Hansard Transcript 1993-Jun-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Early in May there was an announcement by the Ministry of Health concerning the doctors in underserviced areas which were not included for northern Ontario. There are only five regions and counties of southern Ontario that were included in that underserviced area program. Within a few days, though, ministry officials said at least 60 to 70 family physicians were needed in northern Ontario.

On May 12 I asked a question in the House to the Honourable Ruth Grier why northern Ontario was not in the underserviced area program.

Friday, May 21, CBC Radio had received a list from the ministry which included northern Ontario locations which needed doctors, and these doctors would be fully compensated.

Following this report, two of my staff spent all afternoon trying to locate that list to confirm what had been reported on CBC. The underserviced area program could not confirm the contents of the list but would only say that the list was being revised and that it would be available on Tuesday the 25th. Two doctors called my office to confirm that they had been told they would be covered by this list.

The very next day, the Saturday Star of May 22 carried an ad advertising for doctors and asked them to call the underserviced area program. In northern Ontario now, 111 doctors' positions were identified in 25 municipalities.

It's unbelievable that the media were given that information but our offices, which were inundated with calls from interns and residents and concerned parents, could not get that information. Obviously the government was more concerned in making this information available to the media and not to the taxpayers.

Obviously, from all of this, it is apparent that the government is developing policy on the fly without employing the long-term planning that the people of Ontario deserve.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Do we have a quorum?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Table, a count, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Recently, Mary Munro and John McClellan, two hearing officers and members of Ontario's Environmental Assessment Board, produced a five-year review of the Niagara Escarpment which I found to be fair and objective. In fact it confirmed many of my own views and verified much of what we in Grey have been saying for years.

We have long believed that, while we must preserve the escarpment land, the commission is a biased, undemocratic body which has no even standards when rendering decisions. The report agrees, saying that the commission staff do not seem to be able to appreciate views different from their own and that the commission is seen as distant, impersonal and insensitive to economic and personal needs. The report goes on to say that the commission tends to ignore the ecological nature of a property when making a decision and attempts merely to preserve a visual landscape, a failing which we in Grey have witnessed time after time.

I am pleased that someone has finally told the people of Ontario the truth about the NEC's administration of the plan, but I am sorry that although they exposed the commission for what it is, they did not recommend its abolition. Therefore, today I will be introducing, once again, a private member's bill to redefine the area with the consent of local municipalities and put the final decision for any development on the protected area into the hands of the people in this House. The commission would then be unnecessary, thereby saving millions of taxpayers' dollars while still preserving our environmental land in a fair and more equitable fashion.

COR BAL

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I rise today in the House to recognize a great achievement of one of my constituents, Mr Cor Bal. Earlier this month, Mr Bal won the Ontario Waste Minimization Award given to the outstanding individual in minimizing waste. Mr Bal, also known as the Honey King, was nominated for the award in recognition of the significant contribution he has made in promoting the 3Rs.

Focusing on the reuse of the 3Rs, Mr Bal, who had a number of baby food jars piling up in his trailer, knew there must be a more productive use for these jars than putting them into the recycle bin. After removing the labels from these jars, he thoroughly cleans them and fills them with nine different flavours of honey obtained from a local bee-keeper. Mr Bal then relabels the jars and arranges them in wooden racks as gift packs for sale in assorted flavours. Even the wooden racks are made of reused material. Each one is handmade by a retired carpenter in Waubaushene. Mr Bal sells the gift packs mostly to museums and hospital gift shops, some as far away as Toronto. Mr Bal realizes that he could simply buy new jars cheaper than reusing the old ones, but he says, "It's done for the sake of the environment."

In closing, I would like to once again congratulate Mr Bal for winning the outstanding individual award in waste minimization and hope that more people will follow his lead in making our environment a cleaner place.

COURT REPORTERS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): These days you can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading about the social contract hearings where the government is attempting to eliminate some of the debt by trying to avoid layoffs, and yet in the bowels of the Attorney General's department, without notice to anybody, unilaterally they are in fact carrying out plans that may result in some 700 to 800 women being laid off.

I speak of the court reporters. Many of these women are single parents. They are in fact going to cut them off from the support for their families.

I suggest that they're implementing a program that was tried in British Columbia and failed miserably. It has also been decried by a Court of Appeals judge in New Jersey, saying that this can have an impact in terms of safety, in terms of fairness, in terms of ensuring that people are not allowed to walk away from perhaps very serious criminal trials because a transcript that is faithfully reported presently by reporters is being reported by that great machine in the sky.

I suggest to the Attorney General that perhaps she should look at this issue. I wonder if she is aware of the fact that this is in fact going to impact, as I said as I started, on some 700 to 800 women in this province who have not had the benefit of sitting around a table, as others have had, with the social contract but in fact are going to find their jobs slipping right out from underneath them, and perhaps at the great detriment to society not only in terms of fairness but in terms of safety for the justice system.

1340

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On Thursday, May 27, I had the privilege of meeting with the University of Western Ontario clinical clerks, medical students, interns and residents to discuss the government's proposal to penalize new physicians for practising in Ontario.

The proposals suggested by the government to significantly reduce billing fees among new family physicians, paediatricians and psychiatrists by 75% have raised serious concerns among Ontario's medical students. The proposals leave hundreds of young students and physicians in residency training in Ontario medical schools in a most precarious position regarding their future careers.

The faculty and departments of family medicine, psychiatry and paediatrics are similarly demoralized. They recognize and support the need to reform the current system of health care in order to create a system which adequately addresses the needs of our population. However, they are very disappointed that the minister did not discuss the 75% fee cut with the OMA and the fact that these proposals do not effectively address the real problem.

It costs $2 million to educate and train one doctor. The government's draconian decision to slash fees to new physicians by 75% will lock out 2,500 doctors in training and 400 physician graduates this year. The government should seriously reassess this policy.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On June 1 of every year, injured workers from across this province have gathered outside of this assembly to remind us of their plight. These workers have invested their lives and their bodies in our economy. After months of hospital stays with broken bodies and spirits, their recompense takes far too long and they go through a humiliating process to achieve it.

I know particularly of the hard work and dedication of the Durham Region Union of Injured Workers, many of whom I see regularly and who carry the pain of the struggles they have fought through. Here today in the members' gallery is Fran Standing Ready, who is the president of the Durham Region Union of Injured Workers. They would like to see an office for the Workers' Compensation Board in Durham region, and every year at this time I stand up to make that point. My letters are unanswered. Their letters are unanswered. Their concerns have only partly been heard. They are pleased with many of the reforms that we've been able to accomplish and they know what the alternatives are, but still there is much, much left to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr White: Thank you very much.

Simple changes in how services are offered could help them access retraining for permanent new jobs.

In the speech from the throne we made employment a priority. It is important that we not minimize the contribution of these workers and separate them from their due recompense and the retraining that they need.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Last week I addressed a crowd representing over 1,000 union members who were protesting the NDP government's plan to cut jobs in Cornwall and area through the social contract negotiation process. Ten local presidents of OPSEU stated, "Not only has the Ontario government failed in its promise to assist the community in recovering from the devastating recession; they are in fact planning to make things worse by cutting back on public service jobs."

Members of this House will recall that it was only a few weeks ago that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings had the nerve to stand up and say that Cornwall and area was crying wolf about economic losses due to the recession. The picketers in Cornwall know the real story of more than 3,000 jobs lost and more than 20 plant closures in two years, and they are saying that they don't want to be the target of this government's fiscal mismanagement any more. If Bob Rae doesn't want to listen to the opposition, he should do well to listen to the 12 local union presidents.

Again, I insist that the Premier consider locating one of the crown corporations in Cornwall and area and prove that he does really care about eastern Ontario.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): As of today, seniors who rely on daily supplies of oxygen will have their coverage severely cut under the Ontario drug benefit program.

Ted Kelleher, a Burlington senior, was informed yesterday that today the NDP Health ministry will cap oxygen costs at $475 per month. The rest is now up to him, without regard for his ability to pay. Like many seniors, Ted is on a fixed income. His life-sustaining oxygen bill, personally to him, will now be between $18,000 to $20,000 a year. The NDP budget decision to cut oxygen services came without any prior consultation or prior warning. He is now in fear for his future, as he wonders how he will pay for the oxygen supplies that he needs to live.

If there is one phrase by which Ontario seniors will remember the NDP and its treatment of their health care needs, it will be, "Cut and delist until they're at risk." Seniors have already suffered the delisting of vital drugs and Bill 101, the long-term care legislation, will delist extended care from OHIP. Is this the real NDP plan for community-based health care and long-term care services for seniors?

Ted's first option now will be to spend the rest of his life immobilized on his back in order to save money. Is this the NDP version of independent living? Why doesn't the government investigate why oxygen costs about $100 a pound in Buffalo, New York, and the same amount of oxygen costs about $400 in Niagara Falls, Ontario? Why doesn't the government investigate this on behalf of consumers instead of just ripping the programs away from seniors?

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm pleased to ask members to join with me in celebrating June as seniors' month in Ontario. Today's seniors were here before the pill, before penicillin and polio shots, antibiotics and frisbees. We were before frozen foods, nylon and dacron, Kinsey, credit cards and ballpoint pens.

This year's seniors' month theme is "Sharing Our Experiences." Time-sharing for us meant togetherness, not computers, and a chip was a small piece of wood. Most seniors got married first and then lived together. Closets were for clothes and not for coming out of, and a bunny was just a small rabbit. We'd never heard of McDonald's and we thought fast food meant abstaining for Lent.

In our day, cigarette smoking was fashionable, grass was for mowing, Coke was a refreshing drink and pot was something you cooked in. We were before Batman, DDT, vitamin pills, disposable diapers and instant coffee.

Through sharing memories of their life, seniors bring an important dimension to today's Ontario.

I encourage all seniors to take part in the activities taking place around the province during the coming weeks. I believe tomorrow evening the Lieutenant Governor is going to be in the Legislature, downstairs with the Minister of Citizenship, to honour seniors in this province. I encourage all seniors to be there and I encourage all seniors to show in the month of June what we're made of.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a former member who served for 15 years in this assembly, representing the riding of Wellington, Mr Jack Johnson.

I would also like to invite members to welcome to our assembly and indeed to our country, seated in the Speaker's gallery today, a visiting parliamentary delegation from the Federal Republic of Germany. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I rise today to provide details on a new program for community economic development called Jobs Ontario Community Action. This initiative, which was announced in last month's budget, is an integral part of the government's 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. As the Minister of Finance announced in his budget address, this new initiative will build on the success of Jobs Ontario, and I want to take a moment to review the progress we've made so far.

As you know, Jobs Ontario Capital created or maintained over 8,000 jobs last fiscal year and will invest $700 million in 1993-94, creating or maintaining 12,000 jobs.

Over 24,000 positions have been created by employers to date through Jobs Ontario Training; 10,000 workers are completing training and are already on the job. Last fiscal year, $98 million in training assistance was provided through this program, and this number will more than triple to $329 million in 1993-94, underlining our commitment to put Ontario back to work.

In 1992, Jobs Ontario Youth created 9,500 summer jobs. Our target for this year is 10,000 summer jobs.

Finally, Jobs Ontario Homes is supporting the construction of new homes and will create nearly 3,000 jobs this fiscal year.

1350

Our initiative to support community economic development will build on the success of our other Jobs Ontario programs. Called Jobs Ontario Community Action, this initiative aims to give local communities the resources and the tools they need to undertake economic renewal initiatives.

It will empower communities and support job creation by encouraging economic development activities on the part of those who best understand what is needed, the communities themselves.

The new Jobs Ontario Community Action initiative will support building a strong foundation for long-term community growth and jobs. It will stimulate investment in urban, rural, regional and northern communities across the province by helping communities to help themselves.

Community economic development will foster self-reliance in communities, allowing them to sustain economic growth through local planning and investment in economic activity.

It will create greater cooperation in communities and it will support new partnerships. It will also allow new groups of people to play a part in community economic development. Along with local government, labour, business and educational institutions, our initiatives will also include community groups, cultural groups, credit unions, cooperatives, equity groups and other interested citizens.

Jobs Ontario Community Action will further empower women's groups, ethnic organizations and aboriginal people in the economic planning and development decisions that affect their communities.

Community economic development will promote the growth of local enterprises using locally based financing and help to create new jobs in communities across the province. During the first three years of the program, we will invest $300 million in community action initiatives.

The funds for this program will come from a consolidation of a number of previously existing programs with support from Jobs Ontario Capital. Commitments made under these previously existing programs will be honoured.

This new approach will use government funds in a different way to better meet the needs of communities. Instead of ministries designing and administering many different programs to meet diverse needs in various parts of the province, we will pool our resources and put communities in control. They will decide on the economic priorities they want funded by the provincial government, not the other way around.

Consolidating many of the capital grant and economic development programs that previously existed will provide simpler access to the financial assistance and a speedier response to community initiatives across the province.

To further improve access, regional teams have been put in place to provide Ontario communities with a local single window to the program. The teams are made up of representatives from the ministries of Culture; Tourism and Recreation; Municipal Affairs; Agriculture and Food; Citizenship; Northern Development and Mines; and my own Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Other ministries will be brought in as needed.

While these ministries have all been involved in economic development activities in the past, the key difference is that now our efforts will be more closely coordinated on a regional basis. All stakeholders will be informed about how to contact the appropriate regional team to gain access to the program.

The role of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will be unique in recognition of the special needs and community development issues in northern Ontario.

Jobs Ontario Community Action will allocate 25% of the funding to community development initiatives in northern Ontario. Two of the five regional teams will be established in northern Ontario, chaired by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, and report through the minister, the Honourable Shelley Martel.

Jobs Ontario Community Action represents a new way of government doing business with communities. This is a cooperative and corporate government-wide approach, involving many different ministries working together as a team. We're changing the way we do business in order to better support communities in their empowerment, and we're working to strengthen our partnership with communities across the province.

This new way of doing business also presents communities with a new way of working together. It gives them a chance to harness and build on the experience of everyone in their communities.

I'm confident that this new comprehensive approach will result in not only better service to our customers, but a more effective use of our resources.

Jobs Ontario Community Action has three major components: community development, community financing and community capital.

Under the community development component, assistance will be available to help build the capacity of communities to come together and to set long-term priorities and to identify ways to turn local plans into actions. In order to ensure that projects are community-owned and community-driven, all partners in the community must be involved in economic development decisions.

This will allow participation by people who may not have been involved traditionally in economic development decisions. It will also ensure, and this is very important, that the social, environmental, cultural and economic objectives of the entire community are addressed in the economic development process.

It will provide support for leadership and organizational development, community-based strategic planning, special research and marketing activities, as well as innovation or unique community economic development projects that contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the community.

We'll be announcing more details on this component of the program at a later date.

Community financing will help communities mobilize their financial resources for economic development and growth.

Too often, community members with a desire to invest in their own communities have been frustrated because financing has not been available from traditional sources. Community financing will introduce two specific measures to facilitate local investment.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ed Philip, will introduce legislation enabling the creation of community loan funds and community investment share corporations later this week.

A third component, community capital, will provide financial assistance to capital infrastructure projects. Projects could be such initiatives as community-sponsored training facilities or renovation of public or non-profit community facilities.

In the past, communities pursued funding for local projects from a variety of ministries and programs. As a result, government funding did not always go to the projects that had the highest priority for that community and, because government didn't have programs to fund everything, some good projects didn't get the support they deserved.

We think it makes more sense to let communities draw up their own economic development blueprints and set their own priorities first. Then government will use its economic development tools to support and fund the community's priorities.

We are also very aware that communities are anxious to begin work on specific economic development initiatives.

To address this immediate demand and respond to the initiative already shown by many communities, I am pleased to announce that as part of the $100 million that will be spent this year under the Jobs Ontario Community Action initiative, up to $31 million has been set aside to fund capital projects that can begin this summer.

This will not only provide immediate job creation, but it will address the pent-up demand from communities which have applied for project funding under the old programs that we are now consolidating.

These funds will be aimed at supporting projects submitted for consideration under earlier programs, as well as for any project that would have ordinarily been submitted to previous existing capital programs related to community economic development.

Proposals that can be shown ready for startup within 120 days of funding approval will now be eligible for consideration under this first phase of the program.

We will provide up to one third of project costs, up to a maximum of $3 million, and smaller communities will be eligible for up to 50% provincial funding.

To be eligible under this fast-track process, projects must be financially viable and not for the purchase of land or to support for-profit enterprises. Eligible projects must also have all the appropriate land use, environmental and other relevant approvals. In most cases, applications submitted under this process will be considered and processed and responses to the communities before August 15, 1993. In this way, we hope to be able to address the immediate needs of communities.

Jobs Ontario Community Action is a brand-new approach. It is a partnership with government and with communities designed to help communities help themselves.

Within those communities, it will involve new partners in the process of economic development. For example, community groups, cultural groups and other interested citizens will have a voice and a role in setting their community's economic development priorities.

When those priorities have been set, this initiative will provide those communities with the tools they need to realize their plans. Community development will help build the capacity of communities to tackle economic development projects. Community financing will provide the communities with the financial tools they need to fund their economic priorities and to create jobs. Community capital will provide support for the capital infrastructure projects that meet the community's priorities.

I am confident that we will help build the capacity of our communities and to put in place those strategic plans for economic development. It will give those communities the tools they need to build a stronger economic future for Ontario.

Together with other Jobs Ontario initiatives and the government's economic renewal programs, Jobs Ontario Community Action will help put Ontario back to work.

1400

FOREST INDUSTRY

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to share some good news with members of the Legislature. Last evening, H. Jager Developments Inc of Calgary announced it had selected a site in northeastern Ontario for its proposed oriented strand board, or OSB, mill. The site selected is the community of Limer, located 32 kilometres east of Wawa.

This announcement sends a message to investors across Canada and the world that Ontario is open for business and is an excellent place to invest. We are committed to putting the people of Ontario back to work in high-technology industries that can compete effectively in global markets. I welcome this announcement and congratulate the company on its further progress towards establishing this new $90-million plant to produce OSB, a plywood substitute. The plant is expected to be operating by January 1995.

This economic boost to northern Ontario is yet another sign that industry is gaining confidence in Ontario's economy and in the economy of northern Ontario. Now that the site has been selected, the company can go on to work with the province to finalize details of its business plan, such as wood supply allocation, while providing confirmation of its equity and debt financing.

