Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OTTAWA-CARLETON SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Almost everyone except the provincial government knows that five school boards for Ottawa-Carleton is too many. In Ottawa there is tremendous public support for a commission to study consolidation of Ottawa-Carleton's five school boards, including a unanimous resolution of city council.

It was therefore disappointing for Ottawa taxpayers that the new Kirby commission to review Ottawa-Carleton's municipal governments did not include a parallel study to review the structure of our school boards. After all, property taxpayers pay more to school boards than to municipalities. Recent strikes, economic realities and quality of education concerns dictate the need for a fundamental structural review of our five school boards.

In January I wrote to Minister of Education Silipo urging a review of school board structure to parallel the municipal government review. In February both the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and an Ottawa Citizen editorial urged similar action. Therefore, disappointment greeted press reports several weeks ago that Minister Silipo will not review school board structure and that the new regional government review will not address the dilemma of our five school boards.

In excluding our five school boards from reform, over half the problem is being ignored. On an important Ottawa issue, Ms Gigantes, the member for Ottawa Centre, again remained silent.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House the critical need in my riding of Wellington for a group home for developmentally handicapped children. There is no facility of this kind in the county of Wellington at the present time.

Last October I was approached by my constituents Irene and Bernie Dobben of Moorefield in Maryborough township about the lack of residential services for developmentally handicapped children in Wellington county. Their child was born with Cornelia de Lange's syndrome in 1980. For two years now, Mr and Mrs Dobben have been trying to place their child in a residential program that would address the child's special requirements, but without success. Mr and Mrs Dobben were forced to apply to residences outside Wellington county, but were at a distinct disadvantage since spaces are filled first by local children with similar needs.

Mrs Dobben, along with many other concerned parents, formed the Parents Action Group. They presented a report outlining their suggestions to the Wellington County Multi-Year Plan Implementation Committee last December. The report calls for a group home that would accommodate four children plus two parental relief beds. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has not yet extended funding for this very urgently needed program.

Mrs and Mrs Dobben, as well as other parents, are at the end of their rope. Their options are few and their need is great. I hope the minister will ensure that adequate resources are made available to Wellington county so that a residence for developmentally challenged children can be established. I call upon the Minister of Community and Social Services to do this without delay.

ROBERT DIETZ

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): This past Saturday night 200 labour activists joined me, the member for Cambridge, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot and the member for Waterloo North in posthumously recognizing the dedication, talent and unselfish service given by the the late Robert Dietz, vice-president of Local 677 of the United Rubber Workers of America, to his friends, co-workers and community. The Waterloo Regional Labour Council officially recognized Bob Dietz by presenting the Hermie Krueger award to his family.

Bob was not a hero, but the time, commitment and volunteer efforts he put forth on behalf of his coworkers were indeed heroic. Bob wasn't famous, but his struggle for justice and fairness within the workplace on behalf of his brothers and sisters touched the lives of many. His tremendous ability to communicate effectively with an uncanny ability to incorporate wit and humour was always recognized. He put the interests of others before himself constantly.

Bob Dietz was indeed the salt of the earth. The inscription on the plaque his family received is just and fitting, as it reads, "Outstanding Contribution to Labour and the Community." His hard work, dedication and enthusiasm will long be remembered by his family, friends and coworkers in Local 677.

1340

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Mr Speaker, you will recall that way back on April 14, I addressed the Legislature on an exciting ethanol fuel pilot project being promoted by the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Cooperative. I might remind the House the proposal promises to assist our ailing agriculture industry, produce a cleaner-burning fuel and, in due process, create over 5,000 jobs province-wide.

At my insistence, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has acknowledged the incredible merit of this proposal and indicated he would "do everything in my power to make sure we can move this forward" and "I would certainly like to be able to do that by July 1, if possible."

The July 1 deadline is almost upon us, yet I continue to wonder what the Minister of Agriculture and Food is planning. Moreover, the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Cooperative remains equally uninformed. Noting this week's unveiling of green ethanol fuel in Chatham, I question why the minister is shying away from the opportunity being offered to all Ontarians. Time is clearly running out for the Seaway Valley farmers. I implore the minister to seize this opportunity now, before it's too late.

DAY CARE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On May 12, I hosted a public meeting in Mississauga South where parents, early childhood educators and day care operators could express their concerns about the NDP government's day care policies. A panel representing day care providers and users, the government and interest groups gave their views and answered questions.

Almost everyone who attended the meeting was angry at the Bob Rae government's discrimination against those who provide and use private day care. Last year, the government gave a $2,000 wage enhancement to the staff of non-profit centres only. Unlike private centres, non-profit centres receive capital funding averaging $18,000 a space and deficit funding. Clearly, non-profit centres should be called "taxpayer-funded centres."

My constituents are furious that the Bob Rae government is robbing parents of choice in child care. The NDP is putting Ontario's 650 private operators, mostly women, out of business. They don't care about the 6,500 workers the private centres employ, again mostly women. They don't care about the 33,000 children who receive quality care in private centres. The Bob Rae government's day care policies are anti-women and anti-children.

The NDP is spending $75 million for private centres to convert to non-profit status, even though that money would put all 12,000 children on the waiting list into subsidized child care. This government cares more about socialist ideology than the day care needs of Ontario's women and children.

J. G. JAZZ BAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): The year 1992 will be a year of great memories for many people. For some, it will be the year of Canada's 125th anniversary, but for J. G. Jazz, a band in my riding, it will be the year it won gold in Halifax. For Jenny Kanis, it will be the year she was recognized as the outstanding instrumental jazz director in Canada at MusicFest.

Jenny Kanis is a teacher of music at Joseph Gould Senior Public School in Uxbridge. Each year she auditions music students from grades 7 and 8, looking for talent and enthusiasm, to make up the J. G. Jazz band. Jenny and 17 members of her band practised two nights a week perfecting its repertoire, from contemporary jazz-rock to the 1930s and 1940s big band era. The band then performed at regional and provincial festivals, where it earned the opportunity to go to the national MusicFest.

This year, the J. G. Jazz band won the silver medal for its performance in southern Ontario at Oshawa at a festival there. The J. G. Jazz band received a gold plaque for excellence in many facets of music in the 13-years-and-under class at MusicFest in Halifax. Last year, the J. G. Jazz band won silver at MusicFest in Vancouver. All these accomplishments require enthusiasm and dedication, which Jenny and her band have provided.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Two weeks ago the Minister of the Environment participated in the release of the Crombie report. The minister praised David Crombie's work, calling it a green vision for the future of the GTA. However, while the NDP releases reports filled with good words, its actions tell a very different story.

The Crombie report spoke to the important role the province's conservation authorities must play in the ecosystem approach that is necessary to protect our streams, rivers, lakes and green lands. The Association of Conservation Authorities praised the direction of the report but has serious concerns about its inability to implement any of the recommendations when it faces a 13% cut in its budget this year alone --

The association notes that instead of expanding the role of conservation authorities, the Ministry of Natural Resources has been systematically cutting its funding. David Crombie himself criticized the actions of the MNR for its preoccupation with funding issues relating to conservation authorities rather than recognizing their important role in watershed and management issues.

The Minister of the Environment has been unable to coordinate the single issue of making sure that as she tries to implement a green plan for the province of Ontario that conservation authorities will have the resources necessary to be participants in that plan. While the Minister of the Environment talks about the importance of green lands and environmentally sustainable communities, the Minister of Natural Resources is deciding that the conservation authorities are unimportant. If the NDP feels that the problems of the GTA can be resolved with kind words and no action, it is sadly mistaken.

INTERCHANGE ON CANADIAN STUDIES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement today is directed to the Premier and to the Minister of Education. It has come to our attention that the 1993 Interchange on Canadian Studies, which was to be hosted by Ontario and organized through the York region board, has been cancelled by your government.

Interchange on Canadian Studies is a national organization which provides opportunities through student conferences and travel exchanges for young Canadians to meet, to hear prominent speakers and to share ideas and experiences on matters of significance to Canada. This has been a valuable national education forum for students across Canada since its inception in 1972.

This program promotes understanding and appreciation for Canada's diverse heritage. I am genuinely surprised that your government has cancelled such a worthwhile program in light of the current constitutional challenges that face Canadians. While the Premier is actively participating in the constitutional conference, we should at this time in our history continue to promote an understanding of and an appreciation for the regional aspects of Canada among our students.

I urge the Premier to discuss this request with his Minister of Education, to review the application from the York region board and to support this forum and today's Canadian students, who deserve the same opportunities as students of the past 20 years.

LITERACY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Last weekend my mother-in-law, Mrs Tina Oleinikow, came to visit our family in Kingston. She left Timmins by bus at 7:45 am, expecting to arrive at 11 pm. Through the courtesy and helpfulness of bus drivers, taxi drivers and neighbours, she was at our house by 9 pm. This is significant because in one important respect Mrs Oleinikow needs the help of others. Although she has lived in Timmins for over 40 years, she can neither read nor write English.

I raise this incident in the first place to remind ourselves of the countless acts of kindness we show each other every day; they are the basis of a civilized society. But I also want to talk about a more focused form of help: literacy groups. This help wasn't available to Mrs Oleinikow, who cleaned houses while raising a family.

In most communities today I am pleased to say literacy instruction is available. One example is Kingston Literacy, which held an open house last week. Visitors to one of their two locations learned that it is a community-based, non-profit organization that has been continually providing literacy services to Kingston since 1978. Among its programs are family literacy, computer-assisted learning, literacy in the workplace and clear writing workshops.

Director Carynn Arnold and the 12 full-time and two part-time staff are to be commended for this invaluable service. Recently they won a major award from the Movement for Canadian Literacy for providing leadership in literacy.

My mother-in-law has had a good life in Ontario. Knowing the skills Kingston Literacy teaches would add a dimension to her life no one should be denied.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to take up with the government today the issue of youth unemployment. My question is to the minister of finance, the Deputy Premier. Mr Treasurer, you will know that the Department of Labour data which were released a very few days ago indicate that for the summer of 1992 your own government is projecting an unemployment rate of 18% for young people in the age category of 15 to 24; 18% of those young people will, according to the government of Ontario's latest statistics, be unemployed in the summer of 1992.

Since taking office, your government has seen the number of unemployed young people in this province increase by 70%; 82,000 more young people have joined the unemployment rolls since your taking office. This summer we've got projected unemployment rates for young people at 18%. Since your taking office the youth unemployment rate has been maintained at a very high level.

My question to you is, Mr Minister of Finance, what measures are you prepared to support for the summer of 1992, and not just for students but for those young people out there looking for that important first job?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member raises once again in this House a matter that is of concern to all of us. While he kept making references to the increase in youth unemployment since the government changed, I don't think he was making a direct causal relationship in those facts. However, that aside, whether he was trying to make that link or not, the issue is an important one and one of enormous concern to us because when young people are denied the opportunity to work, that settles in and has a long-term effect on those young people, and on the rest of society I might add.

We know in the last two years the private sector has laid off in this province close to 300,000 people. That's an enormous gap to fill and I don't think the member opposite would imply that government could pick up that kind of slack. Those were not all young people either, I hasten to add. Unless the member doesn't want me to, I will leave until the supplementary some of the specific measures we have undertaken.

Mr Conway: I accept it's a very difficult time, but I repeat that your latest report indicates that for the summer of 1992 18% of all young people in this province are going to be out of work. That's the worst youth unemployment rate in over a decade and worse than anything in the recession of 1982-83. Admittedly, we have seen over the last 18 months this government struggle through some tough times, but the government has made heroic efforts to accommodate some of its other constituents. I won't enumerate the extent to which the government has gone to accommodate doctors, teachers and public servants -- heroic efforts. I want to know what you are prepared to do in a similar fashion for young people desperately looking for a chance to get into this economy.

Yesterday, the Premier enumerated a number of government programs. In the day that has elapsed, I had a look at some of the government programs. I want to focus my supplementary only on a few of the government programs. The Junior Ranger program, which in 1990 offered 864 positions, this year will offer 426 positions. Ontario Place, which in 1991 offered 672 positions, will this year offer only 602 positions. The Ministry of Natural Resources in 1990 provided 1,226 summer Experience positions. This year the summer Experience positions are halved at roughly 602. What is the government going to do about this sad and lamentable record and what is it offering to young people this year?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member opposite would appreciate the fact that priorities change, programs change and because the program is in place, we will not always have that same program in place in perpetuity in this province. Of course, priorities of government will change and some programs will be reduced, others will be expanded and new programs will be introduced.

For example, I can't think of anything more important to the young people of this province than the training program we have offered and we have provided some details on that in the last couple of weeks. For the training program, we are spending $1.1 billion over three years, and when you combine that with the other strategic expenditures detailed in this budget, that's going to support about 90,000 jobs this year. But it's the training component that I think is so very important, because that is an area where I think we have to continue to put more money.

I can tell the member opposite as well that at over $900,000 this year, this government has made the largest contribution in history to training the people in this province. That's what we're doing.

Mr Conway: My honourable friend is being disingenuous at best, because he will know that the training programs to which he has made reference overwhelmingly concern themselves with those on social assistance and many others who are out of work. I am talking about young people: students looking for a summer job or college and university graduates looking for a first job.

The reality is that when we look at the summer programs that the government of Ontario has developed over the years, one of two situations obtains. In the summer of 1992, a summer where unemployment rates for young people will be at decade-level highs -- 18%, or almost 200,000 young Ontarians out of work -- the reality is that the government offerings are either going to be less than they were in 1990 or 1991, and in some of these programs such as Ontario Place, the Junior Ranger program or MNR's summer Experience program, dramatically less, or at best are going to be flatlined to last year. The reality is that the unemployment curve for young people is not flatlining; it is escalating dramatically.

My question remains: What particular and immediate initiatives are you prepared to take so that young people in Nickel Belt, in Rainy River, in Renfrew and in all other parts of Ontario will have some hope of gainful employment in the summer of 1992?

Hon Mr Laughren: I believe that in his response to the member yesterday, the Premier indicated that we are continuing to look at this problem, because it is serious. I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of the problem at all. That's one reason the member for St Andrew-St Patrick is looking at this very vexing problem.

But at the risk of repeating -- because I wouldn't want the assembly or people who are watching the events here today to be left with the impression that we haven't done anything else either, and this is, for the sake of repetition, from what the Premier said -- I would remind the member that the Futures program will employ and train about 24,500 young people in 1992-93; the Environmental Youth Corps will employ about 3,000 young people this year; the youth employment counselling centres will provide counselling and job placement assistance to about 33,000 clients, and the student venture capital and youth venture capital programs will create about 5,000 jobs in new businesses created by young people.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You have not made youth the priority. Money for the establishment and the unions, no jobs for the young people. That's the result of your priorities.

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the member for Oriole doesn't want to hear what we're doing. She simply wants to leave in the minds of people that we're not doing. In fact, we are doing a lot and we're going to be doing more.

1400

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has the responsibility of representing Ontario's municipalities within his government and at the cabinet table. As the minister well knows, municipalities are in a quandary, wondering how to respond to the government's failed leadership on the Sunday shopping issue. Many municipalities, including Windsor, that have proceeded with bylaws under the unworkable tourist exemption have spent countless hours and thousands of dollars fighting before the OMB, and now the OMB is deferring decisions while it awaits government action.

I would ask the minister to tell us what steps he has taken -- as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I stress, as he looks to whom he can refer this question -- to represent the concerns of municipalities on this issue.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Government House Leader): Since I don't get very many questions, if the minister doesn't mind, I'll try to answer it, because I have spent a fair amount of time talking to municipalities about this. I can tell you the one thing they have said very clear and very loud to me is: "Don't go back and do it the way the Liberals do it. We don't want to have it at the municipal level." I had a consultation meeting with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario just a couple of weeks ago. They said: "Whatever changes you're contemplating, don't pass off your political problems to the local level. That's what the Liberals did. It was wrong then and it would be wrong now."

Mrs McLeod: That seems to me to be a very clear indication of the kind of consultation and listening this government does, because that's the kind of message you might have heard from municipalities in your opposition days. The reality has changed for municipalities, the messages have changed, and this government needs to hear and respond to today's realities.

As the member for Windsor-Riverside and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in both roles, this minister has a double responsibility to represent the concerns of border communities, and as everyone knows now, Ontario's border municipalities have been particularly hard hit by the Sunday shopping legislation because of the direct impact it has on cross-border shopping.

I would ask the minister very specifically what he is doing today to help border communities pass the kind of shopping bylaws that will not be prone to the impossible Ontario Municipal Board appeal and will create needed jobs for this summer as well as for the long term.

Hon Mr Cooke: I can't help but respond a bit to the opening comments by the leader of the official opposition, and I would say that the position of AMO I was referring to is one of just a few weeks ago. That is the official position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario: It doesn't want the province to pass off the responsibility like your government did when you were in power. They didn't like it then and they don't want it now.

I'm surprised that you would put forward such a silly resolution this afternoon. Maybe if you got out and talked to the municipalities you would hear exactly what they're saying as well, and they don't like what you think are the good old days when the Liberals were in power, from 1985 to 1990.

I can say that I live in a border community. I know the border community situation very well. I've also heard what you have said in the past and what your party has said in the past. One day you blame it on tobacco tax. Another day you blame it on gasoline tax. Today it's blamed on Sunday shopping. I think we on this side of the House understand that cross-border shopping is a very complex problem that needs a complex and total solution, and we're working on that with the federal government, the municipal sector and the provincial government.

Mrs McLeod: None of us would say that the entire factor behind the cross-border shopping problem is Sunday shopping or that it can be entirely relieved with that, but surely the minister, having met with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, having listened to the concerns specifically of border communities, will know they are saying that the option of Sunday shopping is at least one which would help the situation.

The minister says he is listening and responding to AMO. It must be that he is moving to personal support for wide-open Sunday shopping, which is the alternative they have traditionally supported. We are aware that the minister joined his colleagues in meeting with the governing council of the New Democratic Party over the weekend to discuss whether or not the government should change its Sunday shopping law, and it is at least purported that he would personally have been in support of changing the law. Last week and again earlier today the minister met with caucus to consider changes on the Sunday shopping law, and we are led at least to believe that he has supported some changes.

Later today the minister and his colleague will have an opportunity to vote in favour of an opposition motion which advocates changes to the Sunday shopping law, and I wonder if the minister will follow through on his concerns and his convictions to support that resolution and whether as the government's House leader he will give his colleagues the option for open voting to express their concerns and convictions on the issue.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's with a great deal of regret that I'm not going to be here this afternoon for the vote. I'm going to be up in Bruce county meeting with municipal politicians and listening to what they have to say. But I can tell the member and my colleagues that if I've learned anything in the last number of months, my colleagues will voice their opinion as they see fit. But if I was here and I was going to be debating the bill, I would listen to AMO and I would not support a resolution that said, "Pass the buck to the municipal sector."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, we'd like to stand down our first leader's question for the presence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Speaker: You are standing it down? New question.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Solicitor General. Considering the events of the last few days and the local municipalities' concern with respect to your non-performance on Sunday shopping, much has been made of the date or dates when this government will come down with a comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with Sunday shopping.

We've talked around this issue on a number of occasions. The Premier has said there will be legislation before the summer. Can you clarify to this House what exactly that means? When will the people of Ontario know what they can do on Sunday, whether it includes shopping or opening their stores? They at least have the right to know when you plan on making a decision.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As I've indicated previously, if and when this government has some alteration with respect to legislation to announce, it will announce it to this House and not before.

I must say as well in response to the member that the statements by his good friend Otto Jelinek with respect to opening stores on Sunday really, I don't think, were very helpful the other day. I'd like to urge the member opposite to convey to his counterpart in Ottawa that if he really wanted to do something about cross-border shopping he might direct concerns such as the imposed GST, keeping interest rates at artificially high rates, keeping the dollar artificially high and the signing of free trade agreements. I think those kinds of things are more immediate actions that would help solve cross-border shopping and the Sunday shopping issue.

Mr Stockwell: The question was very clear to the minister. There is little this House can do about those issues that you speak about. We don't represent the people of Canada; we represent the people of Ontario. Maybe you should get that through your head. By representing the people of Ontario, you can allow the consumers and the store owners out there to make a conscious decision --

Mrs Cunningham: Stop passing the buck.

Mr Stockwell: Don't give me any more socialist pap on the GST and issues affecting the federal government.

The question stands. I don't think anyone here would argue that it's a tough decision. Nobody's suggesting it is not, considering the statements your party made when it was on this side of the House. All the people in this province are asking is, "Tell us when you will make a decision." They're not even looking for a decision from you any more; they just want to know when. Give us a date.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Perhaps the member opposite could give us a date and some advice as to when he's going to be able to change some of the real difficulties that are destroying this province and this nation in this very recessionary period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I find it quite difficult to take advice from the friends of a government that has presided over the worst recession in this country in the last 60 years.

Mr Stockwell: This is embarrassing. This is absolutely embarrassing for the people of the province of Ontario.

I'll give you a date: June 20th. Would this minister now come forward in the House today and put all the concern to rest? All the municipalities would be given the opportunity of hearing what the legislation will be. The municipalities aren't saying to me, like the Municipal Affairs minister said, "Don't do what the Liberals did." The municipalities are saying to me, "Can you please ask the government to make a decision?"

To the Solicitor General: Please, sir, the people in this province would like to know what they can do on Sundays, whether their stores will be open, whether they will stop losing jobs, whether the people will stop cross-border shopping. They would like to know when you, sir, will make a decision. Stand up and be counted.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'm very pleased to acknowledge the comments of the member opposite that he would undertake with his federal colleagues in Ottawa to establish a date to eradicate all of those very negative and difficult impacts on this economy, and I'm very pleased to rise in my place to assure them that on the very same date he is able to announce those in this House, I'll give him the date on this one.

1410

INCOME TAX

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware that last week the Conference Board of Canada issued an updated economic outlook. Quite disturbing to many of us, the headline was, "Major Setback in Recovery 1992: Reassess Your Business Plans." This was issued by Mr Frank, who is the chief economist and someone who, I think most of the government members will recall, the Premier was quite complimentary about last year.

The reason the conference board revised its figures was the provincial budgets, particularly the Ontario provincial budget, and particularly because the Treasurer had decided, effective July 1, to take provincial income tax levels up about 5% -- not just on the well-to-do, but people will be paying about 5% more provincial tax effective July 1. This is everyone. If you're making $10,000 a year, you will be paying 5% more provincial tax. That was the primary reason the conference board gave for revising its economic forecast.

My question to the Treasurer is very clear: Why in the world would you choose July 1, the particular time when the economy is delicately balanced, to increase personal income tax on every working person in Ontario? Why would you choose that time to stop the economic recovery in its tracks by doing something the conference board says is dead wrong?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It's no secret by now, I hope, to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that in the budget we tried to accomplish -- and I think we struck the appropriate balance -- three things: (1) we wanted to make a commitment to job creation and training, (2) we wanted to maintain the essential services which his colleagues are demanding day after day, appropriately so, in this House, and (3) we wanted to keep the deficit in check. As a matter of fact, his colleague the member for Kenora is on record as saying that the deficit's too high; we didn't cut enough. Perhaps we didn't raise enough taxes; I don't know.

I can tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that we raised taxes on July 1 from 53% of Ontario tax payable to realize for the province a 1.5% increase for the full year of 1992, and then up to 55% of federal tax payable on January 1, 1993. The simple answer is that by raising the tax on July 1 half the year is then available for the full tax to apply. There's nothing magical about July 1.

Mr Phillips: I feel very strongly about this because I think the people of Ontario have to realize that what you did is you took the tax rate from 53% to 56% on July 1. The federal government gave a modest reduction to low income earners in this province. You took back triple what they gave you. The conference board is very clear on this. They say: "We can put aside the hope that lower interest rates and inflation will rouse the consumer. Jobs are all that matter. Without overstating the case, the current situation is grim."

What is affecting jobs in this province is the fact that you have taken disposable spending out of the hands of not the rich but out of the hands of everyone. That is going to affect jobs.

My question to you, Treasurer, is this: As you prepared your budget you spelled out the jobs you would retain. Why did you not spell out in your budget the jobs that would be lost as a result of you unilaterally taking the personal income tax up July 1 by over 5%? There's no question of that. It went from 53% to 56%. Why was there not in the budget some estimate of the job impact of that particular move?

Hon Mr Laughren: The tax increase of Ontario tax payable from 53% to 56% took place on July 1 as 56% because it applies to the full calendar tax year of 1992. There's nothing mysterious or sleight-of-hand about that; that's the way the tax year is.

But it also needs to be said, perhaps, that when this government takes the money through the tax system, we put it back into the economy to keep the economy moving. Unlike what some of your colleagues are telling us, that we should have cut spending, should have cut programs, we decided to have a creative balance in this budget to create jobs, maintain essential services and keep the deficit in check. That's why we did it.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I'll go with the three-part to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier.

The Treasurer will know that the headlines in the paper today say, "Quebec Subsidies Hurt Ontario Firms." I have in my hand a list of projects in Ontario awarded to Quebec companies: Algonquin College, Bell Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corp, Central Peel Secondary School. The list is about four and a half pages long regarding the Quebec firms that were awarded contracts in Ontario because of subsidies. What is this government doing to ensure that Ontario companies have a level playing field competing with Quebec firms?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): From time to time, members of the assembly and of all parties have raised the whole question of contracts being done in Ontario by out-of-province contractors. This has been a complaint that's been raised for a number of years. It's no secret, I hope, that this government stands for a reduction in the interprovincial trade barriers and the movement of labour. I'd be interested in knowing whether the member is suggesting that there should be some kind of restrictions on contracts being awarded to out-of-province contractors. If that's what he's saying, I would be very interested in hearing how he thinks that fits in with the reduction in barriers across this land.

Mr Carr: I also have a list of the companies that are out of business: Aerolator, 40 to 50 people; Arista-Newman, 40 to 50 people; Durable Equipment, 25 people; H and K Manufacturing, 80 people; Leblanco, 40 people; Robinsons, 50 people. This is a list of the manufacturers that have lost jobs. What are you doing to ensure that other companies like these do not end up losing jobs, and out of business, because of the practices that are going on in the province of Ontario today? What are you doing to assist these firms, or are you just going to let the remainder of the companies involved go out of business, go the same route as these people? There's about a page and a half of all the job losses as a result of this policy. What are you doing specifically to help companies so they don't go out of business like these companies listed here?

Hon Mr Laughren: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology would probably give the member opposite a more satisfactory answer, but I can tell you we are concerned about the number of closures, layoffs and shutdowns in the province. I think it would really be very unfair for the member opposite not to acknowledge the fact that probably the single biggest impediment to job creation and maintaining employment in this province is the free trade agreement, and your friends have a lot to answer for in that regard.

Mr Carr: It's interesting to note that in March of this year we had more exports to the United States than ever in the history of this country, during a period where it had a recession.

What we're dealing with here specifically is that some of the companies here talk about some of their concerns. They talk about the escalating workers' compensation costs, the health tax, union and labour costs. They list about four or five pages here, as does the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. They put together some resolutions to help. They gave you specific recommendations on the economy, on the Labour Relations Act, on pay equity, on employment equity, on the provincial deficit -- which you should be aware of yourself -- on Ontario health care costs, reform of the Ontario retail sales tax, the Workers' Compensation Board, Ontario capital tax and private day care.

We have pages of simple resolutions on what we can do to help companies in Ontario, two and a half pages of resolutions saying this is what you should do to help industry in Ontario. Which ones are you going to implement so we don't have to stand up here and read the pages and pages of jobs lost because of your inaction in the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I can assure the member opposite that this government does not have the same kind of Reform-minded package he has in mind to keep jobs in this province. We recognize a right-wing agenda, a Reform agenda, when we see one, my friend. That is not the intention of this government.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, third party. Just for the information of members, by rotation, where the third party had stood down their first leader's question they've now had that; so back into rotation means that the third party now has a backbencher question with one supplementary, then to the government side.

1420

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the acting Minister of Energy. On April 16th the leader of our party asked a question regarding Ontario Hydro granting a $7-million contract without public tendering. We received a reply from the chairman stating that the firm awarded the contract was the only acceptable source with the necessary expertise.

This province has many computer software firms that are world leaders in their field. They are competitive internationally and have developed first-rate technology. Is it appropriate, given the extensive expertise that exists in Ontario, to close the door on competitive bidding?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): Let me be very brief in my answer to the member. When there is appropriate competitive bidding to be had, no, it's never appropriate to close the door on competitive bidding. The response from Ontario Hydro and the response from this minister on that particular issue were very clear. There was only one appropriate bidder in the case in question because, as was explained to the leader of the third party -- obviously he didn't understand the explanation -- it was a consolidation of three existing contracts which the company had already bid for and won.

Mr Jordan: The minister tells us these were the only qualified contractors. How they would obtain that information without going to public tender I would like to know. The letter from the chairman of Ontario Hydro also stated: "It is normal practice to request proposals, as opposed to tendering, when an estimated requirement is greater than $100,000." This was a $7-million contract. There was not even a request for a proposal from anyone else.

I realize this firm has worked for Hydro in the past. However, the purchase orders we received through freedom of information requests note problems with respect to completing projects on time. Based on this obvious example of poor business practices, would you be directing Ontario Hydro immediately to initiate a review of its procurement policies?

Hon Mr Charlton: Absolutely not. Ontario Hydro's procurement policies are, in my view, useful and appropriate. I will just run through some of the facts in terms of Ontario Hydro's procurement.

In 1991, Ontario Hydro let 73,000 contracts. The vast majority of those were tendered in a full and open way precisely as the member suggests; 78% of those contracts were awarded to Canadian firms, and the exceptions the members have found are in fact legitimate exceptions, in my view. Having pursued the facts, they've made exceptions where they needed to make exceptions.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is to the Minister of Education and is related to property taxes. As you know, over the past five or six years residents of Downsview and North York have been receiving property tax increases somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10% per year, and over that period their property taxes have shot through the roof. While these increases are painful for everyone, they are particularly painful for people on fixed incomes, people on pensions, seniors and people on disability pensions. Because people can no longer afford to pay these high property taxes, Mr Minister, can you give us some indication today that you're looking seriously at this issue and that property tax relief is on its way as it relates to the education portion of the property tax bill?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's turning all red.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): The member opposite is saying I'm turning all red. Actually, I'm quite fine, Mr Speaker.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, he's pink.

Hon Mr Silipo: Pink I will accept.

I appreciate the member for Downsview's concerns in this area. They are concerns that I and this government share, that is, the question of the high burden of property taxes that is placed upon many people, but particularly seniors in this case.

As the member knows, we clearly are looking at that issue as part of the education finance reform initiative that I announced in this House a couple of weeks ago. We will be looking with great interest to the report that will be coming from the property tax working group of the Fair Tax Commission. A draft report will come in June, with a final report from that group in September. Also, through the committee of school board representatives that I announced and others working with me, we will be looking at that whole issue with a view to beginning some serious reforms in this area over the next couple of years.

Mr Perruzza: I would like to thank the minister for his very succinct answer. I look forward to further developments on this issue, because I have sat across from many people who have been in tears and who are in tears because they are in the process of losing their homes as they can't afford to pay these high taxes. I commend the minister for his efforts.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Parkdale.

Interjections.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): When do I get my ruling on "goof"?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member for St George-St David could restrain himself, his own colleague the member for Parkdale could ask a question.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The member for St George-St David asked a pertinent question: When are you going to give a ruling on the term "goof"? But that's another matter.

The Speaker: Would the member for Parkdale place his question, please.

Mr Ruprecht: Of course; I apologize.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question for the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy. All of us know that this city has a serious drug problem. The recent Metro police report should have sent alarm bells off in the minister's office. Drug offences rose 16% last year. All our front-line social workers and every agency impacted by the misery experienced on our streets are crying out for some effective action in the field of drug treatment.

Mr Minister, you are saving more than $51 million a year when you close access to drug treatment centres in the United States, and of that amount you're only spending $9.4 million in addiction services. My question is this: When will you provide adequate drug treatment facilities for the more than 3,000 Ontarians who are unable to get the simplest of treatments and are turning to a life of crime to maintain their habits?

1430

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): I have a bit of a problem in that the member continues to refer to me as "Mr Minister" each time he asks me a question. I have to keep reminding him that the portfolio has changed and that it rests with me now, and that "Ms Minister" or something else might be more appropriate.

In any event, the issue he raises is a very serious one. In fact, the reports we have in Metropolitan Toronto in particular give great cause for concern, and I know the member has raised these issues from his own community a number of times with me and with people in my ministry and it remains a great concern for him and the constituents he represents in particular.

The reinvestment of dollars from out of country is an ongoing program. We have, as the member well knows, announced the $9.4 million, although about $4 million of that was for enhancement in treatment programs, and we were asking for district health councils to give us a prioritization on that. That process is close to completion, as the member will well know, and we will be making those decisions and announcements in the very near future.

I also have indicated on a number of times that we are monitoring savings from the restrictions on out of country, and we will continue to reinvest to enhance services. I do agree with the member that there is an urgent need in this area.

Mr Ruprecht: I'd love of course to call the minister "lady," but I'd be in big trouble with her own caucus.

Madam Minister, I have personal knowledge of a number of people who are unable to get treatment. Their parents are at their wits' end and are begging me to help their children who are on drugs. You know and I know that some of them are committing suicide or dying on the streets, and they are arrested for a terrible crime even before they commit suicide. I've called a number of treatment centres all over Ontario. At each centre, I get the same answer, "Our waiting period for treatment is 12 to 15 weeks."

My question is this: When will the minister be in a position to tell us? When are you really going to provide funds for treatment centres and when will you give this House assurances that the waiting period for drug treatment will be reduced significantly?

Hon Ms Lankin: I hope to be able fairly soon to give the member some accurate information around waiting lists. In fact, I think what he has quoted is probably very inaccurate, but I can understand if he made a few phone calls he might have received some information. I don't dispute that.

As the member will know, we established, for the first time in Ontario, the Drug and Alcohol Registry of Treatment, DART, which is in London, Ontario. It is a hookup for province-wide services as calls are coming in for us to be able to refer people to services that are available as well as for us to have accurate information about where there are gaps in services, about the greatest needs for the different kinds of services. There are residential services, there are day programs, there are services for hard-core addicts, there are other kinds of addictions treatments. It's important for us to have accurate information on a provincial basis of what the highest priorities are. That was not available prior to the introduction of DART.

DART has been up and running now and we're just about to get the first six months' results, which are still preliminary. As soon as we have those, I will be glad to share them with the member and with the other members of the House. I commit to him that as it becomes clear where we should place our reinvestment dollars, we will make those announcements too.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. Mr Minister, I know you're aware of the document called Local Boards: A Partnership for Training and that we're having hearings on the Ontario training and adjustment boards around the province right now -- only five minutes, which is not enough, but we're having hearings.

I have a question for you. We're told that the 22 local boards will be replacing the 57 community industrial training committees. The CITCs will be replaced by these local training boards, just 22, so we'll have about half as many. There's a lot of expertise with the existing members and they're very concerned about the role they can play in the future, having established the relationships with the business community and with the training community that they have.

The question to the minister is, why are you dismantling the existing structure to begin from scratch, given what you've heard during the public hearings?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): I believe the member for London North is aware that we are proceeding in tandem with the federal government and under agreement with it to replace the CITCs with 22 to 25, depending upon how it all falls out, local board structures. That was partly because the 57 CITCs that are there are all over the map in terms of representativeness, capacity, structure, responsibility and so on. It was our desire to have slightly more than the 16 the federal government wanted, so we got the numbers up. But we were not able in fact to agree upon a larger number.

At the end of the day, as I have told the CITCs, where things are working well, where there are people who are competent and able who have been plugged into the training agenda, we don't want to lose them and we don't want to see them put behind. There will be ample opportunity and more for everyone who's active in the training world in Ontario to plug in to the new structures in important ways, no question about that.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister is very much aware of the process that's been established for applying for these new positions, and he knows the new CITC members will have to be nominated by labour market partners for the new local boards. That's what has to happen. Regardless of what the federal government is saying, the minister well knows that this is an Ontario process and that they're anxiously awaiting the results of the process. There are no strings attached to it at all. We've talked to your people about this.

These CITC staff members, the existing people who are doing all the work, are not being protected in any way. Now, at the same time, the Ministry of Skills Development is through a process of transition. They're changing but they're protected. Nobody's losing their jobs. My question to the minister is this: We have able people working out there who are not protected. What are you going to do to change the rules at least a little bit to allow these people to have a fair chance at getting the jobs for which they are so well qualified?

Hon Mr Allen: They will be in the pool of candidates who will be available for the nomination process which will be locally based, which will be driven by the clients of the system, which will be driven by the labour market partners. Those people will have to take their chances with everybody else in terms of the staffing of the new boards.

Yes, it's true that we have a comprehensive human resource policy to facilitate the movement of personnel in government for which we are responsible. We have worked that out very carefully. We do not have an organized public responsibility for the CITCs as such, but there will be a responsible process put in place to provide access to those positions.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Yesterday, the leader of the third party asked the Premier a question about the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I would like to clarify the situation and give a response today.

First, I would like to say that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has 15 area offices across Ontario. In those 15 offices they respond to intake in three different ways. There is intake by people walking into the office asking to lay a complaint, there is intake by telephone and there is also intake by mail.

In July 1990, the staff sat down to respond, making sure there was good client response and that they were giving good client service. They came up with a measure to try to be effective in certain regions. In four of the offices they have devised a method of using an answering machine so they can respond to their specific geographic area on specific days. In the north they do put on the answering machine so that they can go to visit the very far northern areas to take intake from those people in the north. At the same time, they might also be doing intake by mail and by people walking into the office.

In the other three offices --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- they do on those particular days --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am trying to respond to the leader of the third party, and he does want to have an answer. He's sitting very quietly.

The Speaker: Conclude your response, please.

1440

Hon Ms Ziemba: In the other three offices, people can still walk into those offices five days a week, Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, and lay a complaint. They might in those other three offices, however, put the answering machine on and respond to those phone-in intakes within 48 hours. This is because there is quite a large intake.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: If there is a supplementary, I will respond.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): After $4 million that the Liberals threw in and another $6.4 million that you threw in to deal with the backlog, to deal effectively with claims, we now have a situation that I brought forward yesterday where visitors in person going into the office are told to fill out a visitor's form, where phone calls are told to call back at three of the main offices right here in Metropolitan Toronto, where, I think you would agree with me, most of the complaints come from.

We have a situation where we're closed for business on Sunday, where we're sending the signal out around the world that Ontario is closed for business, but we did not expect from the NDP that we would be saying that the Human Rights Commission is also closed for business. Madam Minister, what are we going to do to give confidence to the many people in Ontario who have a sense of, "Don't waste your time phoning, coming in or lodging a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, because they're either too busy to deal with you, they're closed Tuesday and Thursday" --

The Speaker: Would the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- "or it takes so long, you'll never get satisfaction going that way"? What are you going to do to give some confidence to those people?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Actually, the confidence in the Human Rights Commission has risen. We have addressed the backlog and the cases are diminishing at a fast, rapid rate. I don't want to mix shopping with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, because I don't think we are talking about that at all. Yes, people can go to the offices Monday to Friday and lay their complaints. They're not told to fill out a form. They are dealt with expediently and to the point.

I do have to clarify one other position. When it comes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and adding dollars to it, I don't think there is anybody in this particular Legislature, whoever he or she is, whatever party he or she belongs to, who would want to deny somebody his human rights and would want to deny him his case. That is why we have done a comprehensive reform, to make sure that we address those issues. The first time we heard of a complaint about this particular method --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Just to sum up very quickly -- I know it's very interesting and I don't want to take too long. I know that I've spoken very long --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- but I will conclude by saying that we have got a comprehensive strategy in place that is working. This is the first time we have heard of a complaint about an individual through the member for Nipissing. If this particular measure is not working and if we feel that the client protection is not there, we will certainly look into that and change that particular measure in those three offices.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I'm so glad for that answer from the minister. Let me just refresh her memory about another case. A resident of Toronto recently contacted my office. She was another one concerned about the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In February this woman contacted the commission with her complaint about an incident that happened in Toronto. On May 1, she received a letter from the commission advising her that her case will be dealt with by the Timmins office. Yesterday, of course, we found out that some of the offices open on Tuesdays or Thursdays, and now we have an answering service that will take up the slack. Does the minister think it appropriate that people like this woman are getting bounced all over the province to have their cases heard?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I welcome the opportunity to address this question. However, this is the first time I've heard of this particular experience. What I would like to do, if you don't mind, is find out, investigate and come back with an answer to that particular question. However, I would like to reiterate that we are trying to respond very quickly to complaints. I do have some statistics about how we have grown on the issue of complaints. We had 90,000 complaints last year. That is a rise in interest and also shows the confidence building within Ontario. But to answer the specific question, I think what I would like to do is go back and ask the commission directly, and I will respond to you either in person or by mail.

Mr Curling: When I called Timmins, they told me what I should do is call the supervisor, who I think is in Sudbury.

Mr Speaker, as you know, recently the commission was fuelled by complaints from its own minority employees. Chaos is happening inside the human rights commission, which was compelled yet again to look at discrimination within the commission itself. Arnold Minors, who is also a member of the minister's code review task force, was hired to assist in this. Last Friday the commission released Mr Minors's report, which confirmed that minority employees of the commission experienced racism directly and often. This is the commission that is looking after racism. Will the minister personally assure this House that any employees of the commission who discriminate will be dismissed? I hope they will be fired if any of those practices within the commission are found out.

Hon Ms Ziemba: In response to the question of racism that might exist in the human rights commission, it was very brave that a year ago the chair and the commissioner decided to see if there were problems that existed within the human rights commission. They discovered, unfortunately, that there is racism that exists. It was brave because they tried to confront it head on. Instead of denying it, instead of covering it up, they confronted it and they are going to be implementing measures quickly. There are recommendations by Mr Minors and they are going to be implemented immediately.

I also have to raise another point. We are all very concerned when it comes to human rights issues. That is why we wanted to make sure, when we appointed Mary Cornish to the task force, that it had a short time frame, only six months, to come back with a report on how we could make the commission effective, so there could be just duty done to people who had complaints and we would address them completely. We are making sure that happens. Mary Cornish will be reporting on June 30. I will be welcoming everyone in this House to respond to that report and we will be sharing it with members of the House.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Minister of Education. Because of the voluntary arbitration which the Carleton Board of Education secondary school teachers and the Carleton Board of Education have entered into, they will not come to a completion of that arbitration process for about 60 days. In the interim the elementary school teachers, who represent more students than the secondary panel, somewhere around 30,000 students, are on a work-to-rule campaign, and the students are suffering.

Would you consider phoning the teachers and the teachers' representatives and asking them to go back to doing all the things they would normally do as teachers until the secondary school dispute is resolved? There can be no doubt that the settlement with regard to the voluntary arbitration will have an impact on the elementary school teachers' situation. Therefore there seems to be no logic for the teachers to be working to rule at this particular time. Will you phone the teachers' representatives and ask them to go back and perform their full functions until the other dispute has been settled?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I regret I am not going to be able to give the member a direct answer to that today. I understand the issue he raises. My understanding also is that the negotiations are resuming tomorrow between the Carleton board and the elementary teachers. I think it would be appropriate for us to see what comes out of that resumption of negotiations before I do the kind of thing he suggests. I understand the issue he raises in terms of the effect on the after-school programs, and I'm sure that is also something the parties are taking very much into consideration.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

1450

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by three constituents in my riding and the same petition is also signed by another eight constituents.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"The proposed Rent Control Act, Bill 121, will prevent apartment owners from carrying out necessary major repairs to residential rental buildings.

"This bill, if enacted, will result in the private sector being unable to build new residential rental housing, with an ensuing loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

"This bill will ensure that the non-profit housing sector will be the only builder of new residential rental units, at enormous costs to the Ontario taxpayers.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To cancel the proposed Rent Control Act, to encourage the government of Ontario to work with tenants, landlords and all interested parties to develop a new law which will be fair to all and to ensure that in this new legislation the interests of housing affordability and tenant protection are balanced with a recognition of the importance of allowing needed repairs to rental buildings to be financed and completed and the role of the private sector in the construction of new rental housing."

I have signed the petitions.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I rise to present a petition regarding a binding referendum for our Constitution, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we as citizens of the province of Ontario believe the constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution and/or any amendments thereto will mean to each of us and then make provision for a final say by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

It is signed by approximately 50 citizens who are residing in London.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. There are too many conversations going on. We will give some time for members to leave the House, for those who wish to do so.

Mrs Cunningham: This petition is signed by approximately 50 citizens who reside in London, Middlesex county and St Thomas, who are concerned about this issue, and I will hand it over to you and to the legislative page.

DEER POPULATION

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Today I present the following petitions, of which there are about 800, on behalf of the residents of Bosanquet township in the county of Lambton:

"Whereas the undersigned are submitting these petitions to request that the Ministry of Natural Resources act on the request for a deer cull in Pinery Provincial Park to reduce the population of white-tailed deer."

I have affixed my signature.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by individuals from O'Leary's Ltd paving contractors, which reads as follows;

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investments in job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investments in jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I have affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here signed by 21 constituents of the county of Middlesex, who petition the Legislature of Ontario to reject the Brant report. They are very concerned about agricultural land in Middlesex and the continuation of Middlesex as a viable county. I have affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I too have a similar petition, which reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have signed the petition.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition by individuals from Automatic Structures Ltd in Brampton, Ontario. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with these amendments."

I affix my signature to this petition.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas amendments to the Education Act, 1991, Bill 125, propose to remove parental rights, section 50; and

"Whereas the current government, in removing section 50 of Bill 125, would empower the Minister of Education, not parents or boards of education, to determine the kinds of religious education a child shall receive in public schools; and

"Whereas the rights of parents and students to have religious education which conforms to their own beliefs has been protected in the Education Act since before Confederation; and

"Whereas (1) subject to the regulations, a pupil shall be allowed to receive such religious education as his parent or guardian desires, or where the pupil is an adult, as he desires, (2) no pupil in a public school shall be required to read or study in or from a religious book or to join in an exercise of devotion or religion objected to by his parent or guardian or by the pupil where he is an adult;

"We, the undersigned, request therefore that section 50 of Bill 125, amendments to the Education Act, not be removed and that the rights of parents and students to have religious education which conforms to their own beliefs continue to be protected in the Education Act as it has been since before Confederation."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition signed by 25 citizens of Middlesex county petitioning the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have affixed my signature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Sometimes we read petitions we don't agree with, but we exercise people's democratic rights to do that.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concerted efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations etc to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education, the French-language school board,

"We, the undersigned, request that the French Language Services Act be repealed and its artificial structures dismantled immediately and English be declared as the official language of Ontario in governments, its institutions and services."

I certainly do not agree with this petition but bring it before the Legislative Assembly.

1500

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition signed by individuals from Daniel E. Oakes and Associates Ltd, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment in jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I've affixed my signature thereto.

I have a further petition on the same subject matter in the same wording as the previous petition. It is from individuals of MDM (Thunder Bay) Distributors Ltd. I affix my signature thereto.

I've been provided with a further petition, again on the same subject matter of the Labour Relations Act. It is signed by individuals of AFG Glass Centre in Thunder Bay. I have affixed my signature.

Again, a further petition; it's on the same subject matter dealing with the need for results of independent empirical studies on the Labour Relations Act. It has been signed by individuals of B & B Stone & Concrete Products Ltd. I have affixed my signature.

I have a further petition, signed by individuals of Richard and B. A. Ryan Ltd, again on the same subject matter. I have affixed my signature.

Mr Speaker, I understand there are no other members in the time allotted who wish to introduce petitions. If so, I'll take the time permitted.

I have a further petition on the same subject matter. It is signed by individuals of Breck-mar Sales Ltd in Ottawa. I have affixed my signature.

I have a petition signed by individuals of Basector Developments Ltd on the same subject matter. I have signed my name.

I have a further petition on the same subject matter, signed by Halco Building Components. I have affixed my signature.

I have a further petition again on the same subject matter. It is signed by individuals associated with Signode Canada in Scarborough. I have affixed my signature.

I have a further petition signed by individuals of Landmark Contracting Ltd in Ancaster on the same subject matter. I have affixed my signature.

I have a petition signed by individuals associated with Kenaidan Contracting Ltd, again on the same subject matter. I have affixed my signature.

I have a further petition, again on the same subject matter. It is by individuals of Bowne of Toronto. I have signed my name.

I have a further petition, again on the same subject matter and in the same wording, signed by individuals associated with Rondean Electric Ltd. I have signed my name.

I have a petition signed by individuals of Cambridge Curbs & Sidewalks Ltd on the same subject matter. I have affixed my signature.

I have a further petition, again on the same subject matter. It's signed by members associated with Loc-Pipe in Whitby, Ontario. I have signed my name.

I have a further petition, again on the same subject matter and in the same wording, signed by Lester Inks & Coatings Ltd. I have signed my signature.

I have a further petition, signed by individuals of Dave Boyle Excavating Ltd, which reads as follows:

"Whereas investment and job creation are essential for Ontario's economic recovery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To instruct the Minister of Labour to table the results of independent empirical studies of the effect that amendments to the Labour Relations Act will have on investment and jobs before proceeding with those amendments."

I've affixed my signature thereto.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PEMBROKE AND AREA AIRPORT COMMISSION ACT, 1992

Mr Conway moved first reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Pembroke and Area Airport Commission.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 1992

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (DISPOSITIONS DIVERSES)

Mr Silipo moved first reading of Bill 20, An Act to amend the Education Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AND MINISTER'S POWERS), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (COMMISSIONS INDIENNES DE L'ÉDUCATION ET POUVOIRS DU MINISTRE)

Hon Mr Silipo moved first reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Education Act in respect of Education Authorities and Minister's Powers / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les commissions indiennes de l'éducation et les pouvoirs du ministre.

Motion agreed to.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs McLeod moved opposition day motion 4:

Whereas the conflicting pronouncements of the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Solicitor General and the NDP caucus have created a crisis of uncertainty in the retail industry in Ontario;

And whereas municipalities across the province have demanded that they be given the freedom to decide whether or not they open their stores on Sundays;

And whereas in border communities, faced with a growing epidemic of cross-border shopping, the matter of Sunday shopping is of particular urgency;

And whereas 67% of Ontarians have expressed their support for more open Sunday shopping;

And whereas retailers across the province are facing severe economic constraints and have identified Sunday shopping as one solution to their difficulties;

And whereas in the face of this growing crisis the NDP government has irresponsibly delayed taking action while it awaits direction from the unelected members of its party;

And whereas the government has said that it is committed to creating jobs to lead us out of the current recession and it is acknowledged that more open Sunday shopping would stimulate jobs in the retail sector;

And whereas the Employment Standards Act provides considerable protection for workers who do not wish to work on Sundays;

Therefore this Legislature calls upon the NDP government to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act immediately and introduce new legislation which would allow municipalities to decide what is the best economic decision for their communities and responds to the growing public demand for Sunday shopping in Ontario.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The debate on this subject in this Legislature today really should not have been necessary. There are very few issues on which the public view and the public wishes have been made so clearly known. Ontarians have told us through polls that they want Sunday shopping. Some 60% of Ontarians on average across the province, and in some communities it's much higher, feel it's time for Sunday shopping to be a legitimate option in this province.

I think of the kind of change I've seen in a community such as my own, the community of Thunder Bay. I can tell you that some few years ago when the subject of Sunday shopping and the changes to the Lord's Day Act were first being addressed, members of my community were very divided on the issue of Sunday shopping. In fact, I recall that the local chamber of commerce presented a resolution calling for the retail stores to be able to open on Sundays, and their own retail section called for that resolution to be withdrawn because they did not feel it was time for Sunday shopping to be introduced in our community.

Yet last November, when the municipal election was held, there was a plebiscite on the issue of Sunday shopping. That plebiscite passed by a vote of 2 to 1, which indicates that in our community, because we're concerned about the current economic situation -- even though we are some 200 miles from the nearest American shopping centre, we are also impacted by the reality of cross-border shopping -- the people of my community have said it is time for us to look realistically at the option of having open Sunday shopping so that our community can begin to respond to the economic difficulties we face.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs earlier today in our question period in the Legislature indicated that as he talks to municipalities across this province, he feels they are saying very strongly: "Don't go back to legislation that existed under the previous government. Don't give us back the municipal option." Mr Speaker, that is not what we hear from municipalities.

I will acknowledge that when that legislation was first introduced, municipalities were concerned about whether as a provincial government we were asking the municipal level of government to take on a responsibility for solving problems that perhaps they felt the provincial government should solve. I think what we've seen over recent months and years is that municipalities have increasingly said, "We want the option of being able to respond to the realities in our communities."

I would suggest that on an issue like Sunday shopping, the concept of a municipal option has real validity. This is the kind of issue on which one approach, designed around tables in Queen's Park, is not likely to be appropriate. I've seen a change in my own community of people who some years ago were not sure that Sunday shopping was in the interest of my community and who are now saying, "This is something we need." Yet I understand that in a neighbouring community some miles down the highway from Thunder Bay, the community of Dryden, indications are that some 90% of the residents would not be in favour of Sunday shopping for that community. It seems to me that this is a legitimate choice for a community to make and that what municipalities should be offered is a real option to make the kinds of decisions that will reflect the realities and the needs of their particular communities.

There is no question that this is an issue of concern not just to border communities, but it is perhaps of particular concern in border communities. We all know we've raised the issue again and again in this House, the devastating effect that cross-border shopping has had on the communities that are close enough for that to be an option for residents. We see that on this particular issue of Sunday shopping, Ontarians are actually voting with their feet -- or perhaps it's more accurate to say that Ontarians are voting with their shopping dollars.

Ontario residents visiting the United States from 1990 to 1991 increased by 12.2%, while United States visitors to Ontario in that same time frame went down by some 3.4%. The figures suggest that at least $2 billion in sales have been lost to the United States as a result of cross-border shopping.

We acknowledge, as again the minister indicated in the House earlier today, that Sunday shopping is not the whole cause of the cross-border shopping dilemma, nor is it the whole response. But clearly people in border communities, through their elected representatives, their mayors and councils, have been saying loudly and clearly that they need some help to compete.

They've been asking for the option to open their stores on Sunday for over a year, and there has been no response from this government to their concerns. There's been no response on Sunday shopping; there's been no response on their call for a reduction in the gas tax. All there has been in terms of a response from this government to the concerns of border communities is an indication in the budget that one or perhaps two border communities might be offered the option of having a casino at some point in the future.

It's possible that the government, in looking at the legislation which it brought in just a short time ago, would argue that it does allow for Sunday shopping and that in fact it does allow for a municipal option. If that's the response the government is making, I would suggest that it listen a little more carefully to what the municipalities are saying and that it look at its own legislation a little more carefully. The government legislation not only fails to reflect the direction of the people of this province, it is legislation which in its very nature, its very design, is unworkable and likely completely unenforceable.

We look at the legislation. We see that if a municipality decides that it's in the interests of that community to have open Sunday shopping and wants to open its stores on Sunday, it must go to the effort of declaring certain areas of the municipality as being tourist areas, and in order to declare certain areas as tourist areas, the municipality must then make that designation somehow fit the criteria the government has set out in the legislation. The kinds of procedures that can emerge from the government's unwieldy definition of how you can become a tourist area go beyond unmanageability to verge on what is almost ludicrous.

I take just one hypothetical example: Suppose you were a retailer selling furniture in the middle of a community -- take Cambridge just as an example -- and the community of Cambridge decides that its downtown area is a tourist area. The furniture retailer would like to be able to join other retailers in opening the stores on Sunday. How does that furniture retailer demonstrate that he is in fact serving primarily tourists, which is what is required under this legislation in order for the furniture retailer to be able to join other retailers in having open Sunday shopping?

That particular retailer would have to determine how far a customer has travelled in order to determine whether or not that particular customer qualifies as being a tourist, and if he does in fact find out how far each customer has travelled to shop at the store on a particular day, he will know whether or not a majority of his customers can be designated tourists and therefore whether his store fits the criterion of serving primarily tourists.

It is mind-boggling to the point of being absolutely stupefying that the government itself is not anxious to change legislation that it must clearly see was ill advised when it was originally drafted. This legislation is such that, even if a community is so committed to resolving the economic problems that it faces and it takes all the steps that are needed to qualify as a tourist area under the government's legislation, the municipality still faces the reality that the decision duly made by the municipality can be appealed, even by a non-resident of that community, to the Ontario Municipal Board.

I was travelling in the northwestern part of the province very recently and found that a community in the northwestern part of the province has gone to the extent of passing no less than 20 separate bylaws in the hope that it will be able to allow at least some of its retailers to open their shops on Sunday as the summer season approaches and hoping that if some of those bylaws are appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, at least some of them may pass unnoticed or may in fact win an appeal at the board. It is ridiculous to think that legislation would put municipalities in a position where they have to go to such an extent, again simply to meet what they consider to be a real need in their communities.

These are the actions of a desperate municipality that's been made desperate by a government that has failed to provide any kind of positive direction or support to deal with the problems communities across this province are facing and a government that fails, in the midst of difficult times, to do what could so readily be done without any new resources.

1520

We all recognize that the economic situation, the debt situation, this province faces is difficult and totally unacceptable, but Sunday shopping is one of those options the government could exercise that could well be so successful that the provincial taxes from people beginning to buy and sell at home again might actually help reduce the province's debt.

In recent weeks we find emerging from this issue another concern, a very real concern, about the influence of non-elected, non-accountable people on the direction of this province. There seems to be a recognition that the Premier himself has heard the concerns of the people of this province. In fact, how could you not hear the concerns of the people of this province?

It would seem that the Premier and other members of his government know that changes are needed but we also know the Premier and other members of his government took some very absolute stands on this issue while they were in opposition. The Premier, as opposition leader, quite possibly provided leadership within his own party in persuading members of his party that Sunday shopping was something they should oppose strongly. It's also possible, I suppose, that the party was already heading in that direction and that the Premier, as opposition leader, was simply following the directions of the party at that time. In any event, what we know to be true is that when the New Democratic Party opposes something or someone, it is absolutely unbending in that opposition.

The Premier went to his provincial council last weekend to ask for a little flexibility in responding to what he knows to be the changing realities and needs of this province. The governing council of the party clearly said no.

As I indicated in the House yesterday, I don't often wish I could have spent a beautiful Saturday afternoon sitting in on a meeting of the governing council of the New Democratic Party, but I would love to have watched that particular debate. We recognize, of course, that it would have been impossible since this was not an open meeting. Only elected government is required to conduct its business in the open by legislation that affects those who are elected representatives at all levels. But this non-elected supergovernment of the New Democratic Party, which seems too often to be the real government in the province of Ontario, meets only behind closed doors. They only talk to themselves and no one can challenge them either collectively or individually.

Government by the New Democratic governing council is a long way from open government and a long way from democratic government in which elected representatives make decisions and are held accountable in public session for their actions.

I wonder what the Premier will do now. He has heard the concerns, the voices that have been raised so loudly for so long in every corner of this province. I wonder if he understands that when you're elected to govern, you must govern for all the people. I wonder if he will continue to consult only with the New Democratic Party leadership and give it a power not only to influence his decisions but to actually determine what this government will do, or if he will act responsibly and in response to the demands and concerns of almost 70% of Ontarians and a majority of municipal governments.

No one said government was easy and only the very inexperienced believe you can find complete consensus on issues of major public policy. Seventy per cent support is as clear a majority view as you are ever likely to get and a government that really believes in consultation would surely be delighted to see that degree of agreement and would want to act quickly in response.

I believe that municipalities are ready to accept the responsibility of making decisions in the interests of their communities and are ready to make decisions that respond to the changing realities of their communities. All this government has to do is to give municipalities real freedom to act, and we call on the government to get on with it.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I appreciate and I'm surprised actually to have the opportunity to add my thoughts on this issue. I say I'm surprised because I did not think the Liberal Party would want to remind us that it is the one that created, with the lack of leadership, the considerable fiasco in this province we have today on Sunday shopping.

[Applause]

Mr Harris: I know the members of the New Democratic Party are applauding that, but, folks, look in the mirror at the mess you've made of it as well. I'm surprised, without introducing the motion myself, that I have an opportunity to comment on Sunday shopping.

The leader of the Liberal Party, in introducing the motion which -- once again, members of this Liberal caucus are going to get very sore if they continue to try to sit on the fence on issue after issue. At a time when we require leadership, here is the Liberal Party saying: "It's too tough for us to say if we're in favour of or opposed to Sunday shopping. Let the municipalities decide."

That's the leadership they gave us when they were in government, and it's why they are over on this side of the House. It's why they are no longer in government. So they come back with that great new philosophy: "Let's not lead at all, let's not take a position. Let's not say, 'Are we in favour of or are we opposed to Sunday shopping?' Let's leave it again to the municipalities."

I cannot believe that in fact this is the resolution they have brought forward for us to debate today. They are saying to us, "Let's scrap the lousy, unfair, unworkable NDP law and replace it with the lousy, unfair, unworkable law we had before." The fact of the matter is that leadership indeed is bringing forward laws, changes, policies that are appropriate for the time.

I'm always interested when I put forward the views of our caucus that we have not seen in the last five, six or seven years, if you like, any government or any body be able to come up with a piece of legislation that is fair. I want to leave aside the economic argument for a few moments, because there are times when principles and values stand ahead of the almighty buck. The only argument we have seen come forward from the Liberal Party and indeed from the New Democratic Party -- which a week or two from now is going to make the argument for the almighty buck and is going to cast aside any value or principle that it said at one point in time it stood for.

But let's be honest and let's be up front about this. I've not seen anybody come forward with a piece of legislation that is fair. I want to take you back in time, because people have said, "Oh, well, your party was opposed to Sunday shopping." Quite true, we were. I want to explain to you the situation at that time when Frost, Drew and Robarts and indeed Davis expressed the desire to maintain a family pause day in this province, a common one. Sunday was that common one and indeed it reflected the values and the religions, if you like, of the majority of Ontarians at that time. Indeed, it also reflected the realities of the majority of business people and it reflected the values of those in Quebec and in Manitoba and to the south of us.

At that particular point in time as well, we made exceptions. We had exceptions for drug stores, we had exceptions for corner stores. What has changed then to say that we can't go back to that today? What has changed and why are the leadership and the laws and the policies today not the same as what they were even 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago?

1530

What has changed? Let's examine some of these. Let's examine Quebec, where border communities there can go across the border and shop; Manitoba, where in some of them they can go across and shop; to the south of us, where they can go across the border and shop.

Let's examine the corner stores. The corner stores used to indeed be that. They would sell pop and Popsicles. I can remember going down to my corner store. We could get an ice cream or a Popsicle or a pop, and I guess my dad could get cigarettes -- indeed, probably me, when I was 11 or 12 or 13; probably we were able to talk somebody into going in to buy us a couple as well so we could try it. I guess that was part of growing up.

But you know, today in North Bay, and I think it's the same around the province, the corner stores are now full-blown grocery stores. How can you have a law that says a full-blown grocery store that calls itself a corner store because of location or because of non-affiliation with a chain or because of size can open but the store across the street cannot? That's not fair, regardless of the economic argument.

Let's look at drugstores. Drugstores, when I was growing up and when we had a law where we made exceptions, sold prescription drugs and patent drugs and a few associated medicines and what not that you would expect to find in a "narrow" definition of a drugstore. Maybe something is not the same in your community as it is in North Bay, but now the drugstores in North Bay are hardware stores, they're tire stores, they're clothing stores and they're food stores. It's not fair to say they can open but the Canadian Tire across the street selling the same products can't or the Pro Hardware down the street cannot.

So you have to ask yourself, what is appropriate legislation for today, for fairness, for equality of opportunity, for our businesses -- aside from the economic argument of dollars lost outside of Ontario? I admit that puts added pressure. That's the one for which you're prepared to cast aside these principles you told us you stood so highly for, these values. When people voted for you you said: "No surprises. These are the values we believe in." That's why the public's so fed up with the whole lot of you today. Not only is your legislation silly and unworkable, but you stand for nothing either.

That's my main objection to you as a party and to the Liberal Party and to that whole -- what it does is pass that whole net over the whole lot of us as politicians. Quite frankly, I object to that. I object to that and I am miffed at that and I am mad that the actions you are taking of standing for nothing, of telling us you have principles and then you've got new ones if you don't like those the next day, of not taking a stand, of not telling us where you stand, and this silly resolution we are debating today. Those are some of the things that upset me, really upset me and upset the public of this province.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot fairly any longer say, "This store can open on this side of the street and this one over here can't." We've already discovered you cannot define what a tourist area is. Your definitions, as the leader of the Liberal Party pointed out, are silly. They know it's silly because they couldn't find one either, because everybody has a different definition of what a tourist area is. Is it a tourist area if tourists come in? The farmers' markets are another example.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: I get many interjections. Do you want more examples of silliness? You say it's okay to rent videos on Sunday, so you allow the video rental stores to open. But they also sell TVs and VCRs, and across the street the store that sells VCRs and TVs can't open. What's going to happen? They're going to put in 20 or 30 rental videos so they can open and sell their products.

I know the Liberals are concerned, and I realize they still have not learned why it is they are in opposition. I realize that in spite of the fact that it's their resolution and they put it forward --

Interjection.

Mr Harris: I'm sure the member for Renfrew, who interjects not even from his own seat, will get an opportunity to speak if he has the courage to tell us: Is he in favour or opposed to Sunday shopping?

We are in favour of fairness, we are in favour of consistency, we are in favour of leadership appropriate for the times. Obviously, there is not a party -- because the Liberal Party could not, the New Democratic Party could not -- that could bring in a law that was fair, that would pick which stores could open and which couldn't, on which side of the street, which is a tourist area, which isn't, which stores selling what product can open and which cannot.

On those grounds alone, we should scrap the Sunday shopping legislation. We should scrap it and we should go with the experience we had for nine months when the Liberal law was ruled invalid. The Supreme Court said it was invalid, struck it down, and for that nine months we had what I call self-regulation. In fact we didn't have wide-open Sunday shopping. In North Bay very few stores opened, but they could have if they wanted to. Border communities could open if they wanted to.

The roof didn't fall in. I'm told church attendance was up a little bit. In fact a study that was done in Vermont when it made the change demonstrated that church attendance was up, that families decided, "Well, we'll go to church and then shop." I don't argue with the logic of it, but I just put that forward as evidence to those who say it will affect church attendance. It has not done that, nor did it during the eight months when we had what I call self-regulation.

We say scrap the silly legislation. Quit trying to legislation where legislation is no longer appropriate.

This resolution today I will oppose and my caucus will oppose because it offers no solution. It takes one silly piece of legislation -- the members of the new Democratic Party know and we know they're going to change it. Our main criticism of them now is: Get on with it. Quit leaving us in this limbo. We know you're going to come out with a different position than what you have. We're quite well aware. We know 90% of the council is not in favour and the member for Welland-Thorold is not in favour, but apart from that we don't know anything except that there is this great vacillation, that in fact you're going to make the change.

But not this change, not the change proposed by the Liberals. This is the same unfairness. The leader of the Liberal Party said to think about a furniture store in Cambridge. Under your legislation, a furniture store in Waterloo or in Kitchener might be able to make the case that they're in a tourist area but the one in Cambridge can't and it will be unfair; they won't be able to open. I say think of the argument they're putting forward: If the city of Kitchener says it's open for Sunday shopping, if the city of Waterloo says it's open for Sunday shopping, this poor furniture store in Cambridge, if Cambridge says, "Well, we're not," is out of business. It cannot compete, and that is not fair.

What about the community that borders the community, if we follow this Liberal resolution and say the communities can decide? So if the town of Callander opens up, what about the city of North Bay? Their stores cannot compete, and they in turn will have to open. What about the unorganized areas of northern Ontario? Those of you in southern Ontario don't understand that there are many areas of this province, probably the bulk of the land base, where the only local government is the provincial government. The Liberals would never state what their position is. Are they in favour or opposed on behalf of all those stores and those people who live in the unorganized areas of the province?

I can remember the day when they brought in the announcement. I raised the question with the then Minister of Northern Development, the Honourable René Fontaine, somebody who finally realized the Liberal Party was a disaster and quit. I raised it with him and he had never thought of it. He had never thought of it and the Premier had never thought of it; they forgot about northern Ontario.

So we are opposed to the silly nonsense of pretending the government knows best and the government can pick the stores that will open and those that won't. We are opposed to this silliness that abdicates the true leadership and responsibility of what must be a provincial decision.

If I applaud the New Democratic Party for anything on this issue, it is that at least it recognizes that it must be a provincial decision. You can't have one municipality doing one thing and another doing something different. I think that's why they know their own bill is so flawed.

1540

The Windsor exemption: You've got a mall half a mile outside of the Windsor downtown. They can't open. They thought the problem was solved. They said: "We'll be able to circumvent the Municipal Act and the OMB. Alan Tonks is wrong, and whole municipalities can declare themselves tourist areas." In fact, they're wrong.

If you look at Windsor, there is very much unfairness, where some stores in that downtown area now are open on Sunday under your legislation but many others are not. That's not fair, and I think the New Democratic Party knows that. They are a little slow responding. I'll continue to criticize that, and we'll see what solutions they come up with.

But I tell you, I finish as I started. I am absolutely amazed that the Liberal Party brought this resolution forward today, that it wants to remind Ontarians of how ineffectual it was and what lack of leadership it had on this issue in the time it was in government, and it's learned nothing. Their position is the same now as it was then, and for those reasons we will oppose this resolution.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I sat here and listened very carefully to the statements from the representatives of the official opposition and from the third party, and I would like to start my portion of the debate today by saying that I really didn't hear anything that particularly surprised me.

The third party called for wide-open Sunday shopping and certainly everyone would agree that that's no surprise. The Liberal Party called for a return to the municipal option and that didn't surprise me, because I think the Liberal Party has been known, particularly on this issue, for putting forward ideas that have not always made very clear and direct sense. However, it did surprise me that they put forward an idea that has already failed in this province.

It is also not surprising that neither party truly spoke about or represented the interests of those people who have to work on Sundays to provide the rest of the province with an opportunity to shop. Once again it is left to the New Democratic Party to remind the two old-line parties that there are workers in this province and that they are in fact very important, that they have feelings and indeed also have rights as workers in this province.

This has always been the case and has been for some 60 years now. I'd like to remind everyone that it was the CCF that reminded Liberal and Conservative premiers about the interests of those workers and which fought on behalf of and for those workers.

Starting in 1961, it was the New Democratic Party that showed Premier Robarts, Premier Davis, Premier Miller and, yes, even Premier David Peterson that workers were real people who sometimes needed protection from the vicissitudes of this economy. The NDP has never forgotten its roots as a party which fights for the ordinary person, and so we enter this Sunday shopping debate firmly on the side of protection for retail workers.

This is not only about Sunday shopping. It is an issue about Sunday working. It is a question of finding the right balance between those two. We must find a balance between the rights of workers and of small business owners on the one hand, whose desires I suppose are contradictory to the desires of those who want to shop or open on that particular day. I must admit, as we've heard from all the parties here, that it is indeed a very difficult balance to find and to achieve, and I think all of us, including this side of the government, recognize that.

We have passed a law here in Ontario, Bill 115, that provides for the protection of workers, it provides for a common pause day and it also provides for tourism exemptions for bona fide tourism areas. Now the bill has been in effect, I guess, for approximately six months, and in that time this government has heard from increasing numbers of consumers and retailers who appear to still want Sunday shopping.

As an open and accessible government, we are listening to the people. We decided that this was an appropriate time to review this particular issue. The opposition parties find this process of review difficult to believe and demand immediate action. The funny thing is that they were the ones who created this problem in the first place.

It was a Progressive Conservative government that created the Retail Business Holidays Act in 1975. In 1985 the Liberal Party was elected to government. It is calling for immediate action, but it took it not one, not two, not three, but four years to deal with this issue. Is that what the Liberal Party considers immediate action? This is the same Liberal Party that introduced the municipal option that is found in its very motion it presented here today.

The Liberals opposite seem to have very short memories. Perhaps they do not remember how they themselves were roundly criticized from one end of this province to the other for abdicating their responsibility and putting an unfair burden on municipalities of this province.

In its motion the official opposition mentions the issue of cross-border shopping as well. In fact, I also heard the comments made yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue for Canada, Otto Jelinek. Once again, it seems to me the official opposition and the federal Conservatives are looking to simplistic solutions to some very complex problems.

As we all know, cross-border shopping does not occur only on Sunday; in fact, it occurs every day of the week. People shop across the border for a number of reasons, many of which are the direct result of the rather ruinous economic policies of the federal Progressive Conservative government. Ontarians cross the border to shop in anger at the unjust and unfair GST. Ontarians also cross the border because of the artificially high Canadian dollar. Ontarians cross the border because of years of artificially high interest rates that have crippled our small business community. Ontarians cross the border because of free trade, which tells us that American products putting Canadians out of work is somehow good for Canada.

Otto Jelinek says Sunday shopping will help the cross-border problem. Do you believe him? Can you believe the man who was the minister responsible for introducing the GST? I have a word of advice for Mr Jelinek and the federal government. If they really want to help the cross-border issue they should withdraw the GST, which has done such great damage to our retail sector and has driven hundreds of thousands of Ontarians across the border.

The motion by the official opposition also talks about our government awaiting direction from the unelected members of our party. Once again, I believe the motion by the official opposition in this respect displays, unfortunately, I must say, an ignorance of reality in this way: The official opposition, which often uses its own party simply as an electoral and fund-raising machine, does not understand the New Democratic Party is a grass-roots democratic organization that believes input from its grass-roots members is important. I must say that does not mean we will be directed by the party, but we certainly want to hear from the members of our party.

As our Premier has said time and time again, this government is not only about the card-carrying members of our party but it is about all the people of this province whom we represent in our role as government. We are an open and accessible government. We listen to all of the people, including the membership of the New Democratic Party.

Unlike the Tories, who seem to have a special ear for big business, or the Liberals, who seem to have an ear for big developers, we want to listen to all the people in this province. In the final analysis, however, after listening to different views, it will be up to this government, this cabinet and this caucus to make a decision on this issue.

The opposition motion talks as well about creating jobs. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it would raise or mention this issue, because our government obviously has been taking the lead on this issue. We are further ahead on this issue than any other government in Canada and perhaps even in North America. Our recent budget, which has been quite favourably received throughout this province, has jobs as its very first priority. We are committed to creating high-paying, high value added, full-time jobs that will make Ontario more competitive in the global marketplace.

Contrary to the opposition notion, I would also like to point out that we accept no acknowledgement that wide-open Sunday shopping would stimulate jobs. I believe that is simply speculation. It will be interesting to see in the end analysis, when jobs are displaced in the early part of the week, what the net gain is, if any.

Finally, I would like to thank the official opposition. I don't want to be all negative in my comments this afternoon to the official opposition. I want to thank them, for in the very motion they've presented here today they express their appreciation of our amendments to the Employment Standards Act. Our amendments to the Employment Standards Act are good amendments.

As I have stated before, the goal of this government is the protection of workers. This was the priority of this party as we entered into this debate and it still remains our top priority. There is also one other thing I believe everyone can be very certain of, and I'd like to close with this: While government is reviewing the issue of Sunday working and Sunday shopping, our government's commitment to the protection of workers will always remain.

1550

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): First I would like to commend my leader for putting forward a motion to be debated here which is a topic that has been in the minds and hearts of all Ontarians and those outside Ontario too. I think it is a well-crafted motion, regardless of what the leader of the third party says.

Everyone knows where the Liberals stand on this. It has been plain and open for discussion. The law has been in place, and although there are criticisms, everyone knows where the New Democratic Party stands, wanting a common pause day. I don't hear that very much now. They don't speak about wanting a common pause day any more; they talk about Sunday shopping.

As for the dear Conservative Party, I'm not quite sure. I know when the member for London North, one of the most capable Conservative members, was running, she was very much against Sunday shopping, and I think she still stands in the same position. I listened very carefully to the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing, and I don't know where he stands on this. He lacks leadership. It's incredible that he stands in the House today and criticizes the Liberal Party for its position and he hasn't taken a stand one ounce. He makes these platitudes, these model statements that he's for fairness and for all these wonderful things, but I haven't heard him say anything. One of the things I gleaned from what he was saying is that he said something about, "Leave it alone and let it happen." That's how the Conservatives usually behave anyhow. They can't make any decision. Leave it alone and then something will happen along the way.

Who is at fault? To be honest with you, Mr Speaker, I really don't care who is at fault for the mess we're in. The fact is, we must make some decision now and this is what is happening now. This government has lacked direction. We have the Solicitor General one minute saying something, then we have the Deputy Premier saying something else and then we have the Premier saying something. He said, "I presume what the Solicitor General is saying may be so, if he's saying so." What this province needs is leadership. We need someone to be precise. That's what government is all about, to govern, and we're not getting that out of the government we have today.

We look within the caucus, for instance. The member for Sault Ste Marie proposes that the government allow stores to open from 1 pm to 5 pm on Sundays. Then we have another member who is advocating that we should open altogether. Some will fight it to the bone and say, "We want Sunday shopping." Others are saying, "No way." I even gather that the member for Hamilton East is now being influenced somehow to change his mind. I think as his other caucus members work on him it's quite possible he may be shifting to say we should really have Sunday shopping.

But again, the caucus is all over the place. When we were listening for some decisions or even one sole decision from the government, it says it would have to go back to its NDP provincial group in order to hear where it stands on that.

Interjection: What's wrong with that?

Mr Curling: Not a thing wrong with that. Lo and behold, as they walked in there, 90% of their members said, "Listen, we don't want any Sunday shopping." So we said, "Okay, that's clear, that's precise, now that the Premier has gotten the direction of where to go, since he is looking all over the place." Then he came back and announced in the House that the government and the cabinet will make the decision.

I am confused. One minute he was telling us it is not clear the cabinet is going to make the decision, but the NDP unelected group will make the decision. They told him and he hasn't done so. I want you to understand that my dear Aunt Nonie, way up in the north there, wants Sunday shopping in Kingston. Aunt Nonie expressed her thoughts to me and said she is not concerned at all that we shop on Sunday. She said she remembers the day you couldn't even play a ball game on Sunday. Today we have a ball game, we can open stores, what have you.

Let me talk about the ridiculous act about the tourist exemption. Mr Speaker, I don't know if you've had time to look through that. I don't know if these members have had the time to look at this tourist exemption. It is the most ridiculous law I've ever seen. As a matter of fact, sometimes I am a tourist. I live in Scarborough North and most of the members there have expressed to me that they want Sunday shopping. There are some who don't like to have Sunday shopping. So again, when we talk about the municipal option we feel very strongly as a Liberal Party that in each region it's different. In other words, it showed that the Liberal Party was listening, not only to the people of different ethnic backgrounds or different disciplines in business but also from the region, where it varies.

If I leave my riding of Scarborough North and just go up to Oshawa I become a tourist -- or maybe just to Pickering, nine miles out, I'm a tourist. As a matter of fact, if I moved from one part of my riding to the other I'd be a tourist -- not the member any more, but a tourist within my own riding. Furthermore, even that business regarded as a tourist attraction, if it hasn't got the architectural design, poor Aunt Nonie wouldn't be able to shop there, even though it has all the other criteria. Furthermore, if one member, one constituent, is objecting to that fact, what would happen? They can protest and then it is all held up. It's ridiculous.

I think this government that has praised itself as listening to the people has closed its ears. Maybe they are listening. Maybe we have it all wrong. I think they are listening, but they are not understanding what the people are saying. You see, maybe they are hearing but not listening. I don't know, because we can't get the decision out of this government where it wants to go on the Sunday shopping issue. The evidence has shown that the economic situation today requires some creative thinking, some facts where people need the extra money in order to come through this recession. But oh no, they refuse to listen. They're going to set the moral standard for this province. In the meantime, setting the moral standard, they said, "I"ll tell you, casino gambling is okay." Some people call it gaming. Casino gambling is okay, but to shop on Sunday is very bad for families, while gambling is not bad. You hear of people going to what they call Alcoholics Anonymous or Gamblers Anonymous; I've never heard about Shoppers Anonymous, people who have to go basically because they don't want to shop.

We're not talking about people who are spendthrifts. We're talking about people who want to shop on a day, sooner or later. But of course we can establish the casino in order to do that and you don't have to set any moral standard on that.

1600

Interjections.

Mr Curling: In the meantime, those members who are yapping over there should just listen for a moment, for the areas like Scarborough North and Scarborough Agincourt -- and again, it's the same thing when people are speaking to them. What would they say to this government? They're not making sense. They have made up their minds what they want to do and we can't even understand what they want to do. We don't know if they have Sunday shopping or not. While certain things are right, in other words, they are wrong.

This government is adrift. It has no leadership, it lacks any decision. They can't even give you the precise date. They change by polls or they will change by their provincial caucus. They just cannot make up their minds. There are many other things, many issues that must be dealt with that we'd like to move on. Make a decision. Let's move on. It will not be perfect. As you go along, amendments can be done. We're here as opposition. Don't listen to the Conservatives because they have no constructive views anyhow. They sit there and criticize and put nothing forward. We have put something forward. I'm telling you, Mr Speaker, that we are here and wish to give constructive ideas. There are laws on the books that will work very effectively for this province.

As I wind up in summary here, knowing some of my colleagues would like to speak, I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that you have an opportunity. You have changed your mind on about six or seven other issues so far. Here is an opportunity to say you have listened, you have even gone to your caucus and it has told you what it wants. There are wranglings within the caucus right now. Every time you go to a Tuesday meeting and you stay outside, another decision comes out. The longer you stay, the worse it will be.

So I say to you, Mr Speaker, I support this very strongly. I feel that, as we move into other things, the Sunday shopping issue will be way behind us.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'll be very brief.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Where's your chicken?.

Mr Carr: The chicken has been put away for today. I will just be attempting to talk about it today. I was reflecting it was November 21 when I got up, and we had spent the long, hot summer going around debating this bill and I never thought it would come back, but here we are again.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Remember the day when we were in Kingston and the lady said, "Don't tell me what to do on Sunday."

Mr Carr: Yes, it happened in Kingston when the lady said, "Don't tell us what to do." The present bill is unfair, it's unworkable and it's bad for the economic wellbeing of the province of Ontario.

I'm going to go through some of the points here and talk about the ones I'm opposed to. I think the first one is right. The Office of the Premier has created the big controversy with this. They read the polls, they saw there was widespread interest in opening. They're the ones who gave the retailers the assurance: "Don't worry, we're going to get this thing through, notwithstanding what is happening with the NDP council and the caucus. We'll get this thing through." That's what created this whole problem. What we and the public are saying is we are fed up with this issue. Just stand up and do it one way or the other. Let's not have it one day, not have it the next day. People on all sides of the issue want to have it resolved once and for all.

The problem with this bill is, putting it in the laps of municipalities, we'd be going all back over that whole territory again. We went around and most municipalities I went around during that period with the standing committee on the administration of justice said: "We don't want to have this thrown in our laps. We don't want to deal with this particular piece of legislation." They said, "We don't have the time to get involved in all this."

They're the ones who said: "Forget it. Will you politicians in Queen's Park make your decisions? We can't pass it on to another level of government. We're the last level of government. We can't palm tough decisions off on another level of government. You were elected to make a decision. Make a decision." That's what municipalities were saying. I think almost every day we had municipalities coming in and speaking on this bill. That's what we're saying. Will we once and for all make a decision one way or the other and stick to it?

If you look through the final paragraphs it says, "This Legislature calls upon the NDP government to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act immediately and introduce new legislation which would allow municipalities to decide." They don't have the political courage to make the decision, so they try to pass it on to another level.

Most people say that if we gave it to municipalities what would happen is that some of them would open. For example, in Collingwood they voted to open. Hamilton-Wentworth has voted to open. What would happen is that there would be this snowball effect and everybody would be open. One municipality would say, "The neighbouring municipality is open so we need to be open."

But the problem is that the blame would not be on the provincial politicians, so you could play both sides of it. The blame would then be shifted to the municipal politicians. It's a game of political ping-pong, because we all know there has been great debate on both sides. Many groups feel very strongly about it. So when they come up with a tough decision, instead of making the decision and living with it, in the Liberal tradition we either consult or pass it to another level of government to make the decision. That isn't what people want.

One way or the other, what I encourage this government to do, regardless of what direction it takes, is to end the uncertainty and come up with a policy everybody can live with. That's what I said during that period of time. That's what I think people on all sides of the issue would like to see. That's why I fought so strongly not to have it go to the Ontario Municipal Board, because that's what this government wanted to do. Then they could blame it and say: "No, the municipalities had the tourism exemption. It was their fault and the Ontario Municipal Board backed them up. The heat's off us now. The heat's off us as provincial politicians." I think that's why a lot of people are cynical and sceptical about politicians, because they won't stand up and make the tough decisions.

I would be more encouraged if the government said, "We're going to stick with this piece of legislation, we're going to shut down on Sunday," or if it said, "We're going to open up entirely." But come to a clear decision and end the uncertainty. I talked about it last November. I thought one good thing about this bill -- I know my friends the member for Guelph and the member for Durham East had some nice summer nights going around the province. It was very enjoyable, but we need to make a decision. Let's end it once and for all.

I don't think this motion will do it, so I will be opposed to it. I hope that once and for all this government will get its act together. Come to a conclusion, meet with whomever you need to, whether it's your council, whether it's your caucus, and come up with a decision so the people can put this one to rest, so retailers and the people of this province will know, one way or another, where they stand. That's what I'm asking of this government. I won't be supporting this resolution.

Mr Mills: It's interesting to debate this motion today in light of the fact that I don't think any party has been able to come to grips with it. It's a real conundrum. As the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, I had the dubious pleasure of travelling the province with Bill 115 and, I must say, every day upholding the government's position and listening to the various presentations.

It struck me that it didn't matter that we would go into one town and have the local Canadian Tire store owner there violently opposed to opening on Sunday and the chamber of commerce from that one town with all its members very keen to open on Sunday and then the very next day we would go into another location and the Canadian Tire store there would want to open on Sunday and the chamber of commerce would resolutely say it didn't want to open on Sunday. It wasn't an easy task. It has never been an easy task here.

I'd like to say a few things as they affect me as the member for Durham East. Some of the things I have to say are not necessarily reflective of the government or the government position.

To start off, I want to talk about small business. That's another conundrum we have to face with wide-open Sunday shopping. Just along the street from where I live in Toronto there's a dry cleaner. He says to me: "You know, if you allow wide-open Sunday shopping, that will result in Sketchley and Cadet being open. Then I will be forced to open to get my portion of the business." He said, "We came here in 1960, my brother and I and our family, and we run this dry cleaning business six days a week. We really look forward to and appreciate that day of rest on Sunday." They're some of the people one has to consider if you decide to change, when our friends across there say we should open.

1610

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Gordie, you are not going to close down the Dutch Oven, I hope.

Mr Mills: My friend talks of the Dutch Oven. That's very near to Orono, where I live. It purveys fine food, and I guess you go through there on the way to --

Mr Conway: And the little gift shop? I spend money there every weekend.

Mr Mills: Anyway, I'm speaking to you, Mr Speaker. We heard too on the tour the concerns of big business. I must say that unless you're sort of deaf in one ear, you must listen to those concerns.

They also had some concerns about drugstores on the tour. I know that one particular drugstore seems to have cornered the market that would allow it to open. I personally had great concerns over some of the bigger drugstores, which said they would agree to program their electronic tills to only dispense drugs and things on the weekend and forgo the selling of their grocery items. That to me in retrospect seems rather a fair solution to allowing some of those other drugstores to open, if they would be restricted to just drugs.

Of course, we can't talk about changing this bill without talking about worker protection. That really is the whole thrust of the common pause day. We're not talking solely about Sunday shopping, as my colleague the Solicitor General said; really the issue is Sunday working. I know that a number of family people have come to me and urged me to continue the fight to not change because of their family day on Sundays. I must say that I'm not a Sunday shopper, nor have I ever been one, nor do I ever intend to be one. But having said that, I don't think I have a right to come into the Legislature and attempt to influence or legislate my lifestyle on other people. I'd like to think the problem is so far-reaching and is of such concern to so many people in Ontario that, rightly so, we have to relook at it.

A lot of people say this government flip-flops and goes from one sort of idea to another. Nevertheless, I think that as a member of the government I have to recognize the fact that we live in a very changing society. Goodness only knows -- and I've said this before in this House -- that back in 1944 it was against the law for anyone to go to the movies unless he was a serving soldier. I mean, that is absolutely preposterous.

Mr Conway: It was 1964 in my little town.

Mr Mills: Well, the member for Renfrew North says 1964, but I know that in 1944 you had to be a member of the military to even be allowed into the movies. That just goes to show you how preposterous the law is and how one has to look at and focus on change, because if you ever considered such a thing today you'd be laughed out of the House. I think we live in a changing society here too, and we have to recognize that there are a lot of people out there who want to shop on Sundays. Personally, I think that unless we look into that option, we too will be bogged down in those pre-war or postwar criteria. I think that perhaps five years down the road, looking back on this debate today, it might even seem as silly as looking back on the debate in 1944, because personally I have no doubt at all that Sunday shopping in Ontario will eventually happen. What we have to do is to make sure that if we are doing the changes, they are fair, and that the people who work on Sundays or are required to work on Sundays are protected.

I used to work part-time at a department store. I had to go to a wedding one Saturday, and I remember saying to my supervisor that I wouldn't be able to work on Saturday. That supervisor said to me, "Well, that's fine." The next week I looked at the notice board and the hours that I was supposed to work, and they were cut back considerably. So I went to the supervisor and said, "You've cut my hours back this week; is that punishment for me not working on Saturday?" and the person said, "No, it isn't punishment, but you know we have to share the hours around." But I was interested to note that after that, I agreed to open the garden centre in that particular store on Sunday afternoons and that from that point on I never suffered any cut on hours.

So there is a concern of workers about Sunday working. We know we have the legislation there that some people think is adequate. I don't know if we will ever have adequate legislation to deal with the peculiarities of the human mind and how they get back at people and how they use people.

I won't be supporting this motion for one reason: I've had contact with AMO and it is absolutely opposed to going back to the previous legislation the Liberal government introduced. They said no, no, no to that legislation. They don't want us to slough off legislation to the municipalities. They want the government to be responsible for that.

I am speaking to the resolution that's before us. I must say that, being a straightforward and forthright person, I have made it publicly known in my riding of Durham East that I would support Sunday shopping, but I will support Sunday shopping after careful thought to how we can do it. It took the Liberal Party four years to come to grips with it and I don't see anything wrong, at this point in time, in taking a little bit longer and looking at everything to see if we can make it fair and right. Above all, I feel we have to protect the small shopkeeper. We have to look at protecting the storekeepers who have stores in malls which would be squeezed, and above all, we have to protect as adequately as we can the people who still want to treat Sunday as a day of rest. With that comment I will thank you.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I would like, of course, to support the resolution put forward by the leader of the Liberal Party today, which basically calls for Sunday shopping, employee protection and the opportunity for retail merchants to survive this recession.

I want to make a comment or two on the speech given by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who basically said today that there should be absolutely no regulation, no legislation and no such thought in regard to Sunday shopping.

What the leader of the Conservative Party forgot, which is very important, is that there exists today, in law, the opportunity for municipalities to regulate store hours, store openings and store closings in all the municipalities in Ontario six days a week. From Monday to Saturday municipalities have the authority to regulate store hours, store openings and store closings. It makes common sense to give municipalities the authority to do seven days a week what they already do six days a week.

That is one of the reasons why, in the last Parliament, the Liberal government gave municipalities the opportunity to regulate store hours, store openings and store closings on Sunday.

The other reason is very simple. Ontario is geographically larger than France and Spain put together, a tremendous mass of land with people stretched from one end to the other, many holding different views and many working within different economies. I would dare say the economies in many parts of this province are far different than the economies of the border cities of Ontario.

I want to talk a little bit about the border cities, because we have four government members here in this Legislature from Windsor and Essex county --

1620

Mr Conway: And Steve Langdon.

Mr Mancini: -- and Steve Langdon, who is the ex officio member in the Legislature. We have the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the minister who represents Windsor-Riverside, the member for Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Essex-Kent, all of them residing within Windsor and Essex county. They know better than anyone else within the NDP socialist government what Sunday shopping means to Windsor and Essex county. They know better than anyone else what the mayor and the municipal council, the merchants and people who wish the opportunity to work on Sunday have said and yet they have turned their backs on their own community. They have said: "We don't care what you want. We're not prepared to give you the opportunity to compete with those megastores across the river in Detroit."

Interjection.

Mr Mancini: I hear one of my NDP socialist friends from across the floor who lives some place in the great metropolitan region of Toronto. I'm reminded, when I hear such interjections, of the Minister of Revenue for Ontario coming to Windsor, being escorted by the top officials of the city of Windsor and other individuals to the corner of Riverside Drive and Ouellette Avenue, which is the centre of the business district in Windsor. If Riverside and Ouellette die economically, Windsor is finished. So the minister was brought to that intersection; she looked across the river -- this is a minister of the crown, I might add, having already been in government more than a year -- and saw those skyscrapers in Detroit and said, "My, I didn't realize Windsor was so close to Detroit." This is from the Minister of Revenue, who has been lobbied constantly by the federal government, local government and others to try to collect sales tax at the border. This comment, made by a Minister of Revenue in the NDP socialist government, was so disheartening to the people of Windsor that it took a considerable amount of time for us to realize the naïveté of some of the people who actually sit in the government across the floor. I'm sure, because I know some of the members from Windsor and Essex county, that deep down each and every one of them was thoroughly embarrassed by the comments of their own minister.

I've gone through some newspaper clippings over the last year in regard to what has been happening in the Windsor and Essex county area. I want to read some of the headlines to the members because it's obvious that over there some of the NDP socialist members believe they should pay attention to some obscure, unknown-to-the-general-public NDP provincial council instead of the people they were elected to represent. The last time I looked at the list of 130 constituencies I did not see a constituency noted NDP provincial council. I didn't see that on the list.

Why would a government have to say, "We're setting aside the wishes of the people that sent all of us here so we can consult with a group of people who have access to the back doors of the government and cabinet ministers, people who raise money for the government"? Why should we have a government listening to them instead of the wishes of the people who had their say some 18 or 20 months ago?

"City Food Stores Closings Loom," Windsor Star, March 22, 1991. "Border Mayors Unite," April 4, 1921. The border mayors got together to try to press this government, to try to get it to listen.

Mr Conway: Remo, not 1921; 1991.

Mr Mancini: I'm sorry. No, not 1921; 1991. It seems like 1921 because of the attitude of this government. "Sunday Debate: Message for the NDP," April 8, 1991, an editorial critical of the NDP socialist government. "Shoppers Flock to Amherstburg," which is open on Sundays. The NDP members of the Legislature say that Sunday openings don't make any difference; people won't shop. Well, in communities where stores are open, they actually do shop.

"Passing the Buck on Sunday Shopping" was an editorial critical of the NDP socialist government. "Bob Rae Growing Up in Public," Saturday, September 7, 1991, said: "No, you are not mistaken. Premier Bob Rae did not indeed commit his government to introduce state-run auto insurance." It goes on to talk about "all of the promises that were made in naïveté that were broken by the government and yet, for some unknown reason, they refuse to bend on Sunday shopping."

"Sunday Shopping Draws Thousands. Retailers Hopeful When the NDP Government Opened Up Ontario Stores for Business Just Before Christmas." We saw what retailers are prepared to do. "Sunday Business Beats a Handout, Retailers Argue." I guess the NDP socialist government would rather put employees on social services or unemployment insurance instead of giving them the opportunity to work on Sundays.

Editorial after editorial has spoken out in favour of getting Windsor and Essex county the opportunity to compete, the opportunity to have a retail sector, the opportunity for people to have jobs. The NDP socialist government is not listening. We want it to listen. People in Windsor and Essex county deserve a chance to have a future.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to speak briefly today on the opposition day motion with regard to:

"Conflicting pronouncements of the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Solicitor General and the NDP caucus have created a crisis of uncertainty in the retail industry in Ontario;

"And whereas municipalities across the province have demanded that they be given the freedom to decide whether or not to open their stores on Sundays."

This debate has gone on for many years. I remember back probably some 20 years ago, when I was the head of a municipality, a store wanted to open under the old law which would allow an exemption under the tourist area. A great debate took place with regard to the individual business that wanted to open, because it deemed it was in a tourist area. It ended up a tied vote and the reeve had to split the vote. Of course, the reeve got out of the chair and put somebody else in the chair and therefore didn't have to split the vote; but the reeve at that time seconded the motion to not allow the store to open on Sundays.

That was been my belief for many years, that there was no need for business to open on Sundays. That was, of course, under the old law. Times have changed. We have had an administration that has brought in allowing municipalities to make the decision of whether they should open or not.

We have a new government now that brought in another law that has changed the previous Liberal legislation. I was on that committee when it travelled the province. I remember in Windsor we had different delegates coming before that committee making announcements with regard to the common pause day. Protecting the workers was one of their major issues. We even had Bob White -- and I've heard that name around before; I believe he represents some union workers -- who spoke very eloquently with regard to the common pause day, how important it was and how they should protect workers.

So there have been a lot of discussions taking place with regard to cross-border shopping. Cross-border shopping is not going to stop because the law has changed and will allow businesses to open. Some of the areas -- Sarnia, Windsor, Niagara Falls and some of Metropolitan Toronto -- there's no doubt there would be a benefit to those municipalities and some of the major border municipalities to be allowed to open seven days a week. It would perhaps save several businesses and would put money in the pockets of some of those border communities, but the real reasons for cross-border shopping are gas, booze, cigarettes and competitive prices. Perhaps some of the businesses here should be looking at a more competitive price, but the problem has been that the government has laid so much tax on them that it's very difficult to be more competitive than they already are.

1630

My leader is very forceful with regard to doing away with the laws and letting people open or close, whatever they want to do with regard to their business. There are some members in the caucus who don't agree with that, and that's why we have an open caucus where members are allowed to get up and speak, make their presentations and talk about how they feel with regard to Sunday shopping.

In the city of Orillia, we've had a bylaw for many years which has allowed businesses to open on Sunday, and there's nothing wrong with that. There were hardly over 10 businesses that opened, but the ones that wanted to could proceed to do it. Just not too long ago they passed another bylaw wanting to open under the new legislation, and guess what happened. Somebody objected to the OMB. If we went back and had the original legislation with the tourist exemption, you wouldn't have to worry about going to the OMB, you would simply pass a bylaw in the municipality and allow them to open.

I had the occasion last Thursday to travel the riding and talk to constituents about this very issue. I was surprised at the amount of people I talked to who said, "We really don't need to be open seven days a week." I had one individual who indicated that she felt it should be open because she was out of work and she would be able to get a job.

Rural Ontario, small-town Ontario, is in a position where they really mostly are family-run businesses and they won't open anyway, regardless of whether there's a law that would allow them. But the benefit of opening in major tourist areas is jobs for students. There are many students now who do need the summer employment to help get through university, and I look at that aspect.

They say, "We're in a depression, and if we have Sunday shopping we're going to come out of the depression." The United States is in a depression too. What are they going to do to get out of it? Anything different than we are?

There should be a provincial law, if there is one, and not with the municipalities, but what some people are saying is: "We don't need a law at all. For those people who want to do business on Sunday, they may be free to do it, if that's what they want. I don't want to do it." I had people talk to me the other day saying: "Whatever your salary is, you don't need an extra day to spend it. You can spend it in six days quite easily."

The views out there are varied. You can look at your percentages, but sometimes it depends on where that poll was taken to determine what the percentage is. Some of them are saying they don't need the seven days to spend their paycheque, but I also observe what's happening in Ontario and I also happen to see the need, and if those businesses feel they can survive by being open, then I believe they should be allowed to do that and continue on.

In the hearings that were held across the province, I'm not sure what percentage it was, but it had to be close to 80% of delegations that came before that committee that wanted a common pause day and worker protection.

It's going to be interesting to see what legislation comes forth, and it's not going to be easy to satisfy or try to satisfy the majority of the people. I wanted to put some of the things on the record as far as I am concerned with regard to the common pause day. I believe it has been good. We have to look at fairness for families. We have to take that into consideration, that time together, to try and make people realize that there is a common pause day so they can spend more time with the family.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): My colleagues tried very hard to convince me I should be elsewhere this afternoon, but I thought I would want to take part in the debate. As someone who's witnessed the way this issue has buffeted this legislative chamber over the years, I thought it would be missing an opportunity to remind people of some things this afternoon.

Mr Conway: They won't let me talk this afternoon, so I have to mutter.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I think the Liberals should allow the member for Renfrew North to speak on this matter.

Mr Conway: It's just the stupidest debate. We have been having it for 20 years and we're no further ahead.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, the member for Renfrew North.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are here debating a motion by the leader of the official opposition, in the name of Ms -- Mrs McLeod.

Mr Conway: I am Marion Boyd's watchdog on the new lexicon.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I'm reading the Orders and Notices. It refers to the leader of the official opposition as Mrs McLeod. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I will get down to the matter at hand here. The issue of Sunday shopping has plagued the two opposition parties about 15 years now. I recall back around 1975 it was an issue way back then. In 1986, when of course the official opposition was in power, the report of the Ontario Progressive Conservative task force on extended shopping hours recommended that a common pause day be maintained. I believe those were the exact words. So the Conservative policy of that day was that a common pause day be maintained.

In 1987, when the Liberals were in power, the select committee on retail store hours supported the principle of a common pause day for the province as well. Then, of course, the Liberals changed the legislation and created what is commonly known as a municipal option.

Mr Conway: Which is, as you know, what the tourist exemption meant for 25 years.

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course, now the official opposition now calls on us to throw Sunday shopping wide open, then brings in --

Mr Conway: No. You're being disingenuous again.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, in the House, day after day in question period, what comes across the floor is that we should throw Sunday shopping wide open. Then, lo and behold, the leader of the official opposition comes forth with a resolution that would indeed go back to the municipal option. I can't understand the Liberals in this province at all. The debate has moved, my friends.

We are now talking about whether or not there should be wide-open Sunday shopping in the province. The Liberals say: "Oh, no, we don't want to engage in that debate. We want to go back to the way we did it, because we knew best." That's what the Liberals in this province are saying.

I want to tell the official opposition that nobody is supporting the Liberal position. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario mocks the Liberals on this policy now. There's no other word for it; they're simply mocking the official opposition.

Mr Conway: If your policy is so good, just stick with what you've got. You don't need to change anything then. Your brilliant status quo need not be changed.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: I didn't word this resolution. This resolution was worded by the official opposition. If they're embarrassed by the wording, they should have thought of that before now. If they're not embarrassed by it, then why are they being so touchy when I remind them that what this says is that we should turn the clock back to exactly the way it was when they were in power? Talk about the height of arrogance.

1640

Mr Conway: Dissembling always annoys me.

Hon Mr Laughren: There's nothing dissembling about this.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North, I ask you, please, to remain quiet. The minister has the floor.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't understand why the official opposition is heckling so much when I'm simply trying to understand --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You're irritating us.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not trying to irritate the official opposition. I'm simply trying to remind people that what's before us here basically is the municipal option the Liberals thought was so great when they were in power, which satisfied no one then and satisfies even less than no one now, if that's possible.

Mr Conway: I don't agree.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, that is the case. If you don't believe me, go and ask the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and see what it thinks of this position. They ridicule this position.

I think perhaps it needs to be said that Sunday shopping, while it's an issue of some importance in the province, is not the most important issue in Ontario and not the most important problem facing people in this province. There are a lot more important problems than Sunday shopping --

Mr Conway: Like jobs.

Hon Mr Laughren: Like jobs -- whether you're talking about cross-border shopping or the level of unemployment among youth, which the member for Renfrew North has so articulately in this House from day to day. There are other things that are of much more importance, even though somebody who tuned into question period from time to time would think that, with the exception of the member for Renfrew North of course, the only issue of importance in the province was Sunday shopping. That's simply not the case.

We know, for example, that if we had Sunday shopping in the province it would, I think, cause a reduction in some of the problems in the border communities. I believe there would be an impact on that. However, most of us understand that cross-border shopping is a seven-day-a-week problem. It's not a Sunday problem alone. There's no question about that, I think, so let's not blow the importance of this issue out of proportion simply because it happens to be in great favour with some of the tabloids in this city.

I would never suggest that the tabloids in Ontario, whether it's the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun or the Globe and Mail, had any kind of vested interest in this issue. I would not make that suggestion. However, I've heard others make it.

Mr Conway: You don't make people read Gerry Caplan and Michele Landsberg every week?

Hon Mr Laughren: There are people who would suggest that it's not an entirely objective editorial view as to whether or not the province should have open Sunday shopping.

I did want to put on the record some of the things that this government has been doing that I think are of more importance to people in this province than Sunday shopping.

Mr Conway: Floyd, just say there's going to be no change in the current policy and let's move on to another order of business.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Renfrew North suggests that we should say that there's no change in policy. I don't know whether that's his position or whether he thinks it should be our position. I'm not sure. We're talking about the official opposition's resolution before us today, which says to turn the clock back to when it was in power so we'll have the municipal option for Sunday shopping. That's what they're saying.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, you have the floor.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think I need some evidence of that, Mr Speaker.

All I'm saying to the members opposite is that I don't know how my colleagues will vote on this -- I didn't ask -- but I cannot support this resolution.

Interjection: I'm not either.

Hon Mr Laughren: You see, I think that maybe a number of our colleagues won't support it because it really does turn the clock back. But I didn't want to be derailed from what I wanted to say this afternoon.

This government, in the budget that just came down, took some important initiatives on renewing the economy of this province. We have been hit by the toughest recession since the 1930s. It's been very tough, and it's not just Ontario, of course, but other parts of Canada as well and in the United States. Despite that, or perhaps even because of that, if it makes the members opposite feel a little better, we responded in an appropriate way.

The budget is going to create and support about 90,000 jobs in this province. That's an important signal of confidence in Ontario. I sometimes wish the official opposition and the third party had the kind of confidence we have in Ontario and would get off the train of gloom and doom they seem to be on. It is time we all reacted in a more positive way, because we all have a great deal at stake in getting out of this recession.

In this budget, this government made the largest commitment to jobs and to training, and particularly to training and apprenticeship, that's ever been made in the history of Ontario. That was an important initiative on our part and we're going to continue to make sure that whenever possible, we intervene in a very positive way. We also took action on research and development incentives for the private sector and on improving the current cost allowances for the province. These things will do a lot more for Ontario than open Sunday shopping would ever do; there's no question about that. We also lowered the rate of tax on manufacturing, processing, mining, fishing and logging from 14.5% to 13.5% and lowered the small-business rate from 10% to 9.5%. Those are important initiatives that we took in this budget.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I know members opposite think it's not important to show this kind of support to the private sector. This government believes it's important, and that's why we did it.

I don't want to inflame members of the third party, but does anyone think that wide-open Sunday shopping could possibly make up for the damage done by the federal Tories and their GST and free trade? Does anybody possibly think that? You couldn't; it's not possible to think that.

I'm pleased that members of the third party didn't become inflamed when I said that, but it really was important to get that on the record, because I think most of us understand how much worse the cross-border shopping issue has become since GST and free trade were initiated by the federal government. There's no question about that.

Mr Conway: Give us a little word on casinos.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I think if I could relate the establishment of casinos in the province to Sunday shopping, I would, but I might be ruled out of order by the Speaker. So I want to stick strictly to the resolution that's before us.

There is no question that the whole issue of Sunday shopping has changed in the minds of the population of this province, no question at all. Not that we're governed by polling, but I understand the polling shows that about 70% of the population supports Sunday shopping now, and in some parts of the province it's a lot higher than that. In the area I represent, I wouldn't think it's that high. I haven't seen any polling that's specific to the area I represent, but I'd be very surprised if it's as high as it is in Toronto or in the border communities. It's not that big an issue in some parts of the province, but there's no question that public opinion has changed.

This government, being of the responsible type, is assessing the whole issue of Sunday shopping. We've never said we're not keeping an eye on this issue. We must, as a responsible government, understand that times change. That doesn't mean we rush out the minute a new poll comes out and say, "Oh, oh, we've got to change our position today." That's not the way this government functions. I can tell the members opposite that we are examining this issue. We're keeping a very close eye on it. We also know that if we were to change our position and have wide-open Sunday shopping, there would be people who would not be happy with that decision either.

Mr Conway: Ask Mel Swart what he thinks of Bob Rae.

1650

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, you might ask the member for St George-St David. He will tell you that, that there are many people. Ask the member for London North, from the Conservative caucus, what she thinks about Sunday shopping. Ask a lot of small business people who are now open on Sunday whether they think everybody else should be allowed to open on Sunday too. There are all sorts of people out there, all sorts of organizations, all sorts of businesses, that do not want to move to Sunday shopping; no question about that, no question at all.

The opposition parties are telling us that immediately a poll comes out, bang, you change your position. That's what they've been saying in this House now for a month. Things have changed and the best solution they've got for the recession we're in is Sunday shopping. It's surely a bankrupt political party that sees Sunday shopping as the solution for the recession. Members opposite have been hinting at that very strongly in this House day after day.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't know why the opposition is getting so upset about its own resolution. This is their motion. It's the leader of the official opposition who brought this motion before the House this afternoon.

I know my friend from Renfrew North, the dyspeptic dilettante, is very unhappy with the fact that he's not sitting over here now and he wants to see this government twist in the wind on every issue that comes before it. I want to tell the member for Renfrew North that all we are doing is making sure we manage the issue properly and carefully. We're doing nothing more and nothing less than that.

I can tell the members opposite that their view that this is an issue with only an up side is wrong. There is a down side to Sunday shopping as well, and that has to be kept in mind. There are people who don't want to work on Sunday. If there is a change in the law, there would have to be substantial protections for people who don't want to work on Sunday.

Mr Conway: Why would you ever have casino gambling if Sunday is so sacrosanct?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't know why the member for Renfrew North is preoccupied with casino gambling.

Mr Conway: Because I thought the NDP had principles, that's why.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, I would ask you to address the Chair, not the hecklers.

Hon Mr Laughren: Who is the dyspeptic dilettante addressing, Mr Speaker? I would ask you that question. Certainly not the Chair.

However, I don't want to dominate the debate this afternoon and take up any more time. I would simply say that I'm disappointed in the opposition day motion that stands in the name of the leader of the official opposition because it's so unimaginative.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it is. It's a step back into the time when they were in power, as though they could recreate those wonderful days of Louis XIV in Ontario. It's simply not appropriate to go backwards in time.

I can tell the members opposite that if this government were to change its position on Sunday shopping, it would not be to the position put forth by the official opposition. Heaven forbid. We are not so bankrupt in ideas that we would see going back in time as the solution.

Finally, I hope the members of the opposition understand very clearly that there are a lot more important problems facing this province than the question of Sunday shopping.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Hear, hear, so let's get this one of the table.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, the members of the opposition say they understand that, yet it's not evident in their behaviour in this Legislature that they have any understanding of that whatsoever.

This government moved aggressively in the budget to address the problems of the recession. We did it three ways: (1) We made a very serious and substantial commitment to jobs and training; (2) we were determined to maintain the essential services of health care, education and social services in the province, and (3) we kept the deficit in check. Those are three things that are a lot more important at this time in the province than the motion put forth from the official opposition that would take us backwards in time.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to participate in this debate on the Liberal leader's motion, which reads as follows:

"Whereas the conflicting pronouncements of the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Solicitor General and the NDP caucus have created a crisis of uncertainty in the retail industry in Ontario;

"And whereas municipalities across the province have demanded that they be given the freedom to decide whether or not to open their stores on Sundays" -- then the resolution continues with a number of points that appear to suggest that the Liberal Party is in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping, then it concludes by saying:

"Therefore this Legislature calls upon the NDP government to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act immediately and introduce new legislation which would allow municipalities to decide what is the best economic decision for their communities and responds to the growing public demand for Sunday shopping in Ontario."

I'm pleased to be able to follow the Treasurer this afternoon and to listen to the ad for the NDP and its economic program. He carefully skirted around the issue as much as he could and I didn't hear him indicate his own personal position on the Sunday shopping issue. We've all recognized that this is a very difficult issue, and while we all recognize that it's probably not the most important issue facing Ontario today, it's very difficult. It's difficult because it's an emotional issue. It brings values into question, whether it be religious values or freedom of choice and people's desire to have freedom without the government telling them what to do or whether it be family values. These values elicit an emotional response, and it becomes very difficult for anybody to achieve a consensus on Sunday shopping. We've seen it for many, many years in this debate, whether it be Sunday openings or Sunday sports or Sunday whatever, and it's quite difficult for governments to deal with.

In my own personal view, I have a very strong opinion on Sunday shopping which I'll get into later, my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew, my good friend, has a different perspective, my colleague the member for Oakville South has a different perspective, and today my colleague sitting beside me, the member for Mississauga South, has a perspective that I think I share. But we respect each other's opinions, and my party's leader has a different perspective on it than I have, yet he has given us the latitude and respects our views enough to have given us the freedom to stand in our place, to have said we can represent our constituents and that he has no problem with that and he respects our views. I respect him for that.

If you look at the resolution presented by the Liberal leader this afternoon, it very carefully puts out the Liberal view on Sunday shopping, which is trying to sit on the fence, as was their view in the past during the election campaign: the local option they talked about as being the best solution. Because, as we've seen, it's a very difficult issue, they want to slough it off on somebody else so they don't have to face the heat that will come as a result of whatever decision they take. So they slough it off on to the local municipalities so the local councils can make a decision.

As we've heard many times this afternoon, I don't believe the Association of Municipalities of Ontario supports that view. They don't want the issue, which they see as being provincial. I support their sentiments in that regard. They believe the province should set the guidelines and I wholeheartedly support that. Where the Liberals have actually indicated in their resolution "whereas municipalities across the province have demanded that they be given the freedom to decide whether or not to open their stores on Sundays," I haven't heard any information that this is in fact correct and I would question the accuracy of that statement.

Why is the local option bad? If I don't support wide-open Sunday shopping, which I don't, I'm very concerned about the local option because I see it as something that's going eventually to lead to wide-open Sunday shopping, because of competitive pressures, because of the government policy, as espoused by the Liberals at the time, forcing municipalities and putting them in a position where it's very difficult to say no to people they go face to face with. I support local autonomy, as a member for a rural riding, but I do believe that it's very, very difficult for local municipalities to deal with Sunday shopping. They have said consistently -- consistently -- that they don't want to deal with it and they've asked the province to deal with it, so I would support that.

1700

The NDP response has been interesting. It's been inconsistent on a weekly basis. There have been repeated flip-flops. We never know what's going to happen from one day to the next; the government comes out with a new position. They went around in the election campaign in the summer of 1990, and what they said was: "We are in favour of a common pause day. We're in favour of protecting workers' rights and we're in favour of ensuring that there is a common pause day for all Ontarians."

They couched it in such high principle that you almost believed them. You almost believed that they were sincere in what they were saying, but of course, now we're a year and a half away from the election. It's not that long since the election, but of course we don't have principle any more in this issue. We have, I guess, a response to what they see as a change in the polls situation.

They told their own constituency workers, who they valued so highly as an important constituency that they wanted to maintain, "We'll make sure there's a common pause day." Now they've sold out their own people with the apparent flip-flops that they've been making, the weekly change in policy. In all likelihood, we will see in the coming weeks -- we have seen many signals of it -- a repeal of their Sunday shopping law, which has only been in effect for a few months. Again, we're seeing a government that can't make a decision and stick to it.

Of course, we know that the main reason, the main catalyst, for the latest flip-flop on the government side, when the Premier was away and the Office of the Premier was making assurances known to certain retailers that they better not open and, "Don't worry, we'll deal with this very soon," was the government's announcement that casinos were going to be a part of the Ontario landscape, when the Treasurer announced in the budget just a short few weeks ago that they were going to bring in casinos.

The sheer -- I don't want to say "hypocrisy" -- but the issue on one hand of casinos being encouraged and allowed for tourist reasons, trying to get people up for the weekend so they can gamble on Sundays, and yet stores not being allowed to open on Sundays, the clear unfairness to anyone. In fact, I think what happened after that was that the store owners were looking at this and they couldn't believe it and they threatened civil disobedience. The government responds by saying, "We'll change our policy once more for the 13th or 14th time in the last year and a half."

I don't want to take up any more time because I know other members of my caucus want to speak on this issue, but my position on Sunday shopping has remained the same since I entered public life. It has not changed. I still believe -- and I spoke on this issue in the election campaign at length -- that there is considerable social benefit to allowing as many families as possible in Ontario to have one day together when they can spend the time together, when they have no outside influences, when they're not being asked to work. I believe the government has an obligation to work towards ensuring that this is a possibility, that as many families as possible do have that opportunity. As I say, for that reason I have no hesitation in stating that I will not be supporting this motion this afternoon and I would leave it that for this afternoon.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I don't intend to speak very long, but I think there are a few things that are worth saying on this particular subject. I can tell you that in the almost 17 years I have had the privilege of being in this place now to debate what we've gone over a number of times -- I was, however, a little surprised with the special motion that we had from the opposition members here today, because I get the sense that they have learned absolutely nothing since they made the mistakes that got them tossed out of office a year and a half ago.

The positions generally, in my experience in this House, have been pretty consistent. The Tories have usually supported some form of common pause day or anti-Sunday shopping, although I sensed, when I listened to their leader today, that they might now be ready to go for wide-open Sunday shopping. But up until this point in time at least, we had a pretty good idea of where they were coming from.

We were never certain just where the Liberals were coming from, and they came out with their municipal option. I think the Attorney General with their party had something to do with it, because it's one of the things that got him into some trouble. The standing joke around here was the number of times you've been right in the decision, the number of times you've been wrong. The municipal option just wasn't one that was popular in the province.

I read this resolution today and I see that it says, "And whereas municipalities across the province have demanded that they be given the freedom to decide whether or not to open their stores on Sundays." Right off the bat, that's not what I'm hearing from AMO; it's not what I'm seeing even in some votes in some of the municipalities. It's obviously a statement that doesn't necessarily hold water.

Then they say, "And whereas in border communities, faced with a growing epidemic of cross-border shopping, the matter of Sunday shopping is of particular urgency." While I'm willing to concede there might at least be an argument that can be made there, I also find it interesting -- although admittedly this was a Tory survey and not a Liberal survey -- that a recent federal study on the impact of Sunday work upon cross-border shopping should lay to rest any illusion of Sunday work as a solution to cross-border shopping. I'm not sure I would state it as strongly. I can say, however, that I don't think the case has necessarily been made that the problem of cross-border shopping -- I think others, including the Treasurer, have made the argument -- really is simply going to be answered by wide-open Sunday shopping.

"And whereas 67% of Ontarians have expressed their support for more open Sunday shopping": I think a couple of things have to be asked about that. I'm not at all sure it would reach that percentage, although I'm one of the first to agree that there seems to be a bit of a shift in public opinion. But I think one of the things we have to ask ourselves -- and I think it's a legitimate question -- is whether or not that shift in public opinion is driven by fear of the current economic situation. That's a major factor. Without that, I think you cannot really tell.

What would happen if, for example, as a result of wide-open shopping in the retail sector, which basically this is aimed at, or the entertainment sector, public sector workers who don't have to work Sunday now were told all of a sudden, "Hey, this is going to mean that other workers and public employees are also going to have to work on Sundays"? I suspect those figures would drop rather dramatically. While it's a convenience to shop on Sundays, I'm not at all sure they would like to have to work on Sundays.

"And whereas retailers across the province are facing severe economic constraints and have identified Sunday shopping as one solution to their difficulties": Where's the proof to that? It's one thing that hasn't been presented to me. I haven't seen any proof that this is going to resolve that problem. I want to deal with that a little more later.

Then it says, "And whereas in the face of this growing crisis the NDP government has irresponsibly delayed taking action while it awaits direction from the unelected members of its party." Others may not like it, but I want to make it clear that one of the things that makes me proud to be a New Democrat, and why I have been one most of my working life, is that we are based on convention decisions and something that means something and a view of our people. I want to say also that this doesn't mean I don't understand that once you've been elected in this province you have a responsibility to all the people in your riding as well. So I accept that we may not always do what is a party position or what is a position as a result of some input into the organization you belong to. But I can tell you that connection, that history, that background and that involvement of people in our riding associations are what I think have built this party from coast to coast. I think they mean something.

I am very proud that we have the ability to go back and talk to our people, whether we're going to continue a position we now have or whether we want to make a major change in that position. It's something that feeds back to the rank-and-file people who do come out and do the work in our campaigns as well.

"And whereas the government has said that it is committed to creating jobs to lead us out of the current recession and it is acknowledged that more open Sunday shopping would stimulate jobs in the retail sector": Once again, show me the evidence. Show me the proof. There are only so many dollars people have out there. Whether you spend them in six days or in seven days, it's going to be the same number. Who are going to be the beneficiaries?

"And whereas the Employment Standards Act provides considerable protection for workers who do not wish to work on Sundays": I want to tell you -- and I'll deal with that a little more in a moment -- that is a concern. It's a real concern simply because it's much more difficult to deal with part-time workers than with full-time workers.

"Therefore this Legislature calls upon the NDP government to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act immediately and introduce new legislation which would allow municipalities to decide..."

1710

That's where it became obvious to me that this Liberal Party has not learned a darn thing since it suffered defeat in the last election. They really were thrown out. They were thrown out because of their own errors. They're coming back with exactly the same kind of position they took at that particular point in time. That says to me that we may have difficulty making up our minds on some of the things we want to do, and they haven't learned a darn thing since they were thrown out of office a year and a half ago.

Another thing which we have to take a look at and is a serious concern -- I mentioned it earlier -- is the protection of workers who do not wish to work on Sunday. In our current bill we give workers the absolute right to refuse. With Sunday shopping we will have many more part-time workers than full-time workers. I'll almost guarantee you that full-time workers in many of the chains or bigger stores will not get Sunday work because of the time-and-a-half or double-time provisions. It'll be the part-time workers, as has already happened in much of our retail industry -- more and more people are working and being hired as part-time workers.

What will happen if these part-time workers are not cooperative and say, "We don't necessarily want to work on Sunday"? What will happen is what was happening during the last period when there was some opening as a result of this Liberal Party when it was in office. What happened? The workers at Sears, some of the stores in the centre and some of the malls in my riding, called me, saying: "Hey, we were part-timers. We would work 24, 20 or 16 hours." They were restricted time frames. The minute they said they weren't willing to work on one of the holidays or on Sunday, nobody gave them heck. All of a sudden that 24 hours was down to 20 or 16, and that 16 hours was down to 10 or 12 hours. You try and prove that, and if you don't think that's going to be a major problem you're kidding yourselves. So there is a problem in terms of dealing with workers and the kind of protection we can offer.

How do we also deal with the smaller operators in the shopping malls, those who do not want to open? Do we think the mall owners and big developers will not dictate their rents and the conditions under which they work? I want to tell you that, other than the retail food end of it, about 4% of workers in these stores are organized, so there's no protection for the workers. There's also no protection for the smaller operators because you can bet your bottom dollar the agreements in many of these malls will require them to open if the big operators are going to open in those malls.

What kind of protection do we have in place? Is it not worth taking a look to see whether we can do something to see that those who don't want to open or operate are able to stay closed, or are they just going to have to try and compete? Does anyone think Sunday shopping will produce more dollars other than perhaps in the border communities? I'm willing to admit there's at least an argument that can be made there. Reality will be the same number of dollars over an extra day's shopping, as I mentioned earlier.

Whom will this benefit? I'll tell you very clearly that it will benefit the chains. It will benefit the big operators, it will benefit the mall owners and developers, and I suspect it will be a real benefit to many of the major newspapers because they live on advertising dollars and this is one of the things they'll spend the money on.

I think the argument we have to look at on the other side of it -- because the big operators will want the openings. It's very likely to be a no-win situation for the small operators, the workers themselves and many of the mom-and-pop operations. Where is most of the pressure coming from that we're facing? It's not coming from these people; it's not coming from the small merchants and the small operators; it's not coming from the workers; it's coming from the big operators that tend to benefit. It's a campaign that's being driven by fear of our current economic situation.

I don't think the motion that's here necessarily offers any solution to the problem I've tried to outline; however, there is one argument we have to take a look at. The toughest argument is probably the extent to which public opinion may be changing. Anybody who doesn't take a look at that is crazy also and I recognize that, but we have to listen and we have to understand whether or not we can put in place provisions that will protect workers and their rights, whether or not we can put in place provisions that say small operators don't have to open up if they happen to be mall tenants, that they can still keep their businesses closed if they desire to and not move on this issue.

This is why we're doing the discussing we are and looking at it as seriously as we are in the context of being stampeded into some position by one of the opposition parties that hasn't learned a thing from its defeat in the last election.

There are a couple of other things that are worth mentioning. When we take a look at this, maybe we should take a look at what's happening in some other parts of the world too. I think a little study of some of the European Community countries would help. It's not the same in all of them but there is no wide-open shopping in Germany, I can tell you, and there is much more restricted protection for workers and you don't see the move in that direction. It applies in other areas as well.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): In the time allotted for me to speak on this resolution, let me first indicate my support for the resolution and for the wording contained within.

It's strange, as I've listened to the debate this afternoon, that the Conservatives speak of principle and that all of their members have different opinions. The New Democrats' principles seem to be embraced in casino gambling, in what they said before and what they say now, and on public auto insurance, what they said before and what they say now, and indeed on a common pause day, what they said before and what they say now.

All of the government members criticize the wording of this particular resolution only because it happens to state the position we held prior to the election and which we continue to hold, the same position on the basis of the same principles. It's something which is very curious indeed: that now one gets criticized by members of the government side because they have the audacity to hold the same position they've held out to the people of this province for many, many years. That's something I find passing strange.

I listened closely to what the Minister of Labour was saying. It's quite interesting how he, in one broad stroke of the brush, spoke of the big developers and the big business owners and the big profit-makers in this province. They also happen to be the big job creators in this province. What happened to this new era of consultation and cooperation which the government members, when the time seems to fit them, speak so eloquently about? The Minister of Labour has really just put aside all of that with his five or six minutes on this one particular issue. He's spoken of those individuals who work so hard in this province, who provide so much to this province, as people who are somehow improper in that they are contributing to the economy of the province, that they are contributing to jobs in this province, that they are providing jobs when jobs are such a scarce commodity.

I'm glad the Minister of Labour is here. Is this not the same person who was seen shopping in a mall on a Sunday in Hamilton-Wentworth just last year? Is this the same person who has spoken about how so terrible this particular area is, how so difficult it is? It is clear that the province and so many people within this province are saying, "What is the position of this government?"

1720

We have a piece of legislation that they've brought forward which is mired in regulation and legislation. It isn't a bill, it's a noose, and it's really strangling communities from doing what they feel is best for themselves economically to deal with the realities and the demands of the day. This is what this resolution of our leader is meant to bring forward, that municipalities should be allowed to make the decisions which they believe are best for their own economy and for the people they look after.

How in the world can a government take a position where in fact it seems to be against municipalities being able, in a free and unfettered way, to deal with the realities of their own community? I don't know why, but of course we are left with that question of the government, and people are asking the government, "Where do you stand on this issue?"

We have legislation before us, but we have messages, press releases and interviews with the press that just seem to fly in the face of what was said the day before, and that is becoming consistent for this government. The inconsistency of its message is the only thing that seems to be consistent. It depends on the day upon which the question is asked that one gets the position, and people are saying: "Where does the government stand? Must we wait always for the provincial NDP council to make a decision before we can see what direction the government is taking, and if we must do that, why do we have to do that? We didn't elect them. They are not accountable to us. We haven't ever spoken to them and in fact we don't want to."

We believe there is an accountability process that has to be adhered to and for a government to say, "We throw up our hands on this issue, we make no decisions until we take it our NDP provincial council," is something which many people, no matter where they stand on this issue, are finding very detestable. They find they just can't swallow the fact, no matter where they stand on this issue. They can't believe any government would throw an issue which affects so many people to its own political association, people who are not accountable to the communities, to the municipalities and to the many people who have felt the ravages of the recession.

We know that right now under the Employment Standards Act there is sufficient protection for workers. The words spoken by the Minister of Labour do not fall within and are not brought forward in the Employment Standards Act. The Employment Standards Act does provide protection for workers.

What this resolution says is: "Let communities decide what is best for themselves economically. Let them make the decision as to what is best for their people, for their residents, keeping in mind the particularities and the uniqueness of each community in this province." That's what this resolution says.

The NDP government says: "We don't know. We have to make certain. We have to listen to our provincial NDP council." That is just not good enough in this province. It is just not good enough for the many people who are out of work. It's just not good enough for the many businesses that are trying to create jobs in this province. It's just not good enough for a government to act that way.

I stand in full support of a very carefully worded resolution which gives to municipalities the ability to do what they can do, and that is to make certain that their community is able to meet the demands of the economy that is unique to them.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for Mississauga North for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): As I rise to speak to the opposition day motion by the leader of the official opposition, I must say at the outset that this seems to be an annual event that we get an opportunity to stand in this House and discuss Sunday shopping. It's unfortunate, though, that some members in the House, when they discuss this subject, don't discuss the real issue of the subject, which is Sunday working.

I think, first of all, I must comment on the Minister of Labour's very revealing statements a few moments ago in this House, because we now know that at least when this government brings in its new legislation, which will permit Sunday working, that the Minister of Labour will have to resign, and it certainly will be one easy way of eliminating one more member of the cabinet.

One of the advantages I think I have with my seven years' tenure now in this House -- it all went past on May 2 without any special recognition or celebration in this House, so I have to record that now for posterity -- but one of the advantages about having just celebrated my seventh anniversary as a member is that I've been here long enough to remember what various members said when they sat in different locations in this House.

In particular, it's very interesting to hear the NDP members who are now serving in the government benches who shared some of the same concerns that I had when they were in the opposition benches. It's not only on this subject; it's actually on many subjects. I think if there's one thing this opposition day motion of the Liberal Party this afternoon demonstrates, it really just goes to reconfirm once more that with the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party in Ontario, there is a distinct lack of leadership. I think what's going to become very real very soon for the people in this province is that they're going to be able to see whether anyone in the government benches is made of that stuff of which they proclaimed they were made when they were campaigning.

When we look at the example in our own caucus, I do want to recognize that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is in fact the only real leader in this Legislature. He is the only leader who will give to each and every member of his caucus the right to a free vote on this subject. He is the only leader who will give the option to each one of us in this caucus to represent our constituencies. I admire my leader, Mike Harris, for the fact that he is willing to do that. That has not been the tradition of most leaders in this Legislature in the past. I challenge the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, to give the same option of a free vote to all the members of his caucus that Mike Harris is giving to us as members of our caucus. Because of that, I am able to stand in this House today and speak in opposition to this motion, but also in opposition to the concept of Sunday working.

I think it's unfortunate that the Liberal motion, which supposedly has been very well researched and written, has so many blatant errors in it. I refer especially to the second paragraph, wherein it says, "And whereas municipalities across the province have demanded that they be given the freedom to decide whether or not to open their stores on Sundays." I cannot begin to understand how the Liberal opposition, which was the Liberal government in this province for five years until September 1990, could have made this gross error in this resolution. There is on record a resolution of AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which says the absolute opposite to this. The municipalities in Ontario do not want the freedom to make the decisions. They do not want the local option. They want the provincial government to make the decision. They want the provincial government to have the jurisdiction over the subject of Sunday working.

This motion also says, "And whereas in border communities, faced with a growing epidemic of cross-border shopping, the matter of Sunday shopping is of particular urgency." This has to be the most ludicrous statement of all. The fact is, everyone knows that people are shopping in the United States because of price. People are not shopping in the United States because the stores are open on Sundays. People cross-border shop every day of the week, and they do that by choice, because of price. I don't think we can deal with the issue of how we can correct the price differential in this debate today, but we might as well recognize that the issue of cross-border shopping is not a Sunday issue.

1730

Also in this illustrious opposition day motion by the Liberal Party there is another statement that says, "And whereas 67% of Ontarians have expressed their support for more open Sunday shopping." Now, where is it written, where does it say 67% of Ontarians want their friends, family, relatives and coworkers to work on Sunday? I challenge the Liberal Party to provide documentation other than perhaps a poll of -- what is it? A poll is usually 1,000 people or 1,100 people.

For a party that for years has criticized other parties that ruled and made policies and developed legislation based on polls, I find particularly interesting this statement made by this particular party, the former Liberal government of this province, that 67% of Ontarians want people to work on Sunday. You can't make a blanket statement like that. You should perhaps say that a poll of 1,100, 1,000 or 999 people has revealed that 67% of people in Ontario want to work on Sundays.

One of the things I have found in discussing this subject, not only in my own riding but across this province, is that when you say to people, "Would you shop every Sunday if stores were open?" the answer always is: "No, I wouldn't shop every Sunday but it would be nice some Sundays if the stores were open. If I had the time and had all my other chores done, maybe I could go shopping on Sunday, if they were open." So for the convenience of that individual being able to shop occasionally on a Sunday, somebody else has to work every Sunday.

That brings me to another part of this motion. By the way, I must say that with all the crises facing Ontario today, isn't it significant that this was the best opposition day subject the Liberal Party could come up with? Isn't there a tremendous irony that they've put themselves back in the mess with this motion that they had themselves in when they were the government for five years? Obviously they're no better at managing the business of this province from an opposition purview than they were when they were the government.

The other section that really concerns me, and I know there are many members of the government who share this concern with me, is where it says: "And whereas the Employment Standards Act provides considerable protection for workers who do not wish to work on Sundays." Mr Speaker, I just want to tell you what those amendments to the Employment Standards Act actually say. They say that retail workers, both full- and part-time, will have the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work. A worker who has agreed to work on a Sunday and wishes not to do so can refuse with 48 hours' notice, and employees will be entitled to 36 continuous hours of rest in every seven days whether they work on Sundays or not.

The really interesting part here is that if anybody is so naïve as to think for a moment that if he refuses to work, if he's employed in the retail industry and his employer operates the business seven days a week, if he thinks for a moment that by refusing to work on Sunday he will have the same opportunities for promotion that the cooperative worker who will be willing to work on Sundays will have, then I think the leader, Lyn McLeod, and her Liberal cohorts are more out to lunch than we had anticipated they were.

I think it's very important when we talk about Sunday working that we as people in this Legislature look very seriously at the responsibility we have. Yes, I concede that things change from time to time, but do we like some of the changes we see? Do we like the style of life we see evolving in our province? I ask you, Mr Speaker. I personally am concerned about some of the lifestyle changes that are taking place in this province. I am concerned about family values. I am concerned about the rights of individuals to work or not to work six or seven days a week, regardless of what day of the week it is.

I happen to believe very strongly that at this point in time I represent my constituents in the majority, who wish to have a common pause day. It's very interesting that the former Premier of this province, David Peterson, every single day of his campaign in the summer of 1990 campaigned on a common pause day, as did Premier Bob Rae. He campaigned every single day promising the people of Ontario a common pause day.

I simply say, what does this mean? Is a common pause day for everyone, or is it selectively for those who are not employed in an industry where their boss will say to them, "I'm sorry, I'm open on Sunday, so you're working Sunday"?

I believe in a common pause day for a number of reasons my constituents have conveyed to me, which happen to coincide with my own personal wish and my own personal vision for the future of this province, and it isn't where we are open with all our business and industry and commerce seven days a week, where we do not have one single day set aside where people do not have to go to work.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Mississauga South for her contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I first of all found it rather interesting that the Minister of Labour consumed all the time of the government while the member for Welland-Thorold was sitting there anxiously champing at the bit waiting to get his position forward. I also find it's not really necessary for the member for Welland-Thorold to put his position forward, because the member for Mississauga South just did. Isn't there some irony that the somewhat right-wing member for Mississauga South, I say with due respect, would be sharing the same position as the somewhat left-wing member for Welland-Thorold? They believe in a common pause day. Is that what you call full circle? They don't meet in the middle, I can tell you that. Rather strange bedfellows come out of this crazy business.

The member for Mississauga South also made a comment I made a note of. She said: "What is a common pause day for? Is it for everyone?" I stand to be corrected in Hansard, but I believe that's a direct quote. Her question was, "Is it for everyone, or is it just for some people, because we have seven-day commerce?"

Then I put that together with the speech of the Minister of Labour, who stands up and defends the rights of workers not to work on Sunday. Then I put that together with the member for Sault Ste Marie, who stands up and says that his folks have voted for wide-open Sunday shopping in Sault Ste Marie and would like it. Then you put that together with the people who work in the steel industry, with the people who work in the automobile industry, with the people who work in health care, with the people who work in the police, with the people who work in fire and all municipal sectors, in sports. When you go to see the Blue Jays, somebody's got to work. Somebody's got to open or close the Dome.

So the question should be asked: If you have a common pause day, who is it for? According to the member for Welland-Thorold or Mississauga South or many other members of the government, a common pause day is clearly for people in the retail sector. It's not for anybody else.

1740

Mr Mancini: Some retail.

Mr Mahoney: Some retail. Gas stations are open on Sunday. That's retail. Corner stores, drugstores, the list goes on. This is really a consistent policy. Maybe we should define a common pause day. At least the active member for Welland-Thorold is consistent with his party's former policy, I grant you that.

It's interesting to me that we sit here today and hear members from both the Conservative Party and the NDP criticizing the Liberals for actually supporting a resolution consistent with our position when we were in government. Can you imagine that? What an outrageous thing that we'd actually be consistent.

Yet they have the unmitigated gall to say we want to go backwards. We'd love to go back to the days when we were in government, but let me tell you, we're not going backwards when we support the existing position.

The member for Mississauga South in her speech said, "Would somebody show me where there's any kind of poll that indicates support?" Mr Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, would tell you there was a vote held in that community, in my home town, and the vote clearly said the people wanted Sunday shopping. I don't know how much more clear -- that wasn't 1,100 people in a telephone poll on a weekend, that was a vote that clearly said.

I have a letter from the mayor of Wallaceburg addressed to the Premier, dated May 13, expressing concern that the Ontario Municipal Board under this current legislation dismissed an application by the town of Wallaceburg to have wide-open Sunday shopping, to have a bylaw approved. They dismissed it because of a court challenge.

Here in his first point, he says to the Premier, "Democratically held election -- our citizens voted in the last municipal election 62.5% in favour of Sunday shopping." I say to the member for Mississauga South, that's not 67% but it clearly is a majority of the community in Wallaceburg.

I think you can conduct those kinds of plebiscites, votes, information gathering, whatever you want to call it, right across this province and you would come up with similar reactions, because people understand what an incredible waste of time this is on behalf of the taxpayers when we should be coming up with ways to create jobs and economic growth.

We hear that this is not a Sunday shopping issue, it's a Sunday working issue. For shame, that someone would actually have an opportunity to work on a Sunday who's currently not working: perhaps a student who just has to live with your budget's decision to eliminate $10 million in OSAP grants. Maybe that student doesn't want to work, but maybe that student has to work. Maybe that student without that job, without that opportunity to work on a weekend, will not be able to stay in school because you people have pulled the rug out from under him.

Let me compare the different pieces of legislation. The Lord's Day Act under the Conservatives clearly said that no one shall shop in the province on Sunday unless they have an exemption. How did you get that exemption? You went to your municipal council and asked for the exemption. There were no guidelines. You simply were given it if they decided you were a tourist attraction.

In my own community in the region of Peel, we designated the Malton fruit market as a tourist attraction and the Port Credit Business Improvement Area as a tourist attraction. On July 18, the year we opened our new civic centre, we actually opened the entire city of Mississauga by designating it as a tourist attraction and clearly it is a tourist attraction. It's a wonderful place and I invite you all to come for the weekend. But let me tell you that we had that authority.

Under the Liberal government's new law, which is clearly reflected in my leader's resolution today, it said no one shall shop on Sunday unless you have an exemption. How did you get an exemption? You went to your council and asked for one. The only difference between the Lord's Day Act and our legislation when we were in government was that you didn't have to come up with some cockamamy definition of what a tourist attraction was. You didn't have the situation where somebody could come before council and say the Malton fruit market is not a tourist attraction, and they have to come and fight and say that it is. We clearly gave the choice to the local community.

This government has put in all kinds of criteria to try to define what a tourist attraction is, to the extent that something like the Eaton Centre in Toronto would not qualify. Then they've allowed for an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. We all know that every application will go to the board. It will waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars and time. Frankly, my preferred position, on a personal basis, would be to get out of the business of regulating Sunday shopping, but at least the consistent position of my leader would allow this government to find a compromise position, delete the reference to the Ontario Municipal Board and allow the municipalities in this province to decide whether or not they wish to open up for Sunday shopping.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Mississauga West for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Markham.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is not another one of those days where I can agree with either party. I don't know when that day is going to come. I think we're just going to have to get rid of a few more New Democrats and a few more Liberals and allow us to understand that there is still another way of governing this province.

I agree with one thing in the Liberal statement today. There's "a crisis of uncertainty in the retail industry." Yes, there is. Not just because of Sunday shopping, but because of the labour legislation, the taxes and the stupidity of the Bob Rae government. Everybody in this province is fed up with you guys and you're only halfway through your term of office. To that extent I agree with the Liberals that there is a high degree of uncertainty around what these people are going to do. No one knows what they're going to do next. I mean, it's Looney Tunes time in Ontario. Every time they have a cabinet meeting they're coming up with another way of changing things and setting back the clock. I don't want to be like Sweden was in the 1960s. I want to be a progressive, dynamic, growing place instead of a spot that has a recession that could soon be spelled with a "d" in front of it. Anyway, I agree with that part of the Liberal motion.

There are other parts of the Liberal motion. They talk, first of all, to make this the big issue, Sunday shopping. Well, I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the House and in the province of Ontario, there are many other issues facing this province that have a far greater urgent nature to them than Sunday shopping. It's time we started dealing with those issues rather than one the Liberals have already proved they couldn't handle themselves. They've proved that. They went and had a chance to bring in a Sunday law and they're coming back with the same kind of thinking without having learned their lesson after being kicked out of office on September 6.

The second thing in their little motion is that they talk about "severe economic constraints." Many of the severe economic constraints we are suffering in this province were inaugurated by David Peterson and the Liberals. Don't forget it. The Liberals brought in the commercial concentration tax that sent tourists away. The Liberals brought in more gas and fuel taxes that turned off the tourist trade. The Liberals are the ones who brought in the immoral taxes, some 33 of them, in their time in office. They've forgotten it. They say there are severe economic constraints. They started the ball rolling. You guys don't know how to stop it. You're both sick.

For them to stand up in this House and say, "We've got serious economic consequences" -- they began it. We were in a time of prosperity and look what they did with it. They just had a great way of spending the money with great abandon. Then they come along and, in one sentence here, talk about the "considerable protection for workers." Come on. We've got to have more than considerable protection for workers. There has to be a sense there that if someone does not want to work on this day and wants the time off, there is true protection for them, not just considerable. Come on. Let's start putting our thoughts together. The member for Mississauga West just didn't make any sense at all when he talked about students being able to work on Sundays if we have this Sunday legislation. They have to work with supervision anyway.

This Legislature has important things to deal with. This is one of the things we should be able to deal with in an afternoon. We shouldn't be spending another day on this. I think we should be able to get our heads together, come up with a solution and get this out of the way so we can get on with the real issues of Canada and Ontario.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Markham for his contribution to the debate and recognize the Leader of the Opposition. She has five minutes to wrap up.

1750

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the opportunity to close what I think has been an important debate, although, as I said in introducing the resolution, a debate that I wish had not been needed had we been responding to the realities of today.

I would like to take these few moments at the end of the debate to recognize why we felt it was important to bring this resolution forward, in that it touches on a subject that is pervasive and should be of tremendous concern to us all. That is the fact that the economic situation this province faces is as critical a situation as we have ever faced in our history. I would just like to take a moment to share some of that reality once again.

From January to April of this year alone, 52 plants have closed their doors completely, six have closed in part, 32 have reduced operations and 12,000 people lost their jobs through those closures, and those are just the plants that have more than 50 people. That doesn't begin to touch the number of people who have lost their jobs by the twos or the 10s or the 20s as the smaller retail operations across this province in virtually every community have been forced to close their doors. The total job loss in April alone in this province was 17,000. Over the past year, from April to April, the total is 75,000 jobs. This is not an abstract issue. These are real people who have lost their jobs and they are real people paying a real price for the economic situation we face.

We add to that the reality of the students who are now looking for summer jobs which they're just not going to find. The 18% unemployment rate for youth is higher than at any time, even since the recession of 1982.

In the meantime, as the welfare costs rise with the unemployment increases we see a government caught in an escalating spiral of rising costs, declining revenues and totally unacceptably mounting debt.

We ask, what can the government do to respond in these critical times? We believe it can respond by understanding today's realities. It can provide the leadership appropriate to the times, as the leader of the third party has said. In our view, the option of Sunday shopping is indeed an appropriate response for the times.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm trying to listen to my leader and I can barely hear her. Could we have a little quiet?

The Speaker: There are quite a number of private conversations. It would be very helpful if those conversations could be held elsewhere so that the Leader of the Opposition would have an opportunity to address the assembly.

Mrs McLeod: It has been said today and continues to be said in conversations around the House that the municipal option has been tried and hasn't worked. I think that analysis quite frankly fails to recognize the wisdom of people in communities and the readiness and willingness of people in communities to express their needs and concerns very clearly. I believe there is such a thing as a community value, and in a very real and legitimate sense the values of one community may not be the values of another community. But realities change and the nature of community life can change to reflect those new realities.

The municipalities of Windsor, Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Fort Frances have not met opposition from their communities in presenting Sunday shopping bylaws. They have in fact acted with the strong support of their communities, which is how municipal councillors should be acting. But they've been impeded in responding to the wishes of their communities by unworkable and unmanageable legislation introduced by this government which allows the decision of a municipality to be appealed by a single individual who need not even be a resident in that community.

Why would we not want to see that this continuing and often difficult issue of public policy is resolved through real consensus, built community by community across this province? Then Sunday shopping could become a reality with an unusual degree of public support.

Having expressed my personal belief that there is merit in this particular approach, the essence of this resolution is that this government withdraw what is clearly unworkable, unenforceable legislation that is impeding the will of municipalities. This government can understand that Sunday shopping can help desperate retail sector individuals stay in business. If they talk to retailers across this province, they will know they need whatever help they can have and that many feel the time has now come to choose Sunday shopping. They can understand that people who aren't working, the unemployed and students looking for summer jobs, need job opportunities and that Sunday shopping will maintain existing jobs. People want to work. Give them the opportunity. To say you're not convinced that this will create jobs is to put your heads in the sand like ostriches and fail to hear the realities that are crying out around you.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition moves opposition day motion 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

1802

The House divided on Mrs McLeod's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 29

Callahan, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Stockwell, Sullivan, Villeneuve.

Nays -- 72

Akande, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury);

North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sterling, Sutherland, Tilson, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood, Ziemba.

The House adjourned at 1806.