world, especially from the United States where we should really be doing some extra program to bring those people here.
I mentioned earlier today one of the tourist operators I spoke with last week when we were touring eastern Ontario. A very large tourist operator, along with other people, he is working very hard to attract tourists from the United States. He mentioned that his numbers were down. Where he used to have 47% of his business from the United States, I think now that was down to about 3%.
We have to do everything that we possibly can through assistance from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and from the Treasury and from the government in general. That is why this legislation has to be looked at very carefully. We do not want to place any additional burdens on the tourism industry and, as I say, it is going to be up to the minister to say what tourism is, how that fits underneath these different regulations.
I am not going to go on too much longer. We have had different cases where the government has introduced legislation. They have not been as open as I feel they should have been to look for changes in the legislation. I hope that even though the minister has drawn up this legislation, he will still have an open mind and be ready to assist those in the tourism industry, and yet look at those who are looking for a common pause day.
1730
Hon Mr Farnan: First of all, I commend the member for his non-partisan presentation in the House. It is typical of the member for Quinte to address the issue. Second, I want to say to the member that when he said, "You know, our old legislation, the Liberal legislation, it was good legislation," that is a relative matter. What was the purpose of the legislation? If the purpose of the legislation was a common pause day, then it was bad legislation because it was given to the municipalities with unbridled, unrestricted power to make any exemptions whatsoever.
We have instead taken a principle of working with the municipalities, with provincial guidelines that provide for a tourism exemption. We recognize tourism as a significant economic cornerstone of society here in Ontario. Over $15 billion worth of tourism is attracted, and because the member has the experience, he recognizes that important fact.
What we have done, I think, is we have combined two things: We have the local knowledge, expertise, sensitivity and aspirations in terms of tourism and we have put in place a provision for legitimate tourism exemptions. This goes along with provincial guidelines which provide the kinds of partnerships and the kind of balance missing from previous legislation. This is a very tough issue. We are not walking away from it. We are working with the local municipalities; we are providing provincial guidelines. We are not only going to allow the maintenance of tourism but are working to promote tourism under this legislation. I think we have found the right balance.
Mr Daigeler: I want to comment a little bit on what the Solicitor General has just said and also what the member for Durham East said in relationship to the member for Quinte. I have been looking very carefully at this bill, and quite frankly I cannot see in substance any difference between what our government introduced and what the new government is putting forward. In practice, it will lead to the same solution.
For the government party to say in a rather sanctimonious fashion, "We are instituting again a common pause day and it's very important to have that day" -- with which, by the way, I agree -- "and we have all of a sudden found the magic solution and we have got the right balance," I think really the minister himself, in his heart, knows better. What we are looking at is just about the same solution we had found beforehand: there will be some areas that will decide to be open and others that will decide to stay closed. That is really the sum total of it. Whether the government calls that the municipal option or calls it the tourism exemption, in substance it is the same thing.
I would like to ask the government and the minister in particular why they do not just come clean on this and say they have tried the same way we tried, but they were not much smarter, because it is a difficult problem, because there are different expectations across the province. Whether we call it municipal choice or tourism exemption, the end effect in both cases is the same: some areas, if they so decide, will be open and other areas, if they so decide, will be closed. I think that is the sum of it. Let's forget about the rhetoric all around it, because that is the effect of this legislation and that was the effect of the previous legislation.
Mr Bisson: Just a couple of short comments. First of all, I have a lot of respect for the member sitting directly across from me, the member for Quinte. In my short time here in the House I think we have had a couple of really interesting exchanges. I know the member to be one who is very honest and decent in his approach when dealing with these things.
That is really the point I want to bring forward: that at times in the House, yes, we do get partisan, we do get into some difference of philosophies on different things, but there are ways in which we are able to deal with that. I am not the minister responsible, but I think I would be safe in saying that these issues the member raises are issues that are felt by a number of members and things that would be brought up in committee. Certainly we would work together on that.
That is the only point that I want to make. At times we find this House to be somewhat partisan in the way that we approach things, and I guess there is room for that and there is a reason, but it is refreshing now and then to see a member get up and to speak on the issues and do it in a way that really brings out what the points are and what the concerns are on a particular bill.
Mr H. O'Neil: It is a very difficult issue. When I was the Minister of Tourism and Recreation we used to try to grapple with this thing. But the minister is going to have this conflict between what is a common pause day and what is a tourism designation. He is also going to have this conflict between municipal councils that are looking at these decisions and with these regulations.
I think that he should be more open with these regulations and guidelines that he is developing even now. He should be asking for input from the different parties and from people right across the province. I think he should include people -- whether they be clergy or people who are in the tourism business or the retail business -- and hopefully come up with a solution. It is going to be very difficult to do. I have to ask again that he keep an open mind on this, not only he but the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. During these hearings, make sure people are given the chance to give their views and hopefully come up with something that everyone can agree with, but it is going to be very difficult.
As the member from Nepean mentioned, the minister keeps stressing -- and I am going to be a little partisan here -- that this is an improvement on it, but there is not that much difference. We will see what happens during committee hearings.
Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill 115, an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act. The purported principle of this bill seems to be the government's indication that it supports a common pause day very strongly. During the course of my election campaign a few short months ago, I spoke very positively in that regard as well. I said many times that I strongly believe in keeping Sundays as a day of rest, a day for worship and indeed a day for families, as best we can. There are other legitimate points of view that were brought forward and we have to respect those, but at the same time I think we have to attempt, as much as possible, to ensure that Sundays are kept as pause days or days of rest, however one wants to refer to them.
As I say, I acknowledge very much that we cannot shut down a lot of activity on Sundays. There are many essential services that are required on Sundays. But I feel that retail stores for the most part are not required. As a former retail store clerk myself, I think I have some perspective that I could add that has not been mentioned so far. While I was in university I worked as a retail store clerk in my own home town on Saturdays and occasionally through the week as well. If there is going to be any legislation with respect to this issue, there has to be protection for those workers to ensure that if they do not desire to work on Sundays they are protected and they are not forced to do so.
I have some measure of reservation, reading the amendment to the Employment Standards Act that will go along with this bill, whether that will be accomplished. I think it is extremely difficult for us to legislate successfully in this area and in a manner that can be enforced, because there are subtle means of ensuring that a retail store clerk does what his employer wants. I would expect that to happen quite a bit in spite of this bill.
When I look at my own riding with respect to this bill I think of places like Arthur or Rockwood or Erin where we have a great many small stores owned by families, often a man and his wife who have operated the store, often for many years, and they run it as a family operation. Sometimes their children work for them; sometimes they are able to hire one or two employees, sometimes not. If competitive pressures force them to open on Sundays because, for example, stores in Guelph may be open, that will in one bold stroke eliminate their family day. I see that as being nothing but harmful to some of the values that we hold dear and that we have held dear over the years.
1740
In the consultations I have had with people in my riding, including clergy, municipal heads of council, and retailers, they look at the purported principle of this bill, that being a common pause day with provision for a number of tourist exemptions, as being admirable and something they support. I certainly, as I say, concur with that. We get back to whether or not this bill accomplishes this.
I think it was highly unusual that this information was briefed at our caucus meeting two weeks ago on Tuesday. Part of the information that was given to us also was a historical chronology of the holiday shopping issue in Ontario. As the member for Durham East, who has not returned yet, alluded to, this issue goes back to 1845.
When in Upper Canada the first Sunday observance law was passed, it banned virtually all activity but churchgoing and certain works of "necessity and charity." That is a truism that maybe we should return to from time to time and look at whether more of that sort of a truism cannot be applied to our own Sunday shopping legislation.
Every few years there was a new development with respect to Sunday shopping or activity on Sunday. We go through to 1906: the federal Lord's Day Act was enacted and made it illegal to sell or offer for sale any goods or property, transact any business -- commercial business, I assume -- engage in a public game or contest for gain, be present anywhere other than a church at which any fee is charged, and so forth.
We go on to 1922: Ontario enacted the One Day's Rest in Seven Act.
We go on to the war years when certain exemptions were made. Interestingly enough, servicemen were given special consideration for attending movies, which was very unusual and ended in 1945 at the conclusion of the war.
When we get to 1950 we see Premier Leslie Frost talking about how the Lord's Day Act of his day was going to be a positive initiative. He talks about putting the issue in the hands of the people and the elected councils. "There is nothing wide open about this act," he says. "It does nothing to induce any community or change its way of life. It enables the people to settle their own affairs in their own way."
There are any number of additional developments. Today we are at 17 June 1991. I would suspect that irrespective of how this debate goes or how this bill goes in terms of its passage or the amendments that may be attached to it at the committee stage, this will not close the books on the Sunday shopping issue. We will continue to wrestle with it, I am sure, and hopefully in a positive vein for the families of Ontario.
I do believe the vast majority of the people in my riding of Wellington support the concept of a common pause day, a common day of rest, for worship, for families, with the provision for tourist exemption. In our riding in the village of Elora, Mill Street is a wonderful tourist area. It has been open for many years without problem, without dispute, without any complaint that I have ever heard. I think a lot of people in the area, while they support the common pause day concept, realize that the great majority of the retail business that is done in Elora is done on weekends and specifically Sundays when we have a lot of tourist traffic from the city.
Also, in the centre of the county, in Fergus, we have the Fergus market, which has for many years been open under the tourist exemption of the former Sunday shopping law, providing a very important service and employing a great many people. Again, to my knowledge, my predecessor or myself, we have received no complaints with respect to that.
So I think that the purported principle of this bill would be, by and large, by the people of Wellington county, something that most people would support. As I say, during the election campaign on many occasions I felt strongly enough to make this an issue. There is a quote that appeared in a news article and was attributed to me, which I indeed recall stating: "I strongly believe in keeping Sunday a common pause day. Wide-open Sunday shopping will have a harmful effect on the family lives of many people in Wellington and I oppose it."
I would like to say a few words of comment about what my leader indicated earlier. I think that what he said about our party's position on this, that there are different viewpoints within our party and that we acknowledge them up front, is something that is extremely commendable, something I have not heard the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the government indicate publicly, that he is willing to allow the virgin points of view from his caucus to come into this public forum, allowing members of his caucus to represent the views of their constituents as they see fit.
I think that is a great indication from our leader that he respects our views. He respects our abilities to judge what is best for our own constituents. That goes beyond what we have seen, as I say, from the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the government. I think it shows great statesmanship and leadership.
When I get to the specifics of the bill, I find that it is extremely complex and convoluted. When I was speaking with some of the people in my riding, they were not sure about the specifics. That is something that gives me great reason to speak with caution this afternoon, because while I support the purported principle of the bill, I have many concerns about the specifics.
My party leader questioned whether the objective of the bill is in fact met. I am not convinced it is. The question was raised whether this bill is enforceable. We have had the assurance from the Solicitor General that in fact it is enforceable and that it will be enforced. Frankly, I have some measure of reservation about that.
Sunday work is the issue, as my leader indicated, and I concur with that. Some of us would work very passionately and hard to give as many people as possible the opportunity to not work on Sunday, if they feel that in their own circumstances and their own family life they would prefer to take that approach.
There are very loose tourist criteria. I think the Solicitor General might even admit that himself. They are extremely loose. It has been said that you could drive a truck through those criteria. I find that there will be very few areas of the province that if they wish to declare themselves tourist areas, will not be able to find in those criteria some situation that is applicable to their area that allows them to open.
There is probably a case to be made that this bill does not go far enough if you think strongly that a common pause day should be adopted and that people should not be forced to work on Sunday. I am personally giving that a lot of consideration as I determine how I am going to approach this bill.
Another measure I would like to raise that has not been raised as yet is the concern that may be raised from business improvement associations and local chambers of commerce that are brought into this in a way that they may have to endorse or reject Sunday shopping. It may be extremely difficult for them to do that. Once again it appears to be a degree of abdication of responsibility from the provincial government level.
The issue of cross-border shopping has been raised in this debate. In my own personal circumstance, in spite of the fact that we are a good two to two and a half to three hours away from any border, I know there are probably a number of businesses in my riding where I am sure some retail business has been lost to people electing to go south on weekends.
My personal view is that in no way does Sunday shopping in Ontario or the further proliferation of Sunday shopping in Ontario in any way restrict people going south when they want to shop. It is my feeling that cross-border shopping is more a function of price, the lower price for a number of goods in the United States, than actually the convenience of Sunday openings. It is something I noticed on the weekend, the fact that in some cases in the stores in the United States, according to some of the consumers who partake of cross-border shopping, they find that they have more staff and that it is somewhat more convenient at times to get service down there. That is maybe part of the issue as well.
1750
Another thing that comes to mind is that is when I speak to someone who finds he supports Sunday shopping and does so for his own convenience, I often ask whether he himself would like to work on Sundays, no matter what occupation he has, and of course he is very reluctant to say that he would like to work on Sundays. They would prefer to have Sundays to themselves. They would go home and do whatever they want and they would shop if they felt that was appropriate.
I find that very difficult to deal with. I look at the issue in terms of our own place here. If we say that many stores should be allowed to open, or that any stores should be allowed to open beyond those that presently are open, how do we rule out that we should sit on Sundays, given that we have some leadership role? If we want to be true to ourselves and true to our morals, I think there is a case to be made that a lot of other people and a lot of other occupations should be open on Sundays. If we are going to expand Sunday shopping, I do not know that we, as a Legislature, can say that we are not going to be open on Sundays as well.
In summary, I would like to say that I am giving this bill a great deal of consideration. I hope my comments have been of some assistance in this debate. I urge the Solicitor General, as the bill goes to committee this summer, to be very open-minded with respect to the amendments that may come forward, because I think there is a great deal of room for improvement in this bill, no matter how one looks at it.
I look forward to the resumption of this debate and listening to more comments from other members.
Hon Mr Farnan: Let me say that it is very clear that those Conservative and Liberal members who come from rural communities, small towns and cities across the province will have great pressure upon them to support this legislation precisely because of the statement made in the House today by the member for Wellington.
Think about what he said. He has endorsed every solitary principle within this bill. He has endorsed the fact that we must work for a common pause day to protect families and communities. He has endorsed the fact that we must have protection for retail workers. He has recognized the fact that within his own community the tourism exemption is a legitimate exemption as we look to protect retail workers and as we work towards a common pause day. There is the fact that we have provincial guidelines to work in partnership with communities.
The member cannot have it every which way. The leader of the third party has this kind of attempt to wash his hands and say: "The Conservative party has no position on this issue. My members can go whichever way they like." Some people will say, "We want wide-open Sunday shopping," and other Conservative members are going to say, "We like the government's bill."
That is an abdication, in my view, of a responsibility of a party to address the issue and say: "How would you solve the problem? What would you do in government to address this issue?" Today every single principle of this bill has been endorsed by the member for Wellington.
Mrs Marland: It is really unfortunate that any one of us can stand in this House and have what we say misinterpreted, and it will be up to the member for Wellington to clarify what he did say this afternoon.
The part I really have difficulty with is the suggestion that this bill protects retail workers. Now give me a break. This member for Cambridge who is responsible for this bill knows better than anybody else that if you put off the responsibility for Sunday shopping on to municipalities, it becomes the very municipal option that this party, in opposition, objected so strongly to when the Liberal bill created the municipal option for Sunday shopping.
How this member for Cambridge can say today as Solicitor General that it protects retail workers is beyond me, when he sat in the opposition, as did all the members of the New Democratic Party. I recognize that we only have, I think, 11 members of the New Democratic Party in government today who sat in opposition when the Liberal bill was tabled, but they all cried foul because there was no protection for retail workers, no option for families to stay together on Sundays because they chose not to work, no guarantee those workers would not be victimized and discriminated against by their employers because they chose to spend Sundays at home. Yet today he has the gall to say this bill protects retail workers. We know it does not.
Mr Bisson: I would like to make just a couple of quick points. On one point the honourable member mentioned in regard to this bill, I grew up understanding this issue. My parents were self-employed in the retail sector and I grew up in the back of the store, trying to find some time for my parents to be able to do the things we want to do as children with our parents, such as going for picnics and just having some time to spend with our parents.
The whole idea of the common pause day and the whole idea of Sunday I understand because it is something I grew up with. If it had not been for the opportunity to spend some time with my parents on those Sundays, being able to do those things as a family, I think life as a child would have been fairly difficult. I understand what the member is saying. That is one of the reasons that I think many of us, throughout this Legislature and throughout Ontario, support the whole idea of common pause, because we understand what the family principle is all about and how going to all-open, seven-day-a-week shopping would somehow put that at jeopardy.
It would not put everybody at jeopardy; there is no question about that. There is no set family unit in regard to any particular issue. What happens is that we need to make sure that we protect those people who have the opportunity and who do want to spend time with their families.
The second point I want to touch on very quickly is the question that was raised by the leader of the third party and was just somewhat browsed by the last member. That was the question in regard to why we need to put legislation in to protect workers. I think most workers out in the province understand why the government at times has to come in with legislation such as Bill 70 under the wage protection fund or with regard to being able to protect workers because of health and safety.
We understand that if there are not rules in the workplace and there are not rules in society to be able to protect our rights, because we do not have the voice that other people have afforded to them, our rights will be taken away and will be diminished in some way. That is the reasoning. What this bill does is exactly that: It gives the right to the workers to say, "If I do not want to work on Sunday, I have the right to refuse."
Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond, particularly to the remarks from the Solicitor General. I am somewhat disappointed that he chose to take that sort of partisan approach, to try to paraphrase my remarks of some minutes into a brief two-minute comment that suggested I supported in principle the entirety of the bill. I think I mentioned a number of times, and I have it written down here, the purported principle of the bill. The question that arises in my mind is yes, I support a common pause day, but does this bill in fact accomplish what the Solicitor General says it does? That is what I have to look at very closely over the coming weeks or coming days involved in listening to further debate on this bill.
1800
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Further debate. The honourable member for Durham East, who had unanimous consent of the House to participate in a vote, may resume his participation.
Mr Mills: I really appreciate the indulgence of all members of the House. I think when I concluded my remarks I had got around to saying that the Ontario Court of Appeal had confirmed that the Retail Business Holidays Act is the law of the land. It has withstood the constitutional challenges and it now offers the framework from which to provide a common pause day while improving protection for the rights of retail workers in Ontario. Through this decision, we can now go forward with the stated amendments.
These new amendments will finally come to grips with the widely differing municipal bylaws. These are confusing and they are unfair to those who enforce the law and to those who want to also obey the law. It will also ensure a reasonable degree of uniformity and, in the end, clarity and fairness in the application of the law.
I was also very pleased to see that the amendment reaffirms that municipal councils should take into account the principle that holidays should also be maintained as common pause days.
Beyond the current attention of the common pause day issue, cross-border shopping and the plight of border municipalities have been linked.
Cross-border shopping is not a Sunday shopping issue. Cross-border shopping is a seven-day-a-week issue. It is due in part to the considerable effects of the strong Canadian dollar, perhaps part of the secret free trade agenda -- it has been mentioned; we do not know, but it seems rather odd that the dollar remains so strong since the signing of that agreement -- and of course the effects of the GST and the desire of many Ontarians to avoid paying the GST.
I have spoken to a number of people and it seems that most of the people who do cross-border shopping are more intent on not paying the tax, dodging the tax, than they are about saving money, even if the costs outweigh the benefits of the shopping, as long as they do not hand that money to the federal government. They seem determined not to allow their money to get into the hands of the federal Conservative government.
Life being what it is, we will never be in total agreement with anything, I suppose, as a whole. Nevertheless, I really do believe this amendment is an important step forward towards improving the quality of life in Ontario.
The amendments to the Employment Standards Act strengthen the existing right of workers to refuse work on Sunday. Once given royal assent, their right to refuse Sunday work will be absolute -- legislation long overdue.
In recent weeks as I have gone about my riding I have asked many of my constituents what they think about this issue. I put the question to them, "Would you like to work on Sunday?" I must say I have had nobody reply in the affirmative. Some people qualify it. They say, "I wouldn't really want to work on Sunday," but absolutely nobody has come out and said, "Yes, Gord, I want to work on Sundays." I think that is significant. Most of us take for granted the right to enjoy that day of rest.
I know that in this debate there are many more of my colleagues here today who want to speak on this subject. With them in mind, I will terminate my remarks by saying that in the coming weeks, as a member of the justice committee, I will look forward to meeting Ontarians from all over this province and from all walks of life and from all job opportunities that there are and I intend to listen to their comments on this important issue.
It has been said that this government, by introducing this amendment, is in fact turning the clock back. I refuse to see it that way. I think this amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act is in fact turning the clock forward.
Mr Daigeler: Seeing that I said something about the member for Durham East while he was absent, perhaps I should repeat it for his benefit while he is here and say that while I respect his views and share his conviction about a common pause day, as I indicated to the Solicitor General before, I quite frankly do not see much difference in this legislation and our own legislation. As I indicated, you can call it municipal option or you can call it tourist exemption, but in the end it comes to the same effect. It leaves the possibility open -- and probably that is the way it should be in a pluralistic society -- it leaves the option open for a community that says it wants this possibility to do that and it leaves other communities that say no, they want to stay closed, that possibility as well.
You can fine-tune the thing and say, "Our tourism exemption is just in very particular cases and under very strict regulations," but when you look at the guidelines that are being put forward and that the minister makes so much fuss about, they are so flexible and so elastic that you can really adopt any kind of exemption.
As I say, in effect it is the municipal option that we had in place before. I just do not think the member for Durham East should be that self-congratulatory for his own party in having found the solution to the Gordian knot. I think they have hit the same roadblock we did, that the opinion of people in this province on this question is divided and in a democratic society you have to make an adjustment to both groups.
Mrs Marland: When the member for Durham East started his comments, before he had to leave the chamber to go and vote, he was talking about how precious his Sundays were. He recalled growing up in England and what he and his family did with those Sundays. In some of those arguments that he gave in terms of supporting the preservation of Sundays and family life -- and if we do not want to call it Sunday and we want to call it a common pause day for the sake of those people who choose to go that route, let's do it -- I shared very easily a recollection of some of my own arguments against the Liberal bill on Sunday shopping, because of the fact that when that bill was tabled, first of all, it was totally opposite to what the people in the majority and those people represented by the municipalities of this province wanted.
If there is one thing, and I say this to the member for Cochrane South, that you cannot do and succeed, it is talk out of both sides of your mouth. I am sorry, but you can promise one thing, and if you do not fulfil those promises, never underestimate the public remembering. When this government talks about this bill protecting those people who choose to have the kind of Sundays that the member for Durham East was recalling growing up with his family, then this is not the bill that will give them that protection or that option.
Mr Bisson: Just a quick point. My mother told me something years ago. If they talk about you after, obviously you are doing something right. So I thank the honourable member.
1810
Mr Mahoney: I would like to follow along with my colleague from Mississauga South, but not in a terribly critical vein of the man who should be the senior citizens' minister in this Legislature. I respect that in the not-too-distant future, when he retires four years from now, when he realizes that the seat is not available to him to hold again, he will want to spend a lot of his time shopping on Sunday, and I am sure he will be supporting his community in Oshawa designating the entire community, and maybe just his home and his front lawn. They will put a sign up and call it a tourist attraction, "Gord Mills Lives Here," unless he has sold it. I understand he was moving to Florida when the election occurred and all his furniture was in the van and he had to phone home and say: "Honey, unpack the van, we won. We're staying." I do not know. Maybe that will be a tourist attraction. It would seem to be one of some interest to those people passing through that community.
I find it fascinating, when we went through all of the filibustering and the debate over Sunday shopping, how this government has actually adopted, through the Solicitor General, the Tory method, with great convoluted additives brought on side to this legislation to make it even more confusing and more difficult.
We brought some understanding to it. We said to the municipalities: "You have the authority and the right to make a decision if your community wants it. We don't want you to mess around with trying to define that this store is a tourist attraction and this one isn't and this one's got cultural significance and this one doesn't. We want to make it simple. We think that you're elected and you're big men and women and you should be able to decide if that's what your community wanted."
What the government has now done is put the cat among the pigeons. No one is going to be able to discern what is properly defined in the area to allow Sunday shopping. They have just created a terrible mess.
Mr Mills: I would like to clear up a few things. My colleague the member for Mississauga West has indicated that I am sort of a keen Sunday shopper. I am rather an old-fashioned type of fellow. I have never been an advocate of Sunday shopping, and even if I want something on Sunday, I can swear on oath to the member that I do not shop on Sunday. That is how strongly I feel about the day of rest.
Mr Mahoney: Careful; you may have to resign.
Mr Mills: No, it is true.
In response to my honourable friend the member for Mississauga South, she mentions that we have a piece of legislation now that really, the door is wide open. I do not subscribe to that theory. I think the criteria set in place in this amendment allow the municipalities to act in a very positive way and it reaffirms our position as a government that we can make this thing work. I am positive those criteria will lead municipalities along the road and that we can actually put some teeth into the legislation that the previous government, in its wisdom, saw not to put any teeth to.
I thank the member for the comments. I thank her for participation in my comments. With that I will close, and I will just tell the member for Mississauga West that in four years' time, I do not intend to be in Florida; I intend to be sitting here again.
[Report continues in volume B]