In its announcement, the company indicated that the project is expected to create 170,000 person-hours of work during the construction phase and 114 permanent production, maintenance, supervisory and management jobs in the plant thereafter. In addition, it is expected to generate 270 jobs in logging and transportation and upwards of 600 spinoff jobs in the supplier, service and tourism sectors.

Moreover, the Algoma Central Railway, the province's trucking industry and the region as a whole stand to benefit greatly from the volumes of timber and finished products being transported to and from the plant.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is committed to a forest product sector that produces valuable goods and wealth for the province, employees, company shareholders, as well as for the communities within which it operates. Therefore, we are working with the forest industry to establish new business ventures.

For this project, for example, the Ministry of Natural Resources has conditionally committed to Jager an annual wood supply of up to 600,000 cubic metres of hardwood in several areas. The mill will consume an underutilized supply of hardwood and turn it into high value added products. This is also an example of how we are finding new markets for trees that in the past were believed to have little or no commercial value for the existing forest industry.

Finally, the proposed mill will be located in an area of Ontario which offers many opportunities for new investors: sustainably managed natural resources, an able workforce and an effective transportation structure.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I wish to reply to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources. Of course, we in the opposition share his view and we're very happy that H. Jager Developments of Calgary has chosen Ontario as a place to employ Ontarians.

I will say, though, that this has to be put in some context. This has to be put in the context of a northern Ontario that is experiencing in excess of 15.2% unemployment. In the rural north, the part of the north we're talking about here, the unemployment rate would be far higher. While the minister talks about the jobs that are being created, in this particular instance he does not speak to the 250 jobs that the north has lost directly as a result of his ministry not going to Haileybury or the Mines ministry not going to Elliot Lake. I find that when you put this announcement today in context, the people of northern Ontario will not be particularly impressed.

I want to talk about the message that the Bob Rae ministry is sending to the people of the north. The ministry has said and is tending 50% less in the forests of Ontario today than it did in 1990. The ministry is mulching 11 million trees this year. The ministry is planting 25% less trees in the province this year than it did just three years ago. As opposed to that, they're increasing stumpage fees by 43%, they're increasing the timber licences by 100%, they're obligating industry in this province to spend $600 million to meet environmental regulations and they say, "But yes, we will give you $10 million to help."

This is the kind of Ontario that this minister talks about being open for business. Well, we as northerners find this ministry to be unacceptable.

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'd like to respond to the minister's statements on Jobs Ontario Community Action. The minister uses great words, "community economic development," "renewal initiatives," "empower communities" and "support job creation," and who wouldn't support that?

But this is just the continuation of the Jobs Ontario shell game. It's not the new approach she claims it is. In fact, this isn't new money. This is the recycling of old programming and old funding and they're calling it a brand-new approach.

The minister also boasts about Jobs Ontario Capital. Well, last year, Jobs Ontario Capital too was announced as a new program and yet you know what happened, Mr Speaker? Funds were taken from one ministry out of their capital budget, only to reappear later as Jobs Ontario Capital. There was no new funding. They just took with one hand and gave with the other.

She talks about Jobs Ontario Homes, which is to create 3,000 jobs this fiscal year. How many did they create last year when they promised the same thing? Not one single job.

Jobs Ontario child care: They promised 20,000 and they delivered 300 last year. Shame.

Jobs Ontario Training continues to be their largest public relations scam. They spend $700,000 on promotion, they spend $1.5 million on advertising, and yet they only met two thirds of their modest target of 10,000 jobs last year. They talk about 24,000 positions. Their own statistics showed they only created 7,600 jobs last year by March 31, and the 24,000 they claim is pure camouflage. They're not long-term jobs; they're not highly skilled jobs. This whole program is a sham.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I read with interest the statement of the minister, and I'm reminded of the classic definition of a consultant, which is a man who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is.

This is a program that is using local enterprises, using local-based financing, using financial resources of the community, and the government is proposing that it is going to mobilize this for those communities. I would suggest that given this government's record, it is not in a position to set an example of how communities should be mobilizing their resources.

I also have some very grave concerns with the method of approval. They say that eligible projects must also have appropriate land use, environmental and other relevant approvals, and this all to be done by August. This is June 1. To suggest that will ever happen this summer is absurd.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to comment on this initiative by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Unfortunately, what this is is a broken record. Around and around we go, tax and spend.

Here is a minister who stands up and talks about creating, I think, 12,000 new jobs at a time when a budget killed 50,000 jobs; $2 billion in new taxes killed 50,000 jobs. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said the number one problem for business today is taxation, so they come in, tax and spend, create 12,000 jobs, spend $700 million on this program when they killed 50,000 jobs in the last budget.

Where was this minister when the decisions were being made about this budget? She sat there and said nothing. Now all the jobs are being lost.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you, on page 2 she talks about empowering. People don't want empowerment; they want employment.

This is a government that stands up with platitudes. They are killing jobs in Canada today. During this recession, Ontario has lost 80% of the jobs. This has been an Ontario-led recession, and this minister, who came in as the saviour from the Ministry of Health -- she was going to save it -- sat there while this Treasurer introduced 50,000 job losses with the last budget and she said nothing.

Now, if she was a minister who sat in the back benches and didn't have much authority, we could understand it. Where was she at the cabinet table when jobs were being lost in the province of Ontario? She sat there and said nothing: $2 billion in tax increases, 50,000 jobs are going to be lost, and she stands up in this Legislature and talks about an increase of 12,000 jobs.

On page 2, she says we're going to have communities with local single windows to the program. I think the only way we're going to get jobs in this province is when we throw this government right out the window.

1410

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would like to make a few comments on the Minister of Natural Resources' announcement today, and I would like to start with a question: why he feels the announcement of a new industry in the Minister of Environment and Energy's riding is a statement -- I would consider that a straight news item -- whereas a policy change is just a news item. I would suggest that the minister assess what is policy and what is news. We've had this trouble with this government for some time now, where when it's a statement of policy they give it to the press, and when it's just something as a news item they bring it into the House.

I refer to the minister's news release. The minister's news release says he welcomes this news release and congratulates the company on its further progress towards establishing a new plant. Now, I don't know how long under the previous minister this plant had been negotiating to be established near Wawa, but certainly we're glad that the plant is being established and that it is going to bring employment to the area.

Going back to what the minister considers a news release, we feel it's a statement. They're now going to ask the forest industry to regenerate the forests. They say it's negotiable, but the people in the actual business have no idea what they're talking about. They already collected $70 million last year from the forest industry on stumpage fees and taxes and others, and now they're saying, "You're going to have to be responsible to regenerate the forests." We need clarification on that.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): While I'm pleased that something in the north is finally happening, I don't want you guys over there to start clapping your hands on your backs right now. Don't start thinking you're doing something great. If you're going to do something like this -- you talk about how the trucking industry will benefit -- first you'd better get some roads up there that you can travel on before you're going to do that.

The second thing is, they brag about the 600,000 cubic metres of hardwood that they will be delivering to this mill. All we can really hope in Ontario is that the Premier and his colleagues are out of the province at this time, because if they're not, they'll probably be chained to these logs.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Last May 19, the Treasurer introduced his budget whereby the people of Ontario are being taxed $2 billion. The following week, all of us in this House left this place and went back to our constituencies, to consult with our constituents, to listen to them speak on various items that were mentioned in the budget, to read their letters.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): You travelled the province? Margaret travelled the province.

Mr Tilson: Yes, we did travel. We travelled all over this province to listen to people on this topic.

My problem is that constituents in my riding and around this province have expressed great alarm on this $2-billion tax grab. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition spoke for an hour and a half on this topic, on the budget. This was followed by the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party speaking on the budget. Then a member from each of the parties spoke on the budget, and that was half an hour each.

In the past, the total number of days that were spent on budget consideration was considerably more than what is being allowed, because the House leader of this government has announced that he is not scheduling any further days for budget debate in this place. I will say that in 1985 there were eight total days spent on the budget; in 1986 there were nine days; in 1987 there were seven days. In 1988 -- and this was the budget when this group of people shut down former Treasurer of the Liberal Party Nixon and wouldn't even allow him to read it -- 13 days were spent on that budget. In 1991 there were two days spent. This year there has been a total of two speakers for each party who have spoken on this whole topic.

I promised my constituents that I would come back to this place and I would speak on this budget, and this House leader has forced me to break my promise. I will tell you, Mr Speaker, that my privilege has been challenged because I'm simply not allowed to speak in this place on a $2-billion tax grab.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

I certainly appreciate the member's interest in debating the budget. There are two matters which the member should consider. First, we have not reached orders of the day. We are, in terms of routine proceedings, at oral questions. Secondly, it is the prerogative of the government House leader to call forward the business of the day. There is nothing in our standing orders which identifies a particular number of days for debate on the budget, and so hence there is nothing out of order.

It is time for oral questions.

A point of order? A new point of order? The member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): York Mills.

The Speaker: That's correct: the member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, on the same issue, I would point out that in 1988 the NDP made the Liberal government of the day, when it brought in a budget of approximately half what the NDP has just brought in -- they would not allow the government even to debate it on the floor, to read the budget. It was tabled in the Legislature and then it was read outside. This is the same government, and with the pressures that came, there was a total of 13 days that ensued from that particular budget.

We have had no chance, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. He will know there is nothing out of order.

The House leader, the member for Parry Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound.

Mr Turnbull: This is just plain hypocrisy.

The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Parry Sound's colleagues would allow him to speak.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I asked the member for York Mills to come to order so that his very own colleague could place his point of order.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: The member is asked to take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If the member refuses to take his seat, he will be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will again ask the honourable member to take his seat. If the member refuses to show respect for this chamber, he will be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I name the member. Mr Turnbull, you are named. You must leave this chamber and not participate in the sitting of the House for the remainder of the day. Sergeant?

Mr Turnbull left the chamber.

Interjections.

1420

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege with respect to the same matter: You have, I think, quite correctly pointed out that there is nothing in the standing orders that stipulates the number of days on which budget debate will be scheduled. There's also something in this province called tradition, which this government doesn't seem to understand.

I find it more than ironic that the very person who's the Premier of the province today led his party in 1988, when Mr Nixon, who was then the Treasurer, was going to introduce the budget in this House that called for a $1.3-billion tax increase. His party would not even permit the Treasurer of the day the courtesy of introducing the budget in the House and ended up with 13 days of budget debate on a budget that increased taxation by $1.3 billion.

How soon we forget. In 1993 the same guy introduces a budget that increases taxation $2 billion and he wants to sweep it under the rug in two days.

I ask you, is that fair to the members on this side of the House and maybe even to some of his own backbench colleagues who might have the intestinal fortitude and backbone to stand up and be counted once in a while?

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Parry Sound, I am certainly not unsympathetic to the concerns which he raises, but I must tell the member that ordinarily it is the practice in this House for the three House leaders to determine on a weekly basis what the business of the House will be. Perhaps it's a matter which the three House leaders can reach some agreement on.

The only role that I can fulfil is in trying to uphold the standing orders. There is nothing in the standing orders which will be of assistance to either myself or the member for Parry Sound in attempting to accomplish what he wishes to accomplish. I can only suggest that the three House leaders perhaps can discuss this matter, and as always, if there's some way in which I can be of assistance in that regard, I am more than pleased to do so. But I regret that there is nothing in the standing orders which is of assistance to the member.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): A point of privilege, Mr Speaker: There is absolutely no piece of business more important to all Ontarians, to the constituents of all members of this Legislature, than the provincial budget. That's why we're elected. We're elected to deal with the spending, the taxation, the programs, the deficit; all these are contained in the budget.

If you go back in time, the Legislature used to convene for the purpose of dealing with the budget and then it adjourned. Then in the fall it would convene if there were any legislative changes required. That might have been a week or two or a month. But primarily I suggest to you and submit to you that we are elected to deal with the budgetary policy. That's why we're here.

I realize the standing orders will not find comfort for 10 million or 11 million Ontarians. There will not be comfort in the standing orders for those of us who were elected to represent their views on the most important piece of business that can possibly be done in the Legislature. It impacts every other piece of legislation. Whether you have the money to enforce laws, whether you have the money to have fairness, whether you have the funds and the programs to have social justice, it's all impacted in the budget.

Mr Speaker, you offered the assistance of your office, and I am asking you and making a direct appeal to you, particularly now for the people of York Mills who have been denied the opportunity of having their member speak on their behalf --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Right on.

Interjection: Turnbull denied himself that opportunity.

Mr Harris: Yes, the member from York Mills is not in the chamber today, but he was elected to represent the viewpoints of the people of York Mills, and he's being denied that opportunity.

I would ask you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us, because this Legislature and the standing orders have evolved among a certain goodwill on behalf of all parties that you will not violate some principles of fairness, of time to debate, of time to represent your constituents' viewpoints on important issues. That has been violated by the government House leader. He's given clear direction that there will be no more time for any debate: "Two days and that's it. We're cutting it off. Bang, bang, bang. That's it for the members and the 10 million taxpayers." That's what Bob Rae and his House leader say.

I would ask you if you would convene a meeting of the three House leaders and express on behalf, particularly, of the minority in this House and all the constituents we represent that it is unacceptable that the most important document of the year is being limited to two days' debate.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Just to add to what has already been said, I think it's important to know that historically the budget debate has been one of those things which has allowed the broadest possible latitude for any of the members in the House to speak to the issues of their constituency, along with the pressures of the budgetary policies of the day. I think it's interesting that in the last two years -- and I here differ just a little bit from my friends to my left, because it is quite clear that the New Democratic Party, a long time ago, decided that the budget is not to be debated in this chamber.

The previous House leader gave us one day last year. This House leader is following along in that tradition. It seems to me that having changed that tradition, it is within the power, at least the ambit of the power that is associated with the Speaker, to make sure those traditions are not thrown out. In fact, where things are not written we go to convention and tradition in this House, and we look to the Speaker to bring those back to the attention of the people who serve here, particularly the people who serve in executive capacity, because it is, because of the necessary pressures of the day, easy to forget about the people's chamber.

The executive role sometimes takes the heads away from those people who used to speak almost incessantly about the rights of Her Majesty's subjects. Now they seem to think of little else than the rights of Her Majesty's executive council, and that means that those of us who are not members of Her Majesty's executive council are not allowed to speak in this chamber about the real policies as they have been developed and presented to this table to consider.

You know, Mr Speaker, that the reading of the budget is for but one purpose, and that is the purpose of introducing those budgetary policies to Her Majesty's subjects and to then have a debate upon those policies, to have an understanding of what each of the constituencies feels about those policies as they are tabled here before Her Majesty is allowed to proceed to implement the taxes and other programs which are put forward under the budgetary policies by the Minister of Finance, as he is now known.

Mr Speaker, I urge you to use your authority and the position that you now hold in this House to ensure that the minority -- that is, those people who are not members of the executive council or NDP or independent members who support the NDP -- are allowed to actually debate the budgetary policy as is required by the legislative mandate of this chamber. The people's chamber is to allow a thorough discussion of the primary document of this government. That is the budget.

Mr Speaker, just before you rise to cut me off, and you should, I think you should understand that before you do that, this could all be taken away from any controversy at all by having the government House leader -- and I invite him through you -- stand now and allocate us a number of days to deal with the budget. That would be the best way and the short way of dealing with this problem.

1430

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The members opposite have done some yelling and ranting about traditions that are being altered. The members perhaps are correct. There are a number of traditions that have been altered around this place in the last two and a half years.

I have at no time said to either of the opposition House leaders that there would be no more debate on this budget. I have, though, said that the government has a priority agenda, legislative and budget agenda, and that based on progress through that agenda, we will be able to schedule more days of debate on the budget.

If we want to focus on some of the traditions that are being altered around this place, during the five years of the Liberal administration we spent an average of 14 minutes on third reading debates. On most bills we had none. During the Tory administration prior to that, the times were less, not greater.

If the members across the way have a desire to waste time in a consistent way around debate on third reading, once bills have been through second reading and through committee and through committee of the whole House --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Debate is not a waste of time in a democracy.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- then it will distinctly limit their ability to debate other items.

Mrs Caplan: How dare you.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Mr Elston: Point of order.

The Speaker: Members please take their seats. Just take your seat, please.

First, although I had already ruled on the alleged point of order, I was pleased to listen to the three House leaders, primarily because there is obviously some impasse with respect to this item.

Before we begin question period, however, I wish to let members know that it has been a custom in this House to spread out debate on the budget over a matter of time. I notice also that while we don't specify in our standing orders -- certainly in Ottawa they limit debate to six days, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that's what we should be doing here, but we do not place a limit on it.

I also note that the Chair is not privy to what will be announced as business for the House, and we have not reached the point in routine proceedings where the business of the House is to be called.

Lastly, in reaction to the leader of the third party's suggestion, I have on other occasions and I again today offer my services, if it will be of any assistance at all, to the three House leaders in trying to arrive at a consensus on how to have this chamber operate in as smooth a fashion as possible and to have ample time for debate. If there is some way in which I can be of assistance, I am delighted to do so.

It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition. A new point of privilege?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think it's important that you recognize that within our standing orders, under 41(a), we provide six days of debate on our throne speech. During the negotiations to change the standing orders, in which I was involved on behalf of my party, there was a debate over putting in a specific amount of time with regard to the budget debate.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that the response to the idea of putting in a limit of six days with regard to the budget debate was that it would not be nearly enough to deal with the normal budget debate, which was a custom or a tradition of this House. In other words, the whole idea of putting a limitation or even an amount or a time within the standing orders was seen as being a limitation, even though it was going to be a bottom limit.

Now, I think what is very, very important here is the fact that the government House leader has said traditions are changing. Traditions may change or policy may change with regard to the government, but traditions in this House should not be unilateral dictatorship by the government House leader and by Bob Rae as to what happens.

The Speaker: To the member, I've dealt with the point.

Mr Sterling: It is up to you to protect the tradition of this House which has been established for over 100 years for all the members of this House.

The Speaker: Would the member for Carleton please take his seat.

Mr Sterling: We are entitled to speak on the budget of the government of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton, please take his seat. I appreciate the point he's raised. I have dealt with the matter. It is time for oral questions. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker --

Mr Stockwell: Point of privilege.

The Speaker: No, stop the clock.

Mr Stockwell: What do you mean, no?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if the clock is running, it is very difficult --

The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, this had better be something different. Is this on some other matter?

Mr Stockwell: No, it's not about some other matter.

The Speaker: Is it on some other matter?

Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Speaker, it's about the matter at hand.

The Speaker: There is no point of order. There is nothing out of order.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, with all due respect, how do you know I don't have a point of privilege until you hear it?

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition. We start the clock at 60 minutes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker, although it's difficult to ask questions, given the disruption. I certainly understand the disbelief that greets the government House leader talking about changing traditions in this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Etobicoke West to take his seat, please. Members will know that a point of order was raised. I have dealt with the point of order. There is nothing out of order. I would suggest that the member should not be engaged in challenging the ruling by the Chair. The clock has started. The Leader of the Opposition has been recognized to place a question.

Mr Stockwell: What are you ruling?

The Speaker: I ask the member for Etobicoke West to come to order or else he will be named. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I will ask a question of the Premier on another issue of growing public concern.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I would ask that you stop the clock until order is restored in the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Stockwell: Point of privilege. I have a point of privilege.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is asked to take his seat. The member will recall that I asked the member for Etobicoke West if what he had to raise was related to the point that I have dealt with. He responded yes. I have dealt with the point of order. The clock continues to run. If the member insists on causing disorder, he will be named.

The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I would ask that you stop the clock. I think it is important that we get our only opportunity for --

The Speaker: I know. I appreciate the unruly behaviour of certain members in the chamber is depriving the Leader of the Opposition of her rightful time, and I will do my best to adjust for that. I do not want anything to happen in here that would have a negative effect on the opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to pose her questions. I am very mindful of that. The Leader of the Opposition with her question.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If certain members refuse to allow the Leader of the Opposition to place her questions, then they must consider that they are causing disorder and so must be named, one by one. I am determined that the Leader of the Opposition will have her opportunity to place a question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I again share the frustration that all members of the House feel when the government House leader simply tells us that we will only get time to debate the budget if we behave ourselves.

Having said that, I will appreciate your adjusting the clock to recognize the importance of a full hour for question period and I will place a first question to the Premier on another issue of growing public concern.

1440

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, yesterday your chief negotiator, Michael Decter, admitted for the very first time that he is not optimistic about the future of the social contract talks, that he himself is concerned about the talks breaking down. The union of public employees has said that it may pull out of the talks today, and your negotiator said yesterday that he simply does not know what to do to keep the process going. It does sound as though you yourself have a plan, if we can follow the Toronto Star headline which proclaims, "Settle or Else, Rae Tells Unions."

Here we have the situation in Ontario now: the Premier of this province reduced to inarticulate threats. So, Premier, why do you not tell us what you have in mind. "Or else" what?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): What I said yesterday --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Are those your notes?

Hon Mr Rae: No, no. I just forgot the Toronto Star here.

What I said yesterday was, quote -- and I want to read this out because it shows the Leader of the Opposition that it is fairly important, I think, for her to look at what I actually said as opposed to what some headline writer writes, because I think there's often a distinction.

I'm sure she's found in her political life that there are times when she says things and headline writers then write something else. We all know that in the newspaper business the headline writers are one group of people and the reporters are another group of people, so I want to stress that Mr Walker -- I'm not saying for a moment that I've been misquoted. I wish occasionally that I was misquoted but in fact I rarely am.

Unfortunately, I said these powerful, compelling and apparently dramatic words, "'The government is aware of its responsibilities in terms of the need for us to get the $2 billion out of the size of the public sector payroll,' he told reporters" -- "he" referring to myself.

Out of that, I thought, rather mild-mannered, mealy-mouthed phrase --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Weasel words.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which my colleague from Nickel Belt refers to as weasel words, an energetic headline writer put in a provocative headline. That's show business but it has very little to do with what's going on at the Royal York Hotel.

My understanding is that people are meeting, that there are discussions under way. We are encouraging those discussions that are now under way to reach a productive and positive agreement. I know that the leader of the Liberal Party will want to criticize the talks as they go on --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and then take credit if they are successful and blame us if they are not successful. But all I can say to her is that we continue to want to work away at what we think is a more productive way of trying to find a solution than any other. As difficult as it is, we still think it's worthwhile and we continue to fully support the efforts of our negotiator.

The Speaker: Please take your seat. Supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: I was not asking you to defend yourself or your statement. I'm giving you an opportunity to be absolutely clear on an issue of the utmost urgency. I would tell you, as you surely, surely know, that nobody can negotiate in an atmosphere of good faith when intimidated, which is what you and your House leader seem to understand best.

I would say to you, Premier, if you have a plan, if you have alternatives, if there is an "or else," then you must put your alternatives on the table right now. Your Finance minister, in Hamilton last week, told the Hamilton Spectator that no work was being done on legislation, but the suggestion in today's press is that you are ready to act and that you are prepared to do so in this Legislature before the House rises on June 24.

It appears very likely to us that if you are going to bring in any kind of legislation, it's going to be drafted in haste. It's going to be presented, certainly, in an atmosphere of incredible confusion and distrust.

You need to be clear about your alternatives, and I am asking you, what kind of legislation are you contemplating, what impact will that legislation have on the collective bargaining process now and in the future, and what opportunity will we have in this place to debate that legislation? Will we have more opportunity to debate your legislation on the social contract than we have to debate your legislation on your tax increases?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is doing exactly what I think one shouldn't do in the circumstances, and that is to, in a sense, create a sense out there in the public, as well as at the negotiating table, that the government is acting in any way other than in complete good faith. This government, the resources of this government, the resources of everything we're trying to do are focused at one critical point at the moment, and that focus is on the success of the social contract discussions.

I can tell her that there are no other plans being devised. I can say to her that obviously the government is prepared, in the sense of, are we prepared to take on our responsibilities whatever happens on June 4? Of course we are. But are there any plans being drafted in terms of alternatives? No, there are not, and I will say that very explicitly to her and to everyone.

We are working away at a social contract process, which is difficult enough as it is without making it more difficult by any kind of provocation. I don't intend to do anything other than be as constructive and as positive as I can to the people who are on the negotiating team on behalf of the government and on behalf of all those people who've devoted a great deal of time to trying to find a solution, the practical people among all our social partners, who are now coming forward with some practical ideas. I want to focus all my efforts and resources in supporting that team of people and in not provoking anybody.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, do not lecture me. You and only you have created this no-win situation for this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Let me tell you, Premier, what you and your government House leader refuse to recognize --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition take her seat, please. We didn't get off to a terrific start today, so perhaps the government benches, as well as others, could relax a little bit. The Leader of the Opposition with her final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Let me tell the Premier that as concerned as we are about the chaos that's being created at the potential collapse of his social contract talks, we are equally concerned about some of the deals he might be reaching in order to have those talks reach some conclusion. We are only now beginning to see some of the implications of what were very last-minute decisions that were made in arriving at the expenditure control plan, and we are very much afraid that exactly the same thing is happening again this week.

We wonder, for example, whether anybody is looking at the long-term costs of offering voluntary early retirement to large numbers of employees. We wonder whether anybody has thought what the cost is to students of giving teachers holidays instead of professional development days. I ask the Premier in all seriousness, is anybody looking at the long-term impact of either your alternatives, which you won't discuss, or the deals which you are now proposing?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously, we are considering, as we have considered and will continue to consider, the impacts of any of the proposals that we make, as other governments have had to do. The government of Manitoba, I understand, has reached some agreement with the teachers with respect to unpaid professional development days. Other agreements have been reached in other parts of the country. There's hardly a large organization in the country, indeed a large organization in any of the OECD countries, large bureaucratic organization, whether in the private sector or in the public sector, that hasn't recognized the need for some kind of early retirement proposals.

I'm astonished that the Leader of the Opposition would now be coming out against the possibility of voluntary early retirement as a method of dealing with these issues in a way that's fairer and that has less of a social impact and less of an impact in terms of its effect on younger families and on younger employees and on new employees than the alternatives. If that's now the position of the Liberal Party, that it would rather see wholesale layoffs rather than the kinds of tradeoffs we're proposing, that's very interesting.

I say to the honourable member that I listen very carefully to what she's suggesting. She responds to every headline that's there, she responds to every statement that's made on a daily basis --

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and tries to ride the headlines on to a social policy. You can't ride the headlines of the Toronto Star on to a sensible social policy for the people of the province. We don't intend to do it.

The Speaker: New question.

1450

Mrs McLeod: I would just remind the Premier, he is the one who keeps talking about unprecedented negotiations, unprecedented social contracts. We simply ask, at what cost?

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I recognize that all of us tend to be preoccupied with the events of this week and the social contract talks, but we are going to continue to raise another concern, and that is our concern with the growing crisis of unemployment among our young people.

You have said, when we've raised this question in the past, that you recognize the problem of youth unemployment, that you've responded with a $180-million commitment to programs for youth. We recognize, however, that the bulk of that budget quite properly is spent on counselling and training programs, such as the Futures programs, established by a previous government. We continue to believe that those are important programs.

The fact is that only about $25 million in additional funding through the Jobs Ontario Youth program has been provided by your government in new programs for youth. That is welcome, but I am saying to you today that it is not enough, because the reality is that since you've taken office youth unemployment has risen by 8%, to the unprecedented level of 19%. The situation is truly critical. Young people are out there in every community of this province looking for the jobs that they're not finding.

In my own home community, the employment officials are saying that this is the worst summer they have seen in at least seven years. There are fewer employers looking for students for job placements this summer, partly because of the economy, partly because of government job program cutbacks. There are also far more people, laid-off older workers, competing for the jobs.

We've made a number of proposals suggesting that as you redirect some of your Jobs Ontario money, you redirect it particularly to summer job opportunities for youth. I ask you, will you not take immediate steps to address this crisis in a real way? Would you not start by redirecting some additional dollars for summer work opportunities for our young people?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The first thing I want to say is that at the meeting in Ottawa yesterday the Minister of Finance -- I know, because he discussed it with us beforehand -- discussed with his colleagues and with the federal Minister of Finance the need for a national strategy, which obviously we would be very interested in participating in, to deal with what is clearly a major challenge and a major problem for us.

I think she will admit that this problem has a national dimension in terms of its impacts. We certainly feel very strongly that the kind of money we've put into the programs the last two years clearly indicates our commitment. We're willing, obviously, to do as much as we possibly can. I've asked my officials to look at the proposals that have come forward from the leader of the Liberal Party and see whether there isn't a way of our improving even on the $25 million that we've put in.

I'll say to the honourable member that of course we will consider her proposals, recognizing that if you take money out of that particular portfolio, that will mean there will be less money for other programs under the Jobs Ontario programs, which has to be considered. We're looking at her proposals, as we will look at all reasonable proposals that will help us. But it seems to me it would be useful to have some signs of commitment from the federal government with respect to what she would agree, I would hope, is also a national problem.

Mrs McLeod: A national strategy is hardly what I call an immediate response, and it's certainly not going to help all the young people who are being turned away on a daily basis from the youth employment centres.

When you talk about priorities, we keep wanting you to make some linkages, to understand again what you're doing to make matters worse.

Let me give you just one example. The tourism industry, I think you would agree, has always played a large role in creating jobs, and particularly summer jobs for young people. Your budget contains $30 million in new tax measures that are targeted specifically at the tourism and hospitality sectors. I met with representatives of both the tourism and hospitality industries last week, and they told us that they have no choice but to cut student jobs because of the impact of your budget. These were the same people who were hoping to see some recovery this summer, who were hoping they would be able to hire more people, not less, and you have killed that hope.

I ask why you have targeted these sectors that employ youth through your budget at the very time when our young people need those jobs.

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps I could ask the honourable member to clarify exactly what tax measures she's referring to, and then she can tell us what the position of the Liberal Party is with regard to those tax expenditures. I want to hear what her definition is of the taxes that we've put in, because if you look, for example, at the impact of the commercial concentration tax alone in terms of the hotel industry in this province, in this part of Ontario, if you look at the impacts of the costs that were imposed by her government on that industry, if you sit down and talk with the hotel industry about the impact of measures that the Liberal government took, then you'll look at them. You tell me what your position is with respect to the other tax changes that were made. You tell me.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not surprised that the Premier needs some clarification in understanding his own budget. He thought it didn't even hurt business, for goodness' sakes. But I'm not going to take the time to clarify. I'd be happy afterwards to talk about the Ontario incredible tax rebate which the government can do by regulation and doesn't even have to bring it to the Legislature, or about the business deductibility, because I want to ask if the Premier is aware of another factor that is influencing jobs for young people this summer.

Representatives of the city of Windsor have approached us with their concerns about the impact of the expenditure control plan and the social contract talks on student jobs. The city of Windsor, as one example, usually employs 510 students. They fund 300 of those positions directly. This year, because of cutbacks and their uncertainties about the social contract, they are hiring only 93 directly; they've placed a freeze on hiring any new students.

Let me recognize that they do have 178 student placements funded by Jobs Ontario Youth, but city representatives have told us that because of the terms of their local collective agreement if they are forced to lay off even one municipal employee due to spending cuts, all of the students they have hired will have to go first.

Will you acknowledge that your expenditure control plan and your social contract will result in even more job losses for students this summer, that your Jobs Ontario Youth program will not help, and will you will us what action you will take now to prevent this crisis from becoming even greater?

Hon Mr Rae: I'd say to the honourable member that obviously, when we reduce transfers, as we have had to do and as we have done with respect to the municipalities, they are faced with the same sorts of difficult choices as we are. I would suspect that there are members of the Liberal Party who are on city council, as there are members of our party who are on city council and members of the Conservative Party on city council, who are having to make difficult choices in terms of the balance that is struck in every municipal budget.

That's the same balance we have to strike, as she knows, when you have to take responsibility for these things. The kinds of tradeoffs that we're looking at, indeed even at the social contract table, are precisely designed to deal with these kinds of questions.

I just want to get a handle on what the Liberal Party is saying. They're saying, "Reduce the deficit, don't raise any taxes and don't cut any government programs."

It is very difficult, and I don't say this lightly but I will say this directly to the Leader of the Opposition, if you look at what other governments are having to do across the country, the Liberal administration in Quebec, the Liberal administration in New Brunswick, and here we have the Liberal Party in Ontario saying, "We want you to do all these things, Premier: We want you to reduce the deficit, freeze taxes and don't cut any government programs, and voilà, you'll have solved the problems of the province."

I just think the Liberal Party is talking out of every single side of its own hat.

1500

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, the Globe and Mail today reported that legislation is being drafted in the event that social contract talks fail. It also reports government advisers saying that others would prefer simply to cut back all the transfer partners. I wonder if you could tell us if draft legislation is currently being drafted in the event the social contracts fail, and if so, what's in it.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): You can tell the difference between Liberal research and Tory research. The Liberal research relies on the Star, the Tory research goes to the Globe, and we wish them both well. I would simply say that the answer to his short question is no.

Mr Harris: I'm happy to use the Sun and the Star and anywhere I can get the research. Other headlines say that its settlement is 6 o'clock Friday "or else." Or else what, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: Or else we will have to find some other way to take the $2 billion out which we're committed to getting out.

Mr Harris: Do you not think that the talks would go better if you told those at the table, if you were honest, if you were upfront and told them what the "or else" is? Is it legislation? Is it cutbacks on the transfer partners? How are you going to get the $2 billion if the talks fail? Do you not think you'd have more successful talks if you would be a little more honest and upfront with them and told them what the "or else" is?

Hon Mr Rae: If he's keep asking for my judgement as to how you help the negotiating process --

Mr Harris: The talks aren't going very well.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member -- he shouted out just now that talks aren't going very well -- he may have access to information that no one else in Ontario has; I don't know. My sense is that, given the alternatives which are in front of us, which are, I think, as a province, in terms of the choices between tax increases and expenditure cuts and how else do we get the deficit under control, the methods that we have proposed are fair. They're not easy, but they're fair. My sense is that that realization is growing at the Royal York Hotel, and I remain determinedly optimistic that we're going to find a successful solution to this problem.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Three months ago, the Provincial Auditor and the standing committee on public accounts asked her deputy for basic financial information about the non-profit housing program.

We finally received some of that information a few days ago, but the auditor has been told that many answers won't be ready until November: nine months later. Even worse, this ministry is withholding information it does possess.

For instance, the ministry won't provide updated estimates of the cost of non-profit housing subsidies, yet when I requested the same information two years ago, I received it the next day. Minister, this is a disgrace. I ask why you and your deputy minister are withholding information from the auditor and the public accounts committee.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member is making an accusation which is not correct. There is no information being withheld whatsoever. The request for information which came as a result of the hearings of the public accounts committee was for very detailed accounting that goes back through the books over years, accounting for the figures within the subsidies provided to non-profit housing corporations.

What the ministry has provided to members of the committee and to the auditor and has discussed with the auditor is the timetable that the ministry is setting out to undertake the quite detailed work which will be involved to provide the definition that she is looking for, that members of the public accounts committee sought and which the ministry is happy to provide and will provide as soon as the work can be done.

Mrs Marland: Maybe what this minister's really saying is that the auditor is lying. The reason I say that is that this answer proves this minister does not have a single clue about what's going on in her ministry.

I'll tell you something else, Madam Minister: If you had been in the public accounts committee you might have heard the auditor say that information he had asked for he was not going to be able to get from your ministry until November.

We know the Ministry of Housing is withholding information, because during the budget lockup a Finance ministry official provided some of the answers in the lockup. For instance, this official said that in 1993-94 the average monthly subsidy for non-profit housing would be $854 per household. If the Ministry of Housing is unable to provide basic financial information until November, it clearly doesn't care about the cost of doing business. You don't care about getting value for taxpayers' money.

Minister, will you take the reasonable step of halting all further approvals of non-profit housing until your ministry complies with the requests of the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts committee for basic financial information?

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's not difficult at all to provide information at the level that has been quoted by this member, citing information from the Ministry of Finance. That kind of information is available quite readily. What was sought and what is agreed to by the ministry -- it will take a lot of work to do -- is to provide extremely detailed information, which means reconciliation of figures going back, in some cases, to 1986. Now, this is a task we are willing to take on. We have said to the committee that the ministry will do it. It will take extra resources and we are devoting people to do that.

Mr Speaker, I very much resent her suggestion that I am calling anyone, let alone the Provincial Auditor, a liar. Mr Speaker, I think you should ask her to withdraw that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Just relax. I understand the concern raised by the Minister of Housing. I listened very carefully. The member for Mississauga South did not make an accusation against a member of the House and instead made an accusation by someone who is not here. There's a difference.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If you look at the record, I think you will find that she was suggesting I was calling the Provincial Auditor a liar. Mr Speaker, there was nothing I said that implied --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry; I'll be quite pleased to listen to the point when the House has come to order so that I can hear the point.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, what was being suggested by the member, and I hope you will take a look at the Hansard, was that I was calling the Provincial Auditor a liar. I did no such thing, nor would I. I think she should have to withdraw that accusation.

The Speaker: I'd be pleased to take a look at Hansard, but the member for Mississauga South, her final supplementary.

Mrs Marland: Minister, you know what I resent? You just told this House what you resent. I resent the fact that you will not defend a program in terms of value for money for the taxpayers in this province today. That's what I resent.

You stand in this House and you piously protect your non-profit housing program. Well, I want to tell you what your non-profit housing program costs the people in this province: It costs $854 a month to subsidize one household in a non-profit housing building. In contrast, the average monthly shelter subsidy for welfare recipients is $354 a household. Think about it. With the same amount of money we can help two and a half times more people with a shelter subsidy than with non-profit housing programs.

Minister, you know that government-owned non-profit housing is anything but affordable for the taxpayers of this province, and you know it so well that you will not give the figures. You don't even know the cost of doing business in Ontario today. You won't give those figures to the auditor.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mrs Marland: I will, Mr Speaker. I can say to the minister when I ask this final question: I can understand your not wanting to answer a question of the opposition, but the fact that you won't answer a question of the Provincial Auditor -- I simply say, finally, why won't you cancel the non-profit housing that you haven't built yet and use that money to help the thousands of families on waiting lists, the quarter of a million families in this province that are core needy, with a shelter subsidy and put your money where your mouth is?

1510

Hon Ms Gigantes: First of all, I will repeat again for the benefit of the member, who doesn't seem to hear very well, who's not listening very well, that the ministry has in fact said to the Provincial Auditor that all the information that was requested during the course of the hearings will be provided, has given a detailed plan to the auditor, which, as far as I understand it in conversations between the deputy of Housing and the Provincial Auditor, is a successful and acceptable way of working out the work plan for the provision of this very detailed information, which will be available to the members.

The member for Mississauga South says that I'm unwilling to defend the non-profit housing program. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a program which gives value for money. We spend $2.5 billion a year in shelter allowances through the social assistance system in this province.

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, Mr Speaker. We spend $2.5 billion a year in shelter allowances in the social assistance system. That is a rental subsidy program which is much too big. We wish very much that we didn't have to be spending that kind of money, but it's there to assist people who need help in the private market.

We have to increase the supply of affordable housing. The only way to do that is to do non-profit housing which provides a long-run investment in affordable housing in our communities, and it provides jobs while it's getting built.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. In October 1990 the previous Minister of the Environment reinstated a regulation that at least 30% of soft drinks be sold in refillable containers. You will remember that this announcement was proclaimed with great fanfare as your government's first environmental initiative.

I've received the latest refillable figures from your ministry. They are: October 1992, 6.4%; November, 6.3%; December, 7.8%; January, 7.4%; February, 8.2%; March, 7%.

My question: Minister, do you support the enforcement of the 30% refillable quota?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my colleague for the question. It's a very important one. He's quite correct: The ratio is well below the required 30% level.

The government supports the 3Rs hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle, as he well knows, and the government is reviewing several options with regard to maximizing use of refillable beverage containers and the recovery of all soft drink containers. This is not an easy matter to deal with because the industry has been struggling with this, as well as environmental groups and consumer groups, but I would say that we are actively involved in discussions with the industry and representatives of environmental groups on how we should proceed. Specifically with regard to the question of enforcement, we are actively pursuing that question and we'll be moving forward on that very soon.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, on May 4, in response to a question from the member from St Catharines on your commitment to enforcement of regulations, you said, and I quote, that "the cuts we have made have been made in such a way as to ensure that we will carry out our mandate for environmental protection and to ensure that the responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment and Energy are met." You went on to say, "The enforcement branch...is indeed independent and I expect that it will continue to carry out its mandate as it has in the past."

Could you please explain to this House, though your investigations and enforcement branch monitors this situation and is independent, why no charges have been laid since June 1991? Why and who has given the orders to block prosecutions?

Hon Mr Wildman: The question of charges is one that has been considered carefully and the decision was made some time ago and that decision is under review, that we should try to negotiate agreements that would make it possible to resolve this issue without charges if that were an appropriate way to move. However, we are actively considering a number of options.

As the member may know, the ministry has taken a number of initiatives. We've commissioned a study, which was undertaken by Price Waterhouse, on the feasibility of a differential deposit system similar to the one in place in New Brunswick. The study is now being finalized and the results are expected soon. If we cannot arrive at an agreement with the industry that is satisfactory and ensures that we are in fact recovering refillable beverage containers, we will move forward on the question of acting upon the findings of that study.

INSURANCE TAX

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Premier. As part of the government's recent budgetary tax grab, the government managed to hit Ontarians at every turn. They've increased personal income taxes and surtaxes as well as taxing individual benefits. After all that, when beleaguered taxpayers manage to make it home on their reduced paycheques, this government will tax the insurance they need to drive their cars with and the insurance that protects their homes.

Last week, when the Team Harris tour went across Ontario, our colleagues and I met with insurance brokers --

[Applause]

Mr Cousens: Thank you. We were out listening to the people of Ontario, and insurance brokers are confused and concerned about the implementation of this tax. They don't know how, when or where to implement this tax on insurance, but if they fail to collect it, this government can revoke their ability to do business.

Will you agree that the complexity of educating the insurance industry, as well as allowing them to revamp their entire business practices, requires more time than the time you've given them, and will you agree to extend the collection date from July 1 to August 1 so that this tax can be collected with a minimum of confusion and error?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In congratulating the member in his successful rise to the role of Finance critic, in what I understand was a bloodless coup within his caucus, I'd like to refer this question to my colleague the Minister of Finance.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It was a bloodless coup, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: I heard it was bloodless, anyway.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the referral. To the member from Markham, we did send out what's known as a bulletin detailing the tax change to the industry. As a matter of fact, the industry was quite helpful in turn, getting information out to its clients, brokers and so forth, so I think the changes are well understood within the industry. If the member opposite has some information otherwise, I'd appreciate it if he'd let me know because it's my understanding that the industry does comprehend the changes and will be able to effect the changes by July 1.

Mr Cousens: The problem is that there are well over 2,000 agents that have a problem. If it had started out that you as the government had consulted with the industry prior to announcing this tax, it's possible that we would not be facing the kind of confusion that the insurance industry feels today. If you had talked with some of these people, you would have realized that by applying the tax to all payments after July 1, you would be taxing those individuals who are often least able to afford large premium payments.

Was it your intention to make people pay tomorrow's tax on yesterday's insurance? Would you agree with me that this tax should not be applicable to premium payments for policies which renewed before July 1?

1520

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite asks a good question. It was something that I considered, because if someone takes out a new policy after July 1, there is a tax on that premium. On the other hand, if they had a policy before then, or even perhaps before the budget date, the payments that are made on a monthly basis, or a quarterly basis even, would be taxed after July 1, as opposed to people who paid it all first, before the budget date.

I did consider that dilemma, but in the end decided that it was best to leave the tax the way it is. Premiums after July 1 will be taxed even if it's on a monthly or quarterly basis.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I've been quite disturbed by recent media reports on comments made by some municipal officials that Ontario's welfare system is too rich and that it should be brought in line with neighbouring American states.

These states, as you may recall, are those which have cut back on eligibility for single employable recipients despite the fact that these individuals have little or no prospect for jobs in a recession that has ravaged both the US and Canadian economies. One municipality has directed its staff to investigate changes in the welfare administration in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Rather than having municipalities across Ontario independently spend valuable staff time and public dollars on such research, could you please clarify for me and for our local governments what measures you are taking to reform and improve the delivery of social assistance in this province and clarify whether it's responsible to harmonize our social assistance system with that of the United States?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm happy to answer that question and say that, first of all, certainly we understand and agree that one of the problems that we need to tackle and that we are tackling in our reform of the social assistance system is to deal with the growing costs. But to suggest for a minute that to resolve those problems in the way that some municipalities are suggesting or, for that matter, what we've seen in some states in the United States, which is to simply arbitrarily remove people from the welfare rolls, is not the solution.

The solution, in our view, rests in assisting people to get jobs and hold jobs and to assist people in a fundamental way in that process. Our intent is to continue with the reform package and to build, quite frankly, through that reform package on some of the initiatives that are already under way, such as the Jobs Ontario Training programs which are getting people off social assistance and into jobs and which are being supported by such initiatives as the Jobs Ontario child care, with the introduction and addition of 20,000 subsidies over the next few years.

Mrs Mathyssen: You've referred to some important things about job creation and helping people in Ontario in a real and practical way. You also mentioned social assistance reform. I'm wondering, Minister, could you please elaborate and explain to me exactly what you have in mind in terms of social assistance reform? Will it be more equitable? How will it be more effective?

Hon Mr Silipo: I hope that in the next number of weeks we will be able to outline in the white paper that we will be making public a document which will set out the government's position on a package of reform, giving a clear indication of the basic framework of a system which we believe needs to be much more active than the passive system that we have in place now, and active in assisting people from the very beginning in getting reoriented towards the workforce, getting back to work, getting the skills that they need, if they are lacking those skills, to get back into the workforce.

We know that's the kind of approach that can achieve both: dealing with the cost issues but, quite frankly and fundamentally, dealing with the basic issue of assisting people to become more self-sufficient and independent and therefore, that way, to be able to look after themselves.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, I wonder if you're familiar with this memorandum which was sent out by the two vice-chairs of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, Mr Forder and Mr McMurdo, to 26,000 business around the province, most of which are small businesses, I might add, outlining to them that they're "pleased to announce health and safety legislation which will have an immediate effect on your organization."

They go on to outline very briefly on the first page the program involvement here and then they say, and I quote from this letter: "Employer liability for violations of the act has increased significantly, possibly resulting in fines of up to $500,000 for corporations and up to $25,000 or imprisonment for individuals."

They go on to outline some of the requirements in the health and safety and the training requirements, a bill, I might add, that was brought in for the purpose of improving health and safety in the workplace, not for the purpose of creating the boondoggle that these two gentlemen are creating with this particular letter and with their implementation.

The concerns I have are that they are intimidating. It borders on thuggery for these people to send a letter out to the business community --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: -- many of whom are trying to find out ways of reducing below the 20-employee level so they can avoid the implementation of this training requirement. Do you agree with the letter that they've sent out, and if not, will you ask the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to send out a following letter apologizing for the tone they've used, for the threats they've issued in this document to the business community, and showing them how they can implement these procedures safely.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to say that I'm sure the member across the way understands that one of the problems we've had in the province of Ontario as well is that we've had too many injured and killed workers on the job, and one of the things we've done as part and parcel of trying to deal with that is stepped up our enforcement and our charges. I presume that's a part of it. I am not running the agency itself and I haven't seen the letter that the member is referring to right now.

But one of the things that we have decided upon, and it's been a policy for the last several months, is that if we can have better enforcement and the threat of charges -- you can't cover every case that comes to your attention -- we can more effectively assure that workers are covered and that unsafe conditions are not allowed to exist in the workplace.

Mr Mahoney: That answer somewhat corroborates the suggestion that the next step following this is for training police to be sent out throughout the province going after these business people who are trying to survive the ravages of your Treasurer and your government. You're just going to pile more requirements on top of these people.

One of the requirements in the training in the very first session that has been laid out -- and bear in mind, this is for occupational health and safety -- is that they will spend a morning learning how laws are made in the Legislature and how to run committee meetings. I don't understand what that has to do with occupational health and safety. It appears to be a complete waste of time for the business community. On top of that, they have to pay $535 for the one-week program.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Move on and ask a question.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, you tend to want me to speed up. You allow everyone else to take their time. This is important to the business community, which is being intimidated by this government.

They are required to spend $765 for the two-week course and $1,000 for the three-week course. They're going to learn how to pass laws in the Legislature, not how to prevent accidents in the workplace, which is the intent of that legislation.

My supplementary to the minister is, even though you say you're not running it, clearly your government is responsible for the implementation of this legislation by this agency. Will you talk to the co-chairs? Will you ask them to back off and to work cooperatively with the business community so that they know they have two years in which to implement this program and have them help the business community improve health and safety in the workplace?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm a little surprised at the member across the way. I've heard him as well express his dissatisfaction with injured and killed workers in the province of Ontario. One of the jobs of the agency was to set in place certification programs so that one worker and one employer were involved in each one of the committees, so that they went through a training process and so that they had the authority to deal with the issues of workplace safety in their plants. The program that was set up, incidentally, was set up, as I'm sure the member knows, by a joint worker-employer committee that set it up and put it in place and is now putting it into practice.

There are 100,000 additional health and safety workers in place in Ontario now and we are already seeing some results in terms of a better health and safety atmosphere in the workplace. I think that's in the interest of workers in the province of Ontario.

1530

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Mr Minister, the Royal Commission on Learning has been given the mandate to assess and make recommendations about the goals, standards and programs to guide Ontario's elementary and secondary schools into the 21st century.

Given that you are already proceeding with destreaming, curriculum reform, grade 9 testing, junior kindergarten and integration, separate from the work of this commission, why are you prepared to wait 18 months for the commission to report?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): All the initiatives that the member has referred to are initiatives that have been in the works for quite a period of time, with the exception of the grade 9 testing. But certainly the destreaming and the junior kindergarten initiatives were actually being worked on by the previous government, so they've been in the works for quite a period of time.

The purpose of the commission is to take a look at trying to develop a consensus around some of the other questions in education, like governance, like the whole question of philosophy of education in Ontario and the direction the system might go in. That's the purpose of the commission, to take a look at some of the broader questions, the broader questions of accountability, to try to develop a consensus, or as much of a consensus as possible, for future directions in education.

Mrs Cunningham: Given the minister's response, I think I'll ask him the same question but in a different manner. I think that really what we're concerned about is a duplication. We have all of these programs moving forward. We appreciate that the minister feels it's important to do this. We also have a problem in getting ourselves coordinated and streamlined around such issues as destreaming and junior kindergarten. Grade 9 testing would be a good example, the whole issue of testing.

If in fact we have, already, five studies completed since 1986, and the minister is very much aware of those recommendations, and if in fact everyone agrees that we're drowning in a sea of reports with regard to education, the question is this: If in fact you do have some work done in these areas, if in fact the commission is ready to report, will you ask the commission to report, at least, on the issues of destreaming, special education, grade 9 testing, the whole issue of testing, before the 18 months are up? Because they in fact will report on the testing issue next spring and we could at least get that issue satisfied without waiting perhaps two years and into the next election, would you at least ask them to report on some issues earlier than the 18 months?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think she will understand that the commission is appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, that the commissioners are appointed by order in council and that the commission is in fact an independent commission.

Certainly, when I spoke to the co-chairs of the commission, I indicated to them that if they wanted to proceed with interim reports, we would be more than happy to receive any interim reports and specific recommendations before the 18 months. But in the meantime, we are already taking some actions.

The grade 9 testing is only one part of the whole evaluation package that was announced on that same day, the testing in mathematics and so forth that's taking place at grades 3, 6 and 9 under the package that's associated with the common curriculum. We've moved forward with the rewrite of the common curriculum. I think there are a lot of issues that we can move forward and need to move forward on anyway --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- and I think the member would agree with that.

I think the member would also understand that one of the criticisms that we've received, and strong suggestions, is that we should not stop any reform of the education system, that we should continue to move forward and not use the commission as an excuse to stay still. We don't intend to use the commission as an excuse.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Cooke: We intend to bring in reforms while the commission continues to operate.

RECOGNITION OF TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr Speaker, you will note, as will every other member in this place, that our dream team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, is being honoured today at Nathan Phillips Square for the wonderful season that it had this year. Regrettably, they just came short of winning the prize.

My question to the minister has to do with the other team that's in Toronto, the Toronto Blue Jays, who last year had a wonderful season. I'll have you know, Mr Speaker, that these teams are ambassadors for this city.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a question?

Mr Perruzza: Yes. These teams do honour to us when they travel abroad, and they advertise our city and our province and they draw much in the way of tourism. However, it is time that we do some honour back to both the Blue Jays and the Toronto Argonauts.

My question to the minister is, why, almost a year after winning the World Series championship, is there no signage and is there no recognition that Toronto is home to the Blue Jays, the World Series champions?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): We did, in the collective, agonize a bit, because our Leafs did very well, and I, for one, being a native Montrealer, was looking so much forward to the first game. I understand the first game of the final is tonight. It will be played in the temple in Montreal and I too was looking forward to this great finale. One team that did better, did us proud, was the Toronto Blue Jays: for the first time ever, at the major league level, world champions.

I must remind, with respect, the member for Downsview that the city of Toronto has not yet requested the kind of road signage that the member for Downsview is asking for. The Ministry of Transportation will be meeting with city officials, and it's a good opportunity to discuss this matter. Until that time, obviously I will not -- I cannot -- commit myself to any signage to a facility, a club, an organization and, unfortunately, not even the Blue Jays, but maybe in the future.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will recognize the member for Quinte with a question.

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): If I could have her attention, my question is the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview on a point of order?

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, wouldn't I be entitled to a supplementary question?

The Speaker: In the interest of balance, the member will recall that at the beginning of question period we lost a considerable amount of time, not your fault or the fault of the opposition. I would draw the member's attention to the standing order that speaks of urgent public importance.

I listened carefully to his question. It would seem that it did not require a supplementary. Instead, I am recognizing the member for Quinte with a question, but no supplementary. The member for Quinte would please place his question.

Mr O'Neil: Actually, Mr Speaker, I had a supplementary too. I'll try to work it into one question.

1540

The Speaker: A point of order?

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I listened closely to your explanation and I can't in any way, shape or form see how you could anticipate what my supplementary question would be. In being able to rule or advise me that my supplementary question is not required, I find that rather awkward.

Mr Speaker, the past several days -- and this is further on a point of principle, a point which I should have raised earlier today. You will note, if you check today's Hansard, by way of a point of principle now, that yesterday as the House was adjourning, the member for Scarborough North asked that the House retire early. The Speaker in the chair at that moment ruled and asked for unanimous consent.

After having checked Hansard today -- and I note that I objected vehemently to giving unanimous consent -- at that time, my objection to adjourning the House was completely neglected and in fact is not even recorded in Hansard today. So I'd like to get that objection on the record, and in light of that --

The Speaker: The member for Downsview, just --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just relax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The last thing that members want is complete disorder in here. The member for Quinte will have his question. The member for Downsview is obviously exercised about this. He feels that his supplementary is of urgent public importance. I ask the member to succinctly place his question and trust that it will be of urgent public importance.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, you will know that everything we do is of urgent public importance.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Perruzza: My supplementary question to the minister is, will he engage the mayors in the city of Toronto as quickly as possible and apprise them of the fact that our ambassadors abroad, people who sell this city and sell the people of this city and this province and advertise us abroad -- will the minister get in touch with the mayors to ensure that the people who are ambassadors abroad are properly recognized as such?

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I share in your dilemma, for I too find the question to be important and certainly issue-related and therefore relevant.

We will be meeting this month. These are the people from the Ministry of Transportation. They will be meeting with the municipality of Toronto and with the municipalities that form the greater Toronto area, and the opportunity will be at this meeting to prepare a program that will highlight the successes and hence the possibility of telling the world, in fact, that the Toronto Blue Jays were indeed the 1992 world champion.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect, I think it would be easier on members in this chamber if there was some consistency in your rulings.

Earlier today, you denied fundamental democratic and parliamentary rights to my colleague the member from Etobicoke West. Yesterday, you wouldn't allow a supplementary to my question, even though the time for question period had just expired a second before I was to get up and give my supplementary. Today, you allow a supplementary and a point of order and a point of privilege and I guess a point of principle from the member from Downsview which I think was of dubious public importance.

You would not hear the point of privilege by my colleague from Etobicoke West. You deny my supplementary. Now you're letting the Liberal Party have a supplementary well after the time, several minutes after the expiry of the normal time for question period.

I'd simply ask you to check your drinking water, Mr Speaker. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in your rulings.

The Speaker: To the member for Simcoe West, I certainly appreciate that all members who are on the question period list wish an opportunity to ask their questions. He will note that at the beginning of question period some seven minutes elapsed while certain members in the chamber did not allow the Leader of the Opposition to place a question. I said at the time I would attempt, in an effort to provide balance, an opportunity to recoup some of that time. It was not possible to recoup all of the seven minutes, by no means.

The member for Downsview was concerned that he had asked a question and before the time had expired he was not going to be allowed a supplementary, so therefore I allowed a brief supplementary. I have told the member for Quinte he can place a question but no supplementary, in order to try and provide some balance.

Quite frankly, had there been order and decorum in this chamber at the beginning of oral questions, it would not have been necessary for the Speaker to try to find a way to provide balance so that all sides have an equal opportunity. Such was not the case today. Hopefully, the situation will improve for tomorrow's oral questions.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm going to tell you I don't do this lightly, but I take great exception to the remarks that you just made. If this party and this government and this government House leader would have some respect, one ounce of respect, for 126 years of tradition in this country and this province, we wouldn't be in the mess, and I can tell you tomorrow will be worse than today unless he smartens up. Enough said. It's a bunch of bullshit.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound, I understand his concerns and that's why twice earlier today I offered to try to be of assistance with the three House leaders so that we can have a more constructive atmosphere in this chamber. I understand his point full well.

The member for Quinte.

Mr O'Neil: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and, hopefully, I'm that balance.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a question for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation in her capacity of handling the tourism business in the province of Ontario. Minister, on May 19, the NDP budget dealt a devastating blow to tourist operators and small businesses already reeling from the recession. By bringing down the biggest tax grab in Ontario's history, the NDP budget's $2-billion tax grab hurts tourism, hurts small business and kills jobs.

Interjection.

Mr O'Neil: Mr Speaker, if the Treasurer would keep quiet, I'd finish my question.

Tourism has been, and I stress "has been," Ontario's fourth-largest export industry, generating more than $16.9 billion in revenues for provincial coffers, and it is the province's biggest service sector employer. Yet it has lost more than 62,000 jobs in the last three years and in 1992 bankruptcies in the Ontario tourism industry increased by 39%.

Minister, Ontario's tourist operators -- and I believe you know this -- and the small businesses throughout the province were looking to this budget for a sign of hope. This budget gave them no hope. How do you propose to assist these small business people and especially those people in the tourism business, and how do you propose to assist them right now?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'm happy to inform the member from Quinte that I had a meeting with the executive of Tourism Ontario yesterday, and I believe that at the conclusion of the meeting they were left with a much stronger feeling of the kind of hope that in fact I have with this budget, that in fact it does mean good news to the tourism industry.

I want to share with the member from Quinte two clarifications I was able to give to the members of the executive of Tourism Ontario. First, in terms of the visitors' rebate program, it will continue with regard to the purchase of goods where a single receipt shows the purchase of over $625 on that one receipt. Also, in terms of the reduction of the entertainment tax deduction, that applies only to incorporated businesses, which means that effectively for small business that is still very good news and therefore good news in the tourism industry.

Further to that, in terms of the positive aspects, I was able to share with them the fact that the elimination of the commercial concentration tax means $13.5 million, effectively as a tourism program, injected not only into the Metro economy, because of what that means to hotels and restaurants, but because Metro is a gateway for tourism to the province, it also means effectively a $13.5-million tourism program to inject into the tourism industry in this province.

In terms of how difficult a fiscal situation this government is dealing with right now, I think they also appreciated the fact that we maintained the hotel sales tax at 5%. We continued the exemption on the entertainment tax for theatres of less than 3,200, which means excellent news for the tourism theatre passport program in this province.

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: We've put $300 million into the Jobs Ontario community action, which in some communities will be used to help enhance tourism in those communities. The Jobs Ontario transportation, highways and subways expansion means tremendous news for the enticement and encouragement of tourism in this province, making it easy for tourists to get around this province, through this city.

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: The fact that we've got the kind of money into Jobs Ontario training that we do, for the Ontario Tourism Education Council among them, which is the first time any government in this province has effectively delivered an apprenticeship training program for the tourism hospitality industry, is tremendous news that they very much appreciate. The fact that we've got a tourism sectoral strategy going ahead --

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the minister to please take her seat.

The time for oral questions has expired.

1550

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have a question to place to the Minister of Tourism with respect to the budget that I've been trying to place since May 20. You've allowed the Liberal Party a fifth question and I would like to present my question at this time to the minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member has one avenue, and that is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid not.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague from Simcoe West just stood up and said that there's no consistency in the rulings that you make in this place. There is also, Mr Speaker, with respect, no consistency in the way you operate, even when you're not making rulings. If you allow a fifth question, 15 minutes after question period ends, for the Liberal Party, why can you not allow a fifth question for our party 15 or 20 minutes after the question period ends? Why do you wait until question period expires to decide that question period will continue for them but question period will not continue for us?

The precedents that you set have to be consistent, Mr Speaker. You know, if anything, the way this place has operated this afternoon -- it has operated in the most haphazard way possible; it's operated in a way that has been inconsistent from one moment to the next and perhaps that's why, with respect, there's been no control with what's gone on here.

I submit to you, sir --

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. Of course, consistency is important. Also, decorum is important. I dealt with the matters raised earlier by the honourable member for Simcoe West. I appreciate the fact that all members have questions which they wish to place. Quite frankly, during most question periods, if members would be more succinct in both the questions and responses, we would have more questions each day. Often, that isn't possible and that's quite regrettable, but hopefully, members will attempt to be more orderly in the way in which they conduct the business in the House.

A new point of order? The member for Wellington with his new point of order.

Mr Arnott: Mr Speaker, you have not addressed the basic point that was made by the member for Willowdale. How can you justify the inconsistency between allowing the Liberal caucus a fifth question and not the third party a fifth question?

The Speaker: The member for Wellington may not have been in the chamber at the time when the matter was raised by his colleague the member for Simcoe West. I dealt with it at that time.

PETITIONS

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition from the board of the Dryden Public Library. It reads:

"To the province of Ontario and the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation:

"Whereas northern Ontario libraries serve a unique population, a population residing in unorganized townships, and northern Ontario libraries receive no provincial support in the form of the per-household grant; and

"Whereas the residents of the unorganized townships pay the same provincial taxes as other residents of Ontario but are presently denied the opportunity to have a portion of those taxes applied to the libraries serving them; and

"Whereas equity of access to the public library system for the residents of the unorganized townships is jeopardized under the present system of funding,

"Therefore, the board of the Dryden Public Library petitions the province of Ontario and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to extend the system of per-household grants to those libraries serving residents of the unorganized townships."

I have attached my name to that as well.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae is not enforcing existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment,

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation; to respect our native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

That's 118 signatures, and I've signed it.

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of a neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

'"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have, since 1976, on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

That is signed by approximately 123 residents of Woodstock and Norwich township and there's even one individual from Brantford who signed this as well.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition here signed by 10 local presidents of OPSEU, who represent over 1,000 members in the Cornwall area. The petition reads:

"We, the undersigned Cornwall and area presidents of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, representing over 1,000 local OPSEU members, ask you to relay to the government of Ontario the strongest protest to proposed cutbacks to the Ontario Public service in the Cornwall area.

"We hope you will agree that investing in jobs is crucial for recovery in this area and this is no time for further cutbacks in Cornwall."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the members of provincial Parliament:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I totally support this petition and I've affixed my signature to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition from 49 people in my riding to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORY BOND PROGRAM

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition petitioning the Parliament to create this week an opportunity to debate the merits of a proposal entitled the economic environmental victory bond program as an alternative to the social contract legislation, and I hereby file it.

GAMBLING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition here and it's about gambling.

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures;" -- something, I might add, this government used to believe in -- "and

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor;" -- something Bob Rae probably said just a few short years ago -- "and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has been in the past vociferously opposed" -- I'm certain they were thinking of the Premier -- "to the raising of moneys for the state through gambling;" -- a policy of this party, no doubt, a policy written in its books -- "and" --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): These are petitions as they are submitted, please.

Mr Stockwell: I'm just trying to put it in layman's terms for the members opposite.

"Whereas the government has not attempted" -- emphasis on "attempted" -- "to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime," -- have not attempted to hear from these people about the very serious growth in crime --

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows" -- and I might add, there is a significant number of signatures here from Etobicoke and parts north, south, east and west.

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos" -- like they said they would before the election -- "and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals" -- like they said they would before the election -- "in the province of Ontario."

1600

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Why are you doing this? I just read the same one. It takes me two seconds.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Mills: You are wasting time.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member from Durham East.

Please, I would ask respectfully that you provide as was submitted on the petition.

Mr Stockwell: I'm very sorry if I took too much time trying to inform the government of what the people in this province really think. Mr Speaker, that was the conclusion. If he hadn't interrupted, I would have been done long ago. I sign my name to this petition and forward it to the Clerk's table. Thank you for your patience.

GAMBLING

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

This is signed by about 60 members of my constituency, and I have attached my name.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that is addressed to the members of provincial Parliament and it concerns another policy flip-flop by the NDP government and party. It says:

"Re amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, proposed wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of "legal holiday" in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter, 51 Sundays per year, from the definition of "legal holiday" and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

That's signed by a number of good people from the riding of Wellington, which is represented ably by my colleague Mr Arnott, and I've signed my name to this petition.

GRAVENHURST OPERA HOUSE

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have another petition from a number of people in the Gravenhurst area concerned about the opera house closure. The opera house was closed by the Ministry of Labour, and they feel that the government should provide full funding for the restoration of the opera house in the immediate future.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): A petition to the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 439, employed at the Sherwood Park Manor in Brockville, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it, and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector, and the strengthening of public services."

Signed by approximately 100 employees of Sherwood Park. I've affixed my signature in support.

GAMBLING

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I was sent this petition and I assume that they wanted me to read it in the House. It's signed by a number of people in my riding and some outside my riding, and it reads as follows, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling;" -- and it cites a document from which that was extracted -- "and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I submit that.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 117 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 164 penalizes safe, conscientious drivers for high-risk drivers;

"Whereas other sections of the proposed bill are also objectionable and will also increase insurance rates; and

"Whereas we are opposed to the changes that will increase the premiums of those with good driving records, such as women and seniors,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 164."

I have placed my signature to that petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have another petition from 19 residents who are all in the Brooksdale area, I assume either with the Brooksdale United Church or the Brooksdale Women's Institute. This petition also says that these people are petitioning to oppose establishing gambling casinos in the province of Ontario.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operations of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from the introduction of video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

There are many people from the Orillia area, Oro Station and Udney who have signed their names to this petition, and I submit it with my signature.

1610

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the Treasurer have a short summary of his bill?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that opportunity.

This bill effects the changes which I announced in the 1992 and 1993 budgets. Employers who have to pay the employer health tax have been helping to support our health care system since 1990. However, individuals who earn self-employment income, such as self-employed business people and professionals, have not been required to pay the employer health tax on their business income. This bill will correct this situation by requiring self-employed individuals whose net self-employment income exceeds $40,000 to pay their fair share of health care costs.

The employer health tax paid by employers is a deductible expense for income tax purposes. For self-employed individuals, the tax is not deductible. To offset the non-deductibility, self-employed individuals will receive a tax reduction of 22% of the tax otherwise payable.

The bill also contains several amendments of an administrative nature.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

On motion by Mr Murdoch, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 28, An Act to revise the Law relating to the Protection of the Niagara Escarpment and the Surrounding Wetlands / Loi révisant la loi concernant la protection de l'escarpement du Niagara.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): This bill repeals the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. The bill provides for the designation of the Niagara Escarpment and surrounding wetlands as a natural area. The designation can only be made if it is approved by each municipality within the area to be designated. Development in the natural area is prohibited unless approved by the municipality where the land is situated and the assembly.

If the natural boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment and the surrounding wetlands change, then the boundaries of the natural area can also be changed. The changes to the boundaries of the natural area must be approved by the municipality affected and by the assembly.

By passage of this bill, we can save the province approximately $4 million; therefore I would ask for unanimous consent for second and third reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I appreciate those comments and we will proceed.

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 29, An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax, reduce certain expenditures and provide for the increase of certain revenues as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin d'éliminer l'impôt sur les concentrations commerciales, de réduire certaines dépenses et de prévoir l'augmentation de certaines recettes comme le prévoit le budget de 1993.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill amends 14 acts to effect expenditure reduction and revenue-raising measures referred to in the budget. In addition, the bill eliminates the commercial concentration tax this year and implements expenditure reduction measures announced last April as part of this government's deficit reduction strategy.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 30, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the Treasurer have some brief remark?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, 1993, affects the changes announced in the May 19 Ontario budget. In order to support the government's commitment to reduce the provincial deficit, this bill proposes the imposition of tax on the following: contracts of insurance, group insurance, funded or unfunded benefit plans, parking, sand, gravel, clay, soil and unfinished stone, beer or wine produced in a producer-owned establishment. In addition, the $5 tire tax on new tires will be removed and the Ontario -- Incredible rebate program will be eliminated.

This bill also introduces amendments which will improve the overall administration and enforcement of the Retail Sales Tax Act.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

On motion by Mr Laughren, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the Treasurer have some opening remarks?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): This bill, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, 1993, implements the proposals announced in the May 19 budget. This bill contains amendments which will increase the rate of Ontario personal income tax to 58% of basic federal tax for 1993 and following years, impose a surcharge for the 1993 tax year equal to 17% of Ontario personal income tax over $5,500 plus an additional 8% of Ontario personal income tax over $8,000. For 1994 and following years, the surcharge will increase to 20% of Ontario personal income tax over $5,500 and an additional 10% of Ontario personal income tax over $8,000, and ensure that the Income Tax Act for Ontario adopts certain definitions and provisions from the Income Tax Act Canada as required under the tax collection agreement.

I would like to add that a regulation made under this act will provide a substantial increase to the Ontario tax reduction program. The basic amount available for Ontario residents will increase to $205 from $175. The amounts that Ontario residents can claim for each dependent child under 19 and each dependent with a disability will increase to $395 from $375.

1620

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des commerces le dimanche.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Etobicoke West had the floor and may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): This is not the debate that I think the people of the province of Ontario want this Legislature to be taking up today. This is a disappointing day when after introducing a budget with the largest tax grab in the history of this province, bar none --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): In 1981 you did the same.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the heckling from the Treasurer -- the largest tax grab in the history of this province, bar none, that we --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Well, Mr Speaker, maybe the question should be put to the Treasurer: In 1981, when they did have a reasonably high tax grab, answer me, how many days did they debate the budget? How many days did they debate that budget? I don't have those figures in front of me, but I'll be willing to wager it was a heck of a lot more than two days that you've allowed us to debate this $2-billion increase.

The argument is made, "There's lots of time." The same argument was made last year when Mr Cooke was the House leader for this government. There was lots of time to debate that budget when they had a deficit number that was concocted in the back rooms of the finance department that had no resemblance to reality. When they brought back in the revenue figures, that number was proven to be absolutely and categorically concocted by this government. What did we have last year in the way of debate? At the very same time they were suggesting, "We can debate this lots; there's lots of time in the future," we had two days of debate on that budget as well.

They've applied somewhere in the neighbourhood of $22 billion or $23 billion in debt to this province and have institutionalized a double-digit deficit. They've taxed them $2 billion plus and we've got a collective total of four days debate in this Legislature on those kinds of horrific tax grabs that this government has introduced that are pounding whatever weak and mild recovery we might have had.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): A hundred thousand people have just closed off their TVs.

Mr Stockwell: A hundred thousand people, according to the member from I'm not sure where, but it won't be much longer, have closed off their TVs. That is really unbelievable to come from a member of the government side. What the people want --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East, on a point of order.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Mr Speaker, are we not debating or supposed to be debating Bill 38? I just wondered the relevance of what the member for Etobicoke is talking about to Bill 38. We are on a time basis here. Everybody's fed up with his wasting their time.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member from Durham East has a heck of a lot of nerve getting up in this Legislature and trying to, again as the Speaker did during question period, suppress the democratic rights of the member from Etobicoke West to speak out on behalf of his constituents. He must speak about the budget now and Bill 38. The two are related, as is all legislation in this House, as it's presented by the government in draconian manner. He has the right to do that. I would hope that members of the government side will not interfere with his democratic rights as they've done, because you know, Mr Speaker, that the government is trying to suppress us and only allowing two days --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member is not in his seat and it is not a point of order. We will continue with the member for Etobicoke West on Bill 38.

Mr Stockwell: Considering the fact that there might be 10 members of the government here -- nine members of the government, not a quorum, Mr Speaker -- in this House at all, considering we've got 10 members, and now they have such a low number of members who even bother showing up to listen to the opposition concerns and the people's concerns and criticisms about this government, they then have the nerve to stand up and start telling members opposite what they're allowed and what they're not allowed to speak about.

First a quorum's got to be called when you've only got nine government members. I will call a quorum and tell them: "People want to speak to you about this budget. Maybe you should listen up."

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present? A quorum is not present. Call in the members.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is now present, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum now is present. The honourable member for Etobicoke West can resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Stockwell: What a folly this government is. The members are now chomping in here, chiding me as they go by. I'm certain that the chiding you're getting in your riding is not from the people asking you about whether or not Sunday shopping legislation is being introduced. I'm sure the chiding that you're getting back in your home ridings has a lot to do with the $2-billion tax grab that you just pilfered out of the Ontario public, crushing any hope of any possible return --

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Your nose is growing.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, and this member talks about their nose growing. Listen, my friend, you people have no room to talk. I look to the minister of northern affairs about whether or not they're telling the truth to the people in this province. I think you should save that comment because you've no room to start measuring whether or not we believe that people want to hear about the budget being debated today.

Sunday shopping -- we can debate the budget on Sunday. I think that's a perfectly good and acceptable thing to do. The people in this province want to hear this budget debated. They want to hear why it's so important for you to gouge $2 billion out of their paycheques when they've got precious little to spend. I think they'd be prepared to come in here and watch these debates take place on a Sunday. I think they'd be prepared to see them take place on a Saturday, or a Thursday evening, or a Friday. I think they'd be prepared to hear about why this party thinks it's justifiable to go about and gouge the public out there, who are trying to rebuild this economy, kill 50,000 jobs, talk about a 5% increase on insurance premiums.

And you know, the killer on that, it's not like insurance is an option; it's not like you have a choice to buy car insurance or not. It's something you have to have to drive a car in this province, and I think most people would think it's a reasonable request that the government of the day introduce legislation to make it mandatory to have drivers in this province have insurance. But the problem is, Mr Speaker, through you to this government and Treasurer in particular, there isn't an option on this. You just slammed another 5% increase on the people who drive in this province to pay more to the government because they have to buy car insurance.

It's not a reasonable thing to do. It's not like you're taxing the rich. It's not like you're taxing those who can afford it. You know full well, Mr Speaker, that most people in this province who are employed own a car, outside of the selective urban centres in this province, particularly those in rural ridings or in smaller-town Ontario. You know full well that they must own cars or trucks if they're going to go around, get around, get their kids to school, buy groceries.

How do you treat these people who need these vehicles to get around? You slap a 5% increase on a mandatory insurance program that they have no control over, that they must pay -- regressive, unfair, for the most inexpensive car to the most expensive car. How is that going to rebuild this crumbling economy?

Hon Mr Laughren: GST.

Mr Stockwell: Now the Treasurer starts yapping about the GST. This is the same Treasurer who in opposition was talking about the problems of the government. He becomes Treasurer, finally begins to realize that those simple --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Here goes the member from I'm not sure where again, but I don't have to worry about it for much longer. But the Treasurer, who in opposition seemed to have all the answers to the economic woes, now comes up yesterday in the newspaper and he blames this economic problem that this province is in on the Bank of Canada.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Now he's denying. He's saying we can get this economy jump-started; we need lower interest rates; we need a better money policy. What this province needs is a government that is prepared to govern in a sane and rational manner.

[Applause]

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, because I'll tell you something, folks, I can't believe you're not hearing this. I can't believe your constituents are not coming to you, who didn't come to you last week in your constituency offices and tell you how oppressive this increase in taxes is going to be to them. I cannot believe that the only people who are hearing about this tough budget, this tax grab of $2 billion, is this caucus right here. You're never going to convince me that your constituents aren't coming to you and telling you that you should never have increased the taxes and left them in a very awkward and untenable position, considering we were building a fragile hope that this economy might turn around.

We know what the people are saying. We know what the people were saying in Don Mills. We know what the people were saying in St George-St David. What they were saying is that this government has been reduced to a fringe-party status; 8% of the popular vote reduces you to a fringe-party status. Take my word for it, after this introduction of this budget and your $2-billion tax grab, however low you were in those two by-elections, you'd simply be lower. This is fiscal folly. It is absolute and total fiscal folly.

1630

Yes, the deficit is a problem. Yes, the deficit must be dealt with, and yes, there are many ways to deal with this deficit. But the one way that you shouldn't have tried to deal with this deficit was ask the beleaguered taxpayer of this province, who is probably taxed as high as any jurisdiction in North America, to come up with an additional $2 billion.

It would seem to me that any democratic, elected government, after introducing a $2-billion tax grab, would at least have the courage to stand up in this place, the Legislature, and allow the opposition parties and the people from the ridings we represent to be heard on why this budget is the wrong way to go.

Previous governments allowed opportunity for opposition parties to state their case and offer solutions to the government on previous budgets. They did so because it was a time-honoured tradition of this House. It was a time-honoured tradition that a number of days be set aside so this place could be a place where we may debate and measure the merits of Sunday shopping, of --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Durham Centre.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order simply because this member has been speaking for 20 minutes about a revenue bill that is not before us, about a budget which is not before us for debate. What we're talking about is a common pause day or Sunday shopping, an issue which is central to many families and many communities in our province. I would ask that he return to that debate, sir.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I want to remind the honourable member for Etobicoke West, it is Bill 38 that we are debating.

Mr Stockwell: Just as the member from Durham rose in his place, I was speaking about Sunday shopping. I had just in fact said the words "Sunday shopping." Now, I would ask the member to pay attention, because if you're going to stand up on a point of order --

Mr White: Where is that in Hansard?

Mr Stockwell: See, he doesn't even know; he's checking Hansard. If you're going to stand up on a point of order, at least get the little infinitesimal facts you're going to stand up on straight. So next time you're going to stand, check the record. I was in fact speaking about Sunday shopping.

What I had said about Sunday shopping and this budget debate we're not going to have was that I think people would be very prepared to allow this Legislature to sit on Sunday so opposition would get the opportunity to express to the member from Durham and his constituents how opposed we are to this tax-grab gouge that you're partaking of on behalf of the constituents in the province of Ontario.

It would seem to me that it would be reasonable, considering this government allows people to shop on Sunday, that if you can't find time in your busy schedule to allow this Legislature to debate one of the most important pieces of legislation, the 1993 budget, then we should probably come back on Sunday, because you gave up that value this year or last year. As a principle that you staked your party platform on, it was worthless. So we can probably come in Sunday safely assured that you'll all be here, because we know you don't believe in a common pause day any more.

So it makes sense to me, if we debate today the merits of Sunday shopping or the merits of this budget, we can certainly tie it back together so that we can at least have some comment on this mess concocted by the Treasurer, who has difficulty in simple addition when it comes to deficit numbers, that we can at least have an opportunity to debate it here in the House.

The last time I was speaking was before the budget was introduced. At that time I was gleefully going through some comments made by the now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, on his position on Sunday shopping. He spoke to this Legislature on second and third reading on the legislation of Sunday shopping introduced by the Liberals. It was the domino Sunday shopping effect.

At the time the Premier had a very different position on Sunday shopping than he has today. It has changed so dramatically that by in fact reading these speeches into the record it's very hard to believe that it's the same person who is today introducing legislation to do away with a common pause day.

He had all kinds of reasons. Nobody owed their life to the employer. Nobody owed their life to work. There are other things to do in life besides work, work, work. He said he used to go and visit his constituents and have a drink of wine on Sundays, and if you introduced Sunday shopping, he couldn't do that and the fabric of society would break down and all these horrific things. This is what the guy said in opposition, sitting right over there as Leader of the Opposition. He had such a firm and committed speech, and you thought, "Gee, here's a guy who's just thoroughly convinced that by endorsing this Sunday shopping, as introduced by the Legislature, you would cut away at the very fabric in the province of Ontario."

He must, I expect, still have some in his caucus who are opposed to Sunday shopping, a few who are holding out in the hope that the rest of their caucus will come to their senses rather than being bought off for parliamentary assistant jobs and chairman jobs. But I don't necessarily believe that'll be the case.

But, as you can see, Mr Rae, during this debate, was speaking and said, "Surely, if one genuinely wanted to be modern or contemporary, one would be talking about ways we can ensure that people should be working less. I believe profoundly" -- now get this. Here he is saying, "I believe profoundly." When you say that, you've got to think: "This person really believes what he's saying. There's nothing that's going to change his mind."

"I believe profoundly that people should not be working for...as many hours as they are required to work today. I believe profoundly that we should not only be talking about making Sunday a day of rest; we should talk about making Saturday a day of rest." I commented at the time that he's not only made Sunday and Saturday a rest for 300,000 people, but he's made Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday a day of rest for those people as well.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): It's already in Hansard.

Mr Stockwell: It is already, but I thought that it was just so important to get this again on the record for public consumption that we can measure just exactly the amount of change, the complete abdication of principle that has taken place from Mr Rae on this side of the House and Mr Rae on that side of the House. It is breathtaking. Some would say it's sickening, but it's at least breathtaking.

He goes on, "I say to Mel Lastman" -- and here he is. He just didn't pick on the people in the Legislature here when he was in opposition; he would pick on mayors who were proponents of Sunday shopping. Mel Lastman was a big proponent of Sunday shopping and Mr Rae didn't have any respect for people like him.

"I say to Mel Lastman -- I know he has a long history in retail -- believe me, when you have three kids and you are going through a store, it is not particularly restful to go shopping with them. It is not the most restful form of activity. I am quite honest. If I again can speak very personally, if I want to rest and spend some time with my kids, focus on them, talk to them and share jokes with them, I do not want to go to a store and have the kids come up and say, 'Let's get this, let's get that, let's do this.' It is a different attitude."

You know, that Premier still does have that option. Accordingly, he did not want to take that option away from all those people who have to work on Sundays. But upon the conversion that took place walking those six steps across the floor, every principle that he held dear is now up for grabs. Every principle that he held dear, from casino gambling to publicly funded auto insurance to Sunday shopping, is now up to the highest bidder, and that's what we have here.

Mr Mammoliti: How are you going to vote on it?

Mr Stockwell: Again, the same question comes from the member from Yorkview as he asked last time. I think he was concerned about my reading the same paragraph. You asked that question the last time, the member from Yorkview. What makes me completely different than your party is that my answer today is the same one as it was a short period of time ago, which you probably would find kind of interesting, because you're not used to hearing consistent answers from your government.

I'm still in favour of Sunday shopping, as I voted at Metro council. I was still in favour of Sunday shopping then. But you find that really unusual, because when you talk to your members here, the Minister of Labour, who was fully opposed to Sunday shopping, is now in favour. When you talk to your cabinet ministers who sit across there, reading their notes, they were opposed to Sunday shopping a few short years ago. Now they're fully in favour. Consistency wouldn't be something you'd be used to seeing, so I understand that you've got to ask me a couple of times, because it's really unusual for you to hear a consistent message from the same political person. I move on.

1640

Mr Mammoliti: You're too negative.

Mr Stockwell: Any time you want to interject, Mr Member for Yorkview, please be my guest. We move on.

Mr Mammoliti: You're too negative and you need some help.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, I'm too negative and I need some help. There are many people out there who came to my constituency office, many people who felt that maybe your government needed a sincere amount of help: help maybe in resigning and calling an election was one option; help maybe in recall so you people would be moved out of office before this $2-billion tax grab can take place.

I didn't suggest those people were too negative, I thought these were rational, sane people, who had just had it up to here with the flip-flops and changes in public opinion and fiscal fantasies that are taking place in this government. I will remind my constituents next time they come and see me, and those other constituents I talk to, that the member from Yorkview thinks they are too negative. I move on.

The first thing I want to say --

Mr Mammoliti: They voted you in.

Mr Stockwell: And they also voted you in, member from Yorkview.

"If we can provide convenience for people, great, let's provide convenience," -- this is the Premier, Robert K. Rae, QC, continuing -- "but not at the expense of this notion, this idea of a common day of rest, of a common day of pause. That is the first thing I want to say."

The Premier goes on: "I would ask members to think about what modernity is all about, think about what it really means to be contemporary. Sometimes passing trends and fads are not really what it is all about." Sunday shopping at this time to him was simply a passing trend or a fad. So we can expect to see the Premier coming in in bell-bottoms, no doubt, in the next couple of days. "Sometimes there are values" --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: And a hula hoop, I might add.

"Sometimes there are values which are even more contemporary than that, such as the value of spending time with family."

Can we only think that this Premier has forgotten about the value that you have with the time you spend with your family, because on that conversion, that amazing conversion, that six-step conversion across the floor, he's forgotten about that important value.

He goes on:

"I would suggest that those of us who have been talking about this issue are going to find that more and more people are going to really think about it, think about what a modern, industrial society is going to look like. It seems to me to be a society in which we put some premium on the time that we spend away from work and some guarantees that we are going to have that kind of protection and some kind of benefit."

And this is Robert K. Rae, QC, then Leader of the Opposition. The converted Mr Rae is now in fact the Premier of Ontario.

"I think the majority of people are opposed." Here he goes on -- the majority of people are opposed.

"It is a perfectly defensible position, in the sense that it is certainly respectable. I suspect it is sustained by a large number of people in the province. Several million people in the province probably say: 'Sure, I want to shop on Sunday. Let me shop.'

"I think the majority of people are opposed. That has been my sense and continues to be my sense, but I think there certainly is a substantial number of people who are in favour of it.

"The second thing that is problematic about the local option is that it is going to produce far more widespread Sunday shopping than the majority of people in this province really want to see."

Here he is arguing against the Liberal Sunday shopping, which is a municipal option, because we would have widespread Sunday shopping. This Premier is introducing, not a municipal option; this Premier's legislation doesn't include a limited amount of Sunday shopping, this Premier's legislation is wide-open, 8-till-4, 8-till-5 Sunday shopping anywhere and everywhere in this province; and he was opposed to the Liberal legislation because it would be too wide open, it wouldn't be selective enough. I mean, God, this is unbelievable.

I go on. Again I remind the people out there, this is Robert K. Rae, QC, in opposition.

"I would argue that what we are going to find, and the member for Sarnia" -- Mr Brandt then -- "has already spoken about this, is a domino effect. I will say that I think it is ludicrous to argue against that. If the region of York, north of Toronto, decides it is going to have Sunday openings in response to a certain degree of pressure, all the commercial lobby in favour of Sunday openings has to do is find one municipality in the Golden Horseshoe that is prepared to go along, one regional government that will buckle and knuckle under" -- get this: "buckle and knuckle under to the pressure" of Sunday shopping advocates. "That is all it has to find -- one."

Can we then assume that this Premier has now knuckled under to the pressure of Sunday shopping advocates, because in opposition that's what he was suggesting that anyone who was in favour of Sunday shopping was in fact doing. It's a matter of taking these words and then ramming them down his open mouth.

"Then what will the impact be? Every merchant in areas adjoining places that are open on Sunday will come and say: 'Look, I am being prejudiced against. My market share is being affected. I cannot do this. I cannot spend the time. I cannot do it. I am not there."'

This is Robert K. Rae, QC, in opposition, which is completely different to Robert K. Rae, QC, Premier.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): What's the K for?

Mr Stockwell: I don't know. You'll have to ask him.

Now, this is where Robert K. Rae, QC, was in fact lecturing. He went into his lecture mode.

"I say to members opposite that I think it is ludicrous to argue that there is no such thing as a domino effect. The domino effect worked in British Columbia. The domino effect worked in Nova Scotia. It is precisely why, for example, Nova Scotia, having passed the law in one year, a year and a half later decided to repeal the law and bring in a tougher law with respect to Sunday openings, which is now in place in Nova Scotia." Nova Scotia had the intestinal fortitude to withdraw it and bring in tougher laws.

What did Mr Rae do? He just opened Sundays all up, opened them wide open. "Whatever I said before, never mind. Can't you take a joke?" That's his government policy. That's his government position. Saturday Night Live would be helpful to look into these proceedings. They could probably have a few sketches worked out on this stuff.

He goes on: "If I may say so, and I say this without wanting to be critical" --

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's obvious to the member from Etobicoke West that we can take a joke. We're listening to him.

The Acting Speaker: It wasn't really a point of order. The honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Stockwell: I have nothing to add, simply because I've got to continue reading if I'm going to run out of time.

Interjection: Consider the source.

Mr Stockwell: I do consider the source and, I might add, I'll only have to consider it for a couple of more years.

I move on. I say to the members --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, and I'm glad the member from Kingston mentioned that. I guess the papers aren't writing about you not doing anything any more. Seeing as I see you standing up making statements and you're standing up forwarding all this government pap and policy, we won't be expecting any editorials in the Whig-Standard about the fact that you don't do anything.

I'll continue. "If I may say so, and I say this without wanting to be critical of another level of government" -- this is Robert K. Rae, QC -- "I think it is fair to say, as a matter of sociological fact, that municipal governments have been less successful in resisting the pressures of the marketplace on their political systems than other levels have been."

Can you believe he said this? This is the man who now introduces legislation for Sunday shopping. In opposition he says, "It is fair...municipal governments have been less successful in resisting the pressures of the marketplace on their political systems than other levels" of government "have been. I think this is just a fact of life."

Well, talk about a guy who's less susceptible. He folded like a cheap pup tent the minute he heard any opposition to his remarks about opposition to Sunday shopping; totally changed his mind. My goodness, he would have been better off leaving it up to the municipalities because there at least they said they'd stand up and defend the rights of those people who didn't want to shop on Sundays, something this Premier has thoroughly and totally forgotten. It's hard to believe he said it, but when you know Mr Robert K. Rae, QC, it's not surprising.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government must be sufficiently embarrassed about its change in position that there isn't a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1650

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum now is present. The honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Stockwell: You know, it is frustrating. This is the government that doesn't want to debate the budget the people want to hear debate about, and then it picks the subject it wants to debate, which is Sunday shopping, and it can't even keep a quorum. Then when a member stands up to question whether there's a quorum in this place, he gets dressed down by the member for Downsview suggesting his political career is reduced to calling quorum, from the member who has nothing better to do in question period than ask about Blue Jays signs in the entrance to Toronto.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West on a point of --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Order, Mr Speaker. According to the standing orders, this debate should be taking place around the common pause day. The fact that there are only two Tories and one Liberal in this place is one of the reasons that --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member knows well that's not a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: This member from Durham, who's famous for garbage dumps, can't even understand that the responsibility for keeping quorum is with his government. I mean, let's just give up. We've told them that 25 times. They just clearly do not want to know. I move on.

Mr Klopp: It's 20 members, period.

Mr Stockwell: Just read it, Mr Klopp, if that's a possibility. Just read it and it'll be very clear: 20 members of the government. Go ask your House leader whether or not those are the rules, whether that's what the standing traditions have been.

I move on. This is Mr Robert K. Rae, QC, again about Sunday shopping: "If we are going to stop the flow, the best and most effective way to do it is for this House to determine how much activity of a commercial kind do we want on a Sunday and to say that, as a group in this province, these are the rules of the game and these are the rules we are expected to live up to."

He decided that. We as a province can decide how much activity. Mr Rae decided that. I'm not sure he was really thinking about open, full-blown Sunday shopping when he said this but he's decided how much activity: all the activity we can muster. Everybody can open. Everybody can be forced to work. Nobody has to take a day off. You owe it all to the boss. You've got to go in to work. Everything he stood for is chopped liver.

The question is, how do I feel about it? When I was campaigning on this issue, unlike the members opposite, I told people that I was in favour of Sunday shopping and I'm quite certain others on this side of the House told people they were in favour of Sunday shopping. I think we lost some votes because we told people the truth. You see, that's where I stood on this issue.

The difference between where I stood and the people on this side of the House was that we told them the truth and it cost us votes. What you did was not tell them where your position was on this issue, and it didn't cost you any votes until you got to this Legislature, comfortably in power, and then you told people the truth. The truth is that you had no plank on Sunday shopping; you had no position. It was as movable as the sand on the beach. So I think that's the difference and that's why I'm coming about on this issue, because when we campaigned we told them where we stood. You did not tell them where you stood. You were hardly forthright and less than honest, in my opinion.

Moving on: Here he goes on, "That argument, if I may say so, is just about the stupidest argument I think I've heard from the lips of the Attorney General." Now, he said the Attorney General's arguments are stupid surrounding Sunday shopping. "I ask members to think about it for a moment. First of all, the government says: 'We are going to allow all municipalities to pass their own rules, and they can pass whatever rules they like. If Metropolitan Toronto wants to say that stores on the east side of the street can be open but stores on the west side cannot be open, it can do that. If they want to say that stores of a certain size can be open but other stores cannot be open, or if they want to say that certain stores can be open on every other Sunday but other stores have to be open on the other Sunday, they can say that. We have given the power to the municipalities to do whatever they like."'

He was opposed to Sunday shopping. He'd be better off to give the municipalities the power. You'd hold truer to your form, you'd hold truer to your NDP philosophies, you'd hold truer to your party policies if you gave anyone else this decision except yourselves, because your position is totally opposite to what you said your position was. And you're chastising another government. You're chastising municipalities not having the ability to withstand public pressure. You people folded under public pressure and caved on one of the major principles you campaigned on last election: a common pause day.

Mr Perruzza: Do I sense a note of anger?

Mr Stockwell: There's more than anger. The member says, is there anger? Yes, there's anger. There's anger because you had the nerve to go out there and tell them you were opposed. You had the nerve to go around this province collecting all those votes that went with it. You had the nerve to take the moral high ground and suggest to the people in this province that you were the only ones who had the noble thoughts and the correct practices in place to protect them. Yes, that makes me angry,

I say to the member for Downsview. Yes, that makes me angry, because it's pious, it's immoral and it's dishonest. Yes. And that not only makes me angry; it makes the people of this province angry.

"Then the Attorney General says: 'And this makes the law more enforceable.' Members should think about that thought for a moment, sustain it in their heads for a second, and at the same time think of the realities of those store owners who want to stay open regardless." He goes on: "Let me suggest that Mr Magder, whose name is well known to members of the House, who is an individual who has challenged the law consistently, is not going to be satisfied with any law in Metropolitan Toronto that does not give him exactly what he wants." Well, he didn't have to worry about Metropolitan Toronto; you gave him exactly what he wanted. "Mr Magder believes he has a right to open on Sundays, that it is his commercial right, and he intends to exercise that, come hell or high water. He has made that very clear.

"I might add that this law, in its entire stupidity, also allows municipalities to set the level of the fine for stores that are going to be deciding whether or not to comply with this legislation."

Don't worry about the laws any more, Mr Speaker. Under their legislation, anybody can open any time, 8 till 4, 9 till 5, on a Sunday.

He goes on: "I say to the Solicitor General that one of the results of the committee inquiry, which my colleague from Etobicoke was so active on, was simply to say: 'Then let's make the fines real, and if the fines are real, let's enforce those fines.' Let's remind ourselves, after all, why we are scuttling around embarrassed about a law which the Supreme Court of Canada in a very recent decision has said is constitutional, OK and in keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and entirely within the jurisdiction of provincial government to legislate."

He wasn't even bound to open under legislation. He himself said so during the second reading of this debate with the Liberals.

Now you get into the real borderline hilarious stuff from Robert K. Rae, QC. First off, and this is the best of all --

Mr Perruzza: What's the K for?

Mr Stockwell: I still don't know.

First off, he says, to start this paragraph, "I am a realist." Now, can you get that? This is from a guy who's opposed to Sunday shopping because he doesn't believe it will add to the province of Ontario family. He thinks it will cut away at the fabric and the democratic right of people to choose, so he starts one of his paragraphs with, "I am a realist." He may be a lot of things, but the last thing anyone would call him at this time would be a realist.

"I am a realist. We know that when a Premier has in a sense said, 'This is it, this is my position, I don't want to be humiliated or embarrassed by having to change my mind," all I can say is that I hope the government listens to what is being told by the community." Robert K. Rae, QC, said this as leader of the opposition party.

The guy's changed his mind more often than his socks and he has the nerve to suggest he doesn't want to be humiliated or embarrassed, the Premier, about changing his mind.

I go on. The part-time Minister of Environment's here. I'm glad to see him.

The third reading came into effect some time later and Mr Rae got up and, not wanting to just satisfy himself with these particular thoughts on the public agenda, he offered us even more concrete examples of exactly how far he strayed from his socialist doctrine. He moves on. His third reading was even more embarrassing than the second reading. He even went further in some of these comments, which really is unbelievable.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Why I'm reading this is because I think it's important for the people of this province to realize --

1700

Mr Wiseman: Reading it because you can't make it up.

Mr Stockwell: I couldn't make this up. You're absolutely right. I say to the member opposite from Durham, I couldn't even begin to make this stuff up. Only Robert K. Rae, QC, could possibly make up this kind of stuff and then have the nerve to stand here as Premier and say: "Everything I told you in opposition with respect to Sunday shopping was just not true. Everything I said in opposition about family, about the right to choose between working and not working, about not having to take orders from the boss one day a week, everything I said was simply not the case, because now, in government, I've thoroughly and completely changed my mind."

I move on. Mr Rae, on third reading, starts out: "'The Progressive Conservatives are prepared to stand up and be counted to say we must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand."' Well, here he is chastising my party, which was the third party at the time, because they're going to stand up and say we must change the law for Sunday shopping and make it more open and more widespread. He's chastising us.

"That was the position of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party back in 1986." He's chiding us.

"I think it fair to say, in the interests of historical accuracy, that as soon as he made this speech and this statement to the press, he was mugged by his colleagues. In fact, they required him to set up a special task force under the leadership of Terry O'Connor, which task force sat and recommended that the common pause day be retained and that there be some changes in the law." The law? To expand Sunday shopping.

He moves on. "Liberals signed that report," and now he's chastising the government for signing a report about the common pause day. Mr Robert K. Rae, QC, goes on, "Liberals signed that report, the same Liberals we see face to face now." You see, he's looking across at the Liberals, who had changed their mind, and he's looking across at them, starting to jab. He's going on: "...Liberals we see face to face, the same ones we see in the corridors, the same people. Some of them have different titles." You see, he's chiding them because now that they're in government, now they have ministerial titles, they've changed their mind. He thinks this is awful. He as opposition leader thinks this is just reprehensible. He doesn't know how people can move from this side of the House to that side of the House and change their thinking.

Holy smokes, this is Robert K. Rae, QC, Mr Flip-Flop, chiding anybody for changing their mind. He goes on: "But they are all the same folks and their signatures are remarkably similar to the signatures that they had when they signed this report.

"They were in favour of a common pause day before the election in 1987. They said they agreed with the approach to a common pause day in 1987. I'm not talking about 1787 or 1887. I am talking about a Liberal Party that is totally different from the one we see before us. I am talking about people who are still members of this House."

You know, this is unbelievable. This man has the nerve to stand up and pass legislation after saying this in this Legislature, after saying this about the previous administration? Unbelievable.

"The Premier said that a common pause day was the platform upon which he wanted to be elected by the people of Ontario. It was not a big issue for him. He wanted to make that clear. It was not a priority for the government, one way or the other. He wanted to make that clear. But it was still one which he accepted and which he thought was a fair compromise."

Well, this wasn't a big deal for Mr Peterson, and he got chastised by Mr Rae. This was a big deal for you, you and your common pause day and your association with the unions and so on, that insisted a common pause day be kept. Your leader in opposition was chastising the then Liberal government for changing its mind on the common pause day. My, how quickly the tables have turned. My, how incredibly Robert K. Rae, QC, can forget where he stood on something as important as a common pause day to the people of Ontario.

This is Robert K. Rae, QC, continuing: "Let me say that if the principle of a common day of rest was good enough to get the Premier elected in 1987, it ought to be good enough for the Premier and the Liberal government in 1989. That is the principle, the word that has been broken, the commitment that has been shattered." Robert K. Rae, QC, to the Liberal government in 1989.

This is what he said in opposition. This is what he said about the Liberal government changing its mind on Sunday shopping. I'll read that again for effect alone. "Let me say," speaking to Mr Peterson --

Mr Wiseman: You are alone. Nobody's listening to you.

Mr Stockwell: No, I think there are people listening to me, all kinds of people out there in the province of Ontario, all kinds of people who want to listen to me and all the members opposite on the budget's $2-billion tax grab, all kinds of people in this province who want to hear from us about the flip-flops, the changes in position, the total attitudinal change from this government with respect to policies.

I'm not really sure how you as a member of the New Democratic Party can sit in this Legislature to this day after the flip-flops and changes that your government has taken on any practical principle that you stood for. Nothing at any concrete level of party principle has been maintained and stayed, and you are the people who pretended to protect the high road and the small person. You, my friend, should be ashamed of yourself. I move on.

Mr Rae said, "Let me say that if the principle of a common day of rest was good enough to get the Premier elected in 1987" -- you know what, I can just substitute Bob Rae's words; I can just substitute the dates. You see, I'll just change the dates here, "Let me say that if the principle of a common day of rest was good enough to get the Premier elected in 1990, it ought to be good enough for the Premier and the NDP government in 1993." This is the principle, the word that is being broken, the commitment that has been shattered. Those are Bob Rae's words. All I did was change the dates. That's what a horrific, horrendous policy reversal this government has made on one of its planks: common pause day. Now they're creating a pay pause day. Maybe they should have them on Sundays. Maybe that's one way of keeping both promises.

Mr Mills: How much more of this punishment?

Mr Stockwell: About 25 minutes and 26 seconds. I don't know why the members opposite consider this punishment. I think you would be very interested in hearing what your Premier had to say about Sunday shopping in opposition.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, but you're dwelling on it.

Mr Stockwell: Of course I'm dwelling on it. The member from Yorkview suggests that I and the member opposite are dwelling on what the Premier said in opposition with respect to Sunday shopping. Of course I'm dwelling on it. Of course I'm reading it. This is a speech, verbatim from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Robert K. Rae, QC, in opposition. Of course I'm dwelling on it. Can't you see the complete lack of integrity, the complete change in moral values, the complete sellout to the corporate hierarchies in this province that has taken place? I think you, of all people, should be very interested in and keen on hearing exactly what your leader said in opposition. My goodness, you'd think they'd want to get a little bit of knowledge of exactly how far they've strayed from party policy. Now you know why the rank and file in your party are upset. Now you know why the unions aren't going to have checkoffs any more. Now you know why you're at 8% in the popular vote. This is why. This is exactly why, because you said these things over here. You had the nerve to stand up and condemn governments, and you're worse. You're doing exactly the same thing with all these contemptible words in opposition.

Mr Mammoliti: But how are you voting?

Mr Stockwell: The member from Yorkview, having a memory problem, asked me how I'm voting again and I'll tell him I'm still in favour. And again the consistency thing is probably giving you a really hard time, you see, because in 1985 I was in favour and then in 1990 when the election was held I was in favour, and of course today I'm still in favour. That's probably a problem you have. You're not used to people being in favour of something for longer periods of time than half an hour. I move on.

Mr Perruzza: Wait till you cross the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Wait till I cross the floor. Well, on that day in 1995 when I cross the floor and sit on that side of the House, I still think I'll be in favour of Sunday shopping.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I hope that was gotten on Hansard.

Mr Rae went on, and this is really good. He said, "It would be democratic and exciting" -- you see, he thought this would be democratic and exciting -- "to perhaps give members a chance to express themselves." Well, here's a guy who isn't allowing debate on his budget. He thought that would be democratic and exciting. Well, today he doesn't think it's democratic and exciting. He's not giving us an opportunity to express our views on the budget, but back then this excited the man to hear people's views. Today he doesn't seem too excited about hearing our views on the budget, two days of debate.

1710

He goes on: "What is the principle behind these two bills, two very simple pieces of legislation which we are now being asked to deal with? In December 1987, I can remember the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour got up and delivered themselves of their package, saying what they were in favour of.

"My favourite comment by the Attorney General was that the major reason they had to introduce this legislation was because the old legislation was unenforceable. This is legislation that was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986. The case was not argued by the Attorney General that time, which may be why we won it. I would rather have had my affairs handled by Hamilton Burger than by the Attorney General, but that is another matter."

"What he said was, 'What this new law says is this: There is going to be a local option and I want you to listen to the various ways in which the municipalities are going to be able, according to this legislation, to deal with the question of Sunday shopping.'

"The member for Norfolk, who just spoke, said we should not even call it Sunday shopping; we should simply refer to it as the Retail Business Holidays Act and that to call it Sunday shopping in fact is a misnomer. This whole thing is called Sunday shopping by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, so that is what I am describing it as.

"I want you to listen to this wording, Mr Speaker, because you are a lawyer and you know how important the wording of the act is.

"'A bylaw or regulation under this section,

"'(a) may apply to any part or parts of the municipality or territory.'

"Oh," he goes on, "that is great. So you are going to select one part of the street and not another part of the street? That will be easy for municipalities to decide, that will be a cinch."

Well, he went even further. He decided not just a municipality, not just a region, not just one side of the street or the other side; everybody gets opened in Bob Rae's Ontario. Everybody gets to work on Sundays. "What I said when I was in opposition, never mind, I didn't mean it. I was only an irresponsible leader of the official opposition. I didn't really think that I would actually have to implement these policies," because if he did how could he have possibly said this kind of stuff.

He goes on:

"Second, we heard from the member for Halton Centre who said that the only people who would be working on Sunday would be volunteers. My party and I have often been described by members opposite, by members of the other party, and indeed by many people as people who do not have a great deal of knowledge of how the world of business works." Well, that hasn't changed.

"Mr Speaker, I want to ask you to form a mental picture in your head, if you would, and hold it there for a moment" -- here's Bob Rae talking about why it is impossible to have Sunday shopping in Ontario -- "of a small retail establishment that is in a mall. The mall is opening on a Sunday. The small retail firm selling shoes, whatever it may be, has two or three employees. Does anybody seriously think that there are going to be employees lining up, volunteering and saying, 'Please, choose me to work on Sunday and choose me to work the next Sunday and the next Sunday'? What do you think the response is going to be from the employer who says, 'I have to come in on Sunday, so therefore you come in on Sunday' when some person says: 'No, I don't want to come in. I do not think that is reasonable'?"

When Robert K. Rae, QC, was Leader of the Opposition, what he was saying in this paragraph was, it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to write legislation that would allow people to opt out of working on Sunday. Now, as leader of the NDP government, where his policies have changed and he's allowing wide-open Sunday shopping, now this same man who in opposition said it's impossible to write legislation that would protect people suddenly decides he can write legislation that will protect people. Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

"The minister talked for a long time about he was going to grant us the right to refuse, but what has he done?" What has Premier Rae done? "He has not given us the right to refuse. He has loaded it and corralled it with so many exemptions and so much work for lawyers, that the people who are going to be working harder on Sunday than anybody else as a result of this are lawyers and arbitrators who are going to have a field day with this legislation. They have to go through it all -- the history of the work relationship, whether the employer has or has not made reasonable efforts, the existence of an emergency situation and all the rest of it."

This from a man who's protecting nobody on Sunday from working -- nobody; everybody has to work -- and he complained about legislation that was trying to protect people. This is how far you've strayed, totally strayed off base.

Robert K. Rae, QC, continues, as Leader of the Opposition --

Mr Perruzza: Hey, what's the K for?

Mr Stockwell: I still don't know what the K is for, and the member from Downsview is finding this a very interesting thing. Why don't you just walk down to the corner office and ask somebody?

Mr Perruzza: Okay. What's the Q and C for?

Mr Stockwell: QC is Queen's Counsel.

Mr Perruzza: Oh, you know that?

Mr Stockwell: I'm glad you asked that question. Any more tough ones, please don't hesitate.

"I want to remind members of what this government said when it took Paul Magder to court. Do you know that this government said? It said the reason that this law is constitutional and not simply a law to enforce the religious Sabbath of one religion or another, is because it is essentially designed as labour legislation to protect working people. I'm here to say that the best way to protect the working people in the retail trade is to keep stores shut and to make sure they do not have to work. That is the best labour legislation you could have."

Mr Rae said the best labour legislation any government can introduce as a government in the province of Ontario is to keep the stores shut and therefore people won't have to work. What is one of the quickest acts? They're opening the stores. Under this government, more stores are open, more hours are worked without any labour legislation to protect any of those people from working that Mr Rae was so concerned about.

You almost get the impression that this member from York South, this leader of the opposition party, was simply saying things to get elected. After reading the Agenda for People, you're almost certain that he holds nothing true. He holds no party policies true. He holds no party discipline, no plank, no platform in this party close to his heart. It's all designed to get him elected.

"For the first time in recent years, a Minister of Labour has introduced changes which in fact are going to take away from the rights of working people and not add to them.

"I want to say to the members of the Liberal Party, because I know we are approaching the time when they are going to be making up their minds on a free vote, that they have been given a lot of bunk information from their own minister. For example, in the literature she handed out, there is a question-and-answer section:

"Question: Are there any benefits to Sunday shopping?

"Answer: Yes, experience in other jurisdictions.

"Then they have the myth that allowing Sunday openings will just spread six days of consumer spending over seven days. Not true. What is the basis for this? A recent study by Clayton Research Associates of Toronto entitled The Impact of Sunday Shopping in Alberta, 1982-1986. My staff phoned the Ministry of the Solicitor General and said: 'Have you got this study?' They said, 'No, we don't have it, but Clayton has it.' We phone up Clayton and say, 'Clayton, have you got this study?' Clayton says, 'There is no such study.' It does not exist. It is not there, so the foundation on which this legislation was put forward is false and untrue."

We have the Premier suggesting there's no study that says opening Sundays is going to allow any more shopping, is going to generate any more revenue. That's what his position was. He just said in this speech, "Opening on Sunday isn't going to generate any more spending." But that's one of the reasons why this Premier introduced legislation to have the common pause day revoked.

I think the members opposite should hear this one, it's a very interesting paragraph: Robert K. Rae, QC, leader of the opposition party on the Liberal motion for Sunday shopping. He says:

"I want to come back to a basic point and that is this: When we all go back to our constituencies, as we do, we will all have a sense that there is a common value that all of us share in being together as much as possible with our families.

"I want to read to members just one letter that was written by a schoolgirl in Etobicoke. Katherine Silviera writes" -- he's reading a letter now, Mr Robert K. Rae, that he received on Sunday shopping:

"'I think that shopping on Sunday will destroy our families because moms, dads, brothers and sisters will be forced to work and be away from home. My mother works at Eaton's Sherway. She already has to work one night a week and if she works on Sunday, we won't be able to get to mass, eat dinner together or do girl things that ladies do. Please vote no for Sunday shopping."

Robert K. Rae, QC, read this into the record, the man who is in fact the proponent, the leader, of Sunday shopping in Ontario.

"I think that Sunday has taken on a meaning and a value that really transcends any of our common religions" -- this is Robert K. Rae again -- "and that value is the fact that it is a common day in which as many of us as possible can be at home. It is a day when we do not have to obey the boss. It is a day when we do not have to do as we are told by employers. It is a day when we can be with our families. It is a day when we do not have to worry about commercialism. It is a day when we do not have to shop. It is a day when we can simply be together and not be driven by: 'Buy, buy, buy. Shop, shop, shop.' It is a day when we can in fact take some time. We can have lunch that can last for a couple of hours. We can go for an afternoon in the park and spend all that time together.

"Some will say, 'None of that will change.' I want to say to the members that some of it might change. In fact, I think if we follow the logic of this legislation, some of that will change.

1720

"On balance, I want to say that if we have to cast a vote one way or the other in favour of more time with families on Sundays or less time with families on Sundays -- I do not regard it as meaning, as the Minister of Labour has said on many occasions, 'This doesn't mean the end of family.' Of course it does not mean the end of family. That is not the issue."

Robert K. Rae went on to say: "The issue is whether we are strengthening the family. The issue is whether we are strengthening time off. The issue is whether, on balance, we are doing a little more for working people or a little less for working people, whether we are doing a little more for commercialism or a little less for commercialism. That is really what we are left with.

"I say to those members who are no doubt whipped into shape now and eager and prepared to vote and to do nothing but vote on this particular issue, I think they are making the wrong decision." Robert K. Rae in opposition: "I think they are making the wrong decision. We have fought this battle hard and we have fought it long for one simple reason: We think the legislation is bad. While we never felt we were in a position numerically to defeat the legislation, we did feel we were strong enough and in good enough shape that we could in fact hold it up long enough to give the opposition a chance to form.

"That is why I say to you, Mr Speaker, that because the government has dropped the ball and given it to the local level of government, because it decided to avoid its responsibilities, because it has broken its election promises...I say to the member for Ottawa West who has been interrupting me, because of that simple fact, this battle is not at all over. This battle in fact has just begun. It will be fought on the streets; it will be fought in terms of relations among businesses, consumers, working people and business establishments that want to open and other small businesses that do not."

He finally sums up: "In that fight, this Liberal government is causing far more trouble than this issue deserves, or far more trouble than municipal councils or workers want. It is putting incredible pressure on people to do things they do not want to do. I say to the minister, it is my feeling and my understanding that the willingness to fight is there, and the fight has just begun."

So, Mr Speaker, Sunday shopping has now reached what is an incredibly ironic situation, absolutely, breathtakingly, astoundingly ironic. Here we have two speeches delivered, two very partisan, personal -- talking about his Sundays and his constituents' Sundays, and the right that no one has to answer to the boss seven days a week. Two very partisan and, I might add, probably very good speeches in opposition to Sunday shopping, and we have this Premier who made these speeches in opposition, telling the people in the province of Ontario that: "What I told you in the election of 1990, what I told you in the election of 1987, what I told you in the election of 1985 and 1981, I really didn't mean. I didn't mean it because I wasn't in power."

So if we in opposition tend to get a little angry about some of these issues like casino gambling and Sunday shopping and government-run auto insurance -- and the list is endless -- and integrity in caucus, in cabinet and conflicts of interest, you can understand why, because we in opposition were subjected to this kind of blather from the then Leader of the Opposition about the moral high ground he had staked out for himself and his party when it came to issues that affected the small people, the small businesses and the unemployed of this province. When it came to talking about people and lottery systems, about a tax on the poor, the same Premier's the one introducing casino gambling.

You can really understand why, as opposition members, we have a little bit of angst and a little bit of anger in our speeches, because we had to sit through, at municipal or provincial levels, and listen to this kind of socialist pap that had about this much meaning.

We come today -- and I would have much rather been debating the budget today, because we come to today and we are told by the Premier, and the House leader, that this assembly, this Legislature, will not be given the same opportunity to debate the budget that he was afforded as Leader of the Opposition, the same opportunity to make the speeches that he made like this, the same opportunity to debate, condemn, if necessary, applaud the government on financial and revenue measures, the same opportunity he was given on 13 days worth of hearings in 1988, the same opportunity this leader was given to make a complete ass of himself with respect to Sunday shopping and his position in opposition and his position in government.

We, as the third party, find the government's motives and changes reprehensible. But the least consideration that can be given us, as a third-party opposition, and you, as Speaker, to the minority viewpoint, is an opportunity to debate these important issues, like a $2-billion tax grab, in a public forum that allows us to go on the record and explain why we are so opposed to him and this government.

Not only has this government flip-flopped, changed and redesigned all its policies, it forgot one of the most important things of where it stood in opposition. They stood to protect the minority viewpoint. They stood for the democratic right to be heard. The most important attack that we in opposition sense and feel from this government is the attack on our ability to be heard on issues of the day that are important.

They changed the rules that don't allow us to speak at length. They've changed the rules to close down debate. They moved closure in some sessions more often than governments did in entire terms. They closed down debate on the budget after two days. They closed down debate last year on a budget after two days. They do this in almost a mocking gesture. They do this as once the protectors of the underdog, as once the protectors of the minority, as the ones who once said lotteries are a tax on the poor, ones who once said Sunday shopping is oppressing the working people and the working people don't deserve to go in and work on Sundays, the ones who said you couldn't introduce legislation to protect people from working on Sundays.

In conclusion, if there's some degree of anger, I think it comes, by at least myself and maybe this caucus, honestly, because the position that you enunciated in your 1990 election campaign and the position that you put down on paper have totally reversed and changed. Anything that you stood for has so dramatically changed, it leaves me with a sense that you didn't mean any of it. All you were trying to do was get elected, and now that you're elected, you're messing up so badly, practically the vast majority of people in this province -- not practically: The vast majority of people in this province wished we had a right of recall, wished we had a right to recall every one of you, because they think you're messing things up far worse than they could have been.

This Sunday shopping issue is not on the front burner. It's not the big issue it was some five, six, seven, eight years ago. But it's very indicative and tells a very truthful story about exactly where the principles of this government are and where the principles of this government will be in the future.

I say to all the constituents out there, next time they vote in a provincial election, be very clear about how and what this government is going to say about how and what it will do in government, because what it says on the campaign trail and what it does in the Legislature, according to Bob Rae and Sunday shopping, are two very completely, distinctly different things.

Mr Mills: I've listened to the member for Etobicoke West partly today and before, I believe for 90 minutes almost. I would just like to tell him that I think he's missed his calling. I think he should be in musicals, because the comments that he's made here today have absolutely no relation to 1993.

1730

This Sunday shopping is not an issue in the social agenda any more. People want this government to talk about jobs and about the economy. People have already said, 72% of them in the last Gallup poll, that they want Sunday shopping. This government has taken great steps to protect the working people who work in the stores; they're protected. The government has taken steps to protect the store owners in the malls who, by their lease agreements, are no longer forced to remain open.

I can remember going around the province on the committee for Bill 115, and every night I was badgered by the member for Oakville South, the Conservative, who said to me: "Gord, for goodness' sake, talk some sense. We need this Sunday shopping open." There wasn't a night went by that I wasn't badgered by the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara. He said, "Why don't you talk some sense into your people?"

We have proven that we listen to the people. The people have spoken that they want to shop on Sunday. I think it behooves a responsible government to listen to the people, to act upon what they've said, and this is what we've done. We have decided that the people of the province of Ontario want to shop on Sunday.

I listened to that nonsense the member for Etobicoke went on and on about -- "Mr Rae, QC" -- and really it has no point.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David.

Mr Murphy: I'm pleased to be able to follow the fine comments from the member of Etobicoke West. I think his contribution is very valuable and I'm sure, after the 1995 election, when we're in government, we'd be pleased to consult with him as Leader of the Opposition.

But let me say that I look forward to participating in this debate in a more fulsome way. I will be voting for it. I think it's a good thing that we have free votes in this House from time to time, although I think there are some particular aspects of how that free vote is going to operate in the circumstance that concerns me, which is particularly the fact that the law is not being enforced as it stands on the books because of the direction of the Solicitor General to the law-enforcement officials in communities all across the province.

Let me say too, though, that I agree with the member from Etobicoke West and I'm concerned that this is the bill we're dealing with today. I think the province wants to hear debate and discussion about concerns related to issues like the budget and other bills that are more important to the people. They want to hear what we and the members of the government and members of the third party have to say about those issues. I think frankly, by and large, the public thinks that the Sunday shopping bill has already been passed, to be honest with you.

I think it's unfortunate that this bill was not dealt with last June or last session. I think it's, frankly, a bit of a reflection on the inability of the government to manage its legislative timetable that we are now, a year after its introduction, within a few days, only now debating it in second reading. I look forward to developing those themes further when I get a chance to speak.

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: I want to respond to the member for Etobicoke West in saying that, first of all, I'm opposed to the bill and I'll be voting opposed to this. But I can't understand why, for an hour and a half, he did nothing but criticize the Premier. He didn't give us any real arguments towards this. He didn't spend a few minutes to talk about why he's in favour of it and how he's going to vote in favour of this. So while he's going to vote in favour of this, he did nothing but criticize the Premier for an hour and a half in this place. To me, that's not constructive.

He didn't mention that the Premier has opened up the vote in this place. I can tell you that if I respect any Premier, I respect the Premier who understands an issue that is so important that he would open it up to a free vote.

Mr Stockwell: It was a free vote with the Liberals.

Mr Mammoliti: It doesn't matter. I would still respect any Premier for doing that.

The member for Etobicoke West, I think, had nothing else to do tonight, had nothing else to do for the half-hour that he spoke a few weeks ago on this issue, and proved that tonight by doing nothing but criticizing.

I will be voting opposed to this because I firmly believe, as I believed three years ago and as I believed four and five years go, that Sunday shopping does not help the economy and does nothing but ruin families. Proof of that -- and I hope to debate this in the future -- will be some examples that I'll be using perhaps in my riding of families who have been ruined because of the Sunday shopping.

The Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

Mr Huget: I'm pleased to offer my comments on the remarks from the member from Etobicoke West, a member, by the way, whom I consider to be a very bright fellow. I'm somewhat disappointed -- in fact I find it rather tragic -- that a speech of that duration would be reduced to simply talking about old Hansard and discussions of years ago.

The unfortunate thing is that I didn't hear any debate, much like the member from St George-St David, who I believe is also concerned about a relevant debate on this issue. I didn't hear any of the issues debated. I didn't hear anything about the impact on retail and the retail economy in this province. I didn't hear anything about the impact, positive or negative, about the entire retail sector, including employers and employees. I heard nothing about the protection afforded to retail workers in the province. I heard nothing about the protection afforded to small retailers who have the ability now for the first time to not comply with leases that would force them to open on Sunday. I heard none of those issues addressed.

While I find, I guess, journeys into history interesting, to a point, I have to question the relevance in today's debate. I'm looking forward to seeing some debate by the participants in this House about the issues and about those issues as they affect people today in this province. They are serious issues. There are large questions and I think still a large section of disagreement in the province of whether or not this is the way the province should be going or its people should be going or its economic activity should be going.

I would have liked to have heard some of the comments of perhaps his constituents in Etobicoke West and Mr Chiarelli's constituents, the speaker before him from the opposition party in Ottawa West. I would have liked to have heard some of those comments, some of those remarks, some of those problems, some of those issues addressed. All I heard from Mr Chiarelli and from Mr Stockwell were mean-spirited attacks on history.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Stockwell: Well, mean-spirited attacks on history? I don't know how just reading Hansard can be a mean-spirited attack on history. These words were said by Robert K. Rae, QC. The person who said them must have been mean-spirited at the time, if you confused them that way.

I move on. The issues, yes, were addressed. I guess they just weren't listening. The talk about protection -- the Leader of the Opposition of the day and Premier at the time said that it was impossible to protect people against Sunday shopping. The member for Sarnia simply wasn't listening or doesn't care to hear, much like right now. It was impossible to protect people if they're going to be forced to work. It was addressed in there. They were going to be forced to work.

The difficulty is, this mean-spirited attack on history, this was the verbiage used by Mr Rae in opposition. Maybe the point to be made here is, you don't like hearing it, not that you didn't hear anything of interest. You just don't like hearing it.

I move on. The member from Durham suggests that 72% are in favour of Sunday shopping. Well, I understood this party, when it was in opposition, didn't read polls. Your party platform policies weren't based on polls. Now, when you get into government, your policy platforms, your policies by your rank and file, are all based on polls. My, how times have changed. You didn't read polls before. You didn't measure polls on party policy.

Maybe you didn't like hearing this stuff. I understand that. But it's my job to remind you of what you said, and I can understand that if I had taken a complete, an absolute about-face, looked absolutely ridiculous about reading this speech into the record, I'd be embarrassed too. I understand why you're embarrassed. But to make a mean-spirited attack on history? It's not revision. It's not changing history. I just read it. I would be as embarrassed as you are if someone could read this about my party.

1740

The Speaker: I recognize in rotation the member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: It's indeed a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I'd like to say at the outset that I'm not going to be supporting the Sunday shopping legislation, in fact I'm going to be voting against it, and I'm going to outline some of the reasons why I'm going to be voting against it in just a few moments.

But following the member from Etobicoke, I can't help but note how he refuses to recognize some of the realities that I think you have to deal with, you know. You make the transition from opposition to government, you make the transition, I guess, from private life to government and you have to govern for all of the people and all of the province.

I think that we as individuals can afford the luxury to bring to this place private opinions and opinions that are far more reflective of our own individual constituencies, but I think that our executive, the Premier and the executive council of this province, the cabinet, have to be far more reflective of the entire population, so sometimes the decisions that they undertake as executive members, as governors, as premiers, as cabinet ministers, are not consistent with the perhaps prior opinions that they voiced.

The member from Etobicoke is a Conservative member of this Legislature, and I can tell you that as I listened in 1984, before Mulroney got elected federally, he talked about no GST, he talked about no free trade, but when he became Prime Minister -- I guess the member for Etobicoke would have us believe that somehow Conservatives are the only ones that are true to their commitments and true to their words. Well, I can tell him, if he's missed some of the headlines in the media and on television and so on, he'll note that in fact Mulroney went from a no free trade position to a North American free trade position, from a no GST position to a "Tax everybody right across the board," irrespective of how much you make and what you can afford to pay.

But having said that, I'm going to voice my own very individualized view and a view that I believe is reflective certainly of a good chunk of the population in my particular riding.

I guess when you talk about Sunday shopping you can make a number of arguments, and we've all essentially heard them. We've debated the issues in our own kitchens and in our own living rooms with our own families and some of us have debated them with extended families and some of us have had the luxury to be able to debate the issue in the broader public as a whole, and we all know the arguments.

There are arguments that can be made that reflect the fairness for families, and there certainly is a fundamental family issue that can be made with respect to Sunday shopping. We can all make the money arguments, and I guess I'm no different, and I'll attempt to try to reflect some of that as well here this afternoon. We've all heard the issue of public opinion and the argument of public opinion and the issue of civil disobedience, that if the public overwhelmingly is moving in a certain direction and if they are in some way refusing to obey the laws as set out, then to some degree it's incumbent upon public institutions and certainly governments to move with the public and obviously to reflect the public.

But I don't think I could talk about Sunday shopping here this afternoon if I didn't talk about my own personal experience with this particular issue. I remember, as a young boy growing up -- and I come from an immigrant family; my family immigrated to this province and to this country when I was nine years old. I guess, as most immigrant families and as most working-class families, there are certain luxuries that you can't afford, but you do come to appreciate and you do come to respect those times when you're able to come together, because there is a bonding that takes place during those specific events. I can remember in my own family that Sunday certainly was one of those days. In fact, quite frankly, for us it was the only day.

I don't ever recall my parents being able to afford for the four of us -- I have a sister and two younger brothers -- the ability to take us on a Florida holiday for a week or two weeks to spend together. I don't ever recall a time where we could scoot on up to the Muskokas, where we could spend a weekend in a retreat setting so that we could come together as a group in the way that we have come together. What we could afford to do was that on Sundays we would essentially, all of us, be at home. My father was a construction worker, a carpenter. He worked five days a week -- six days a week, Saturdays as well. My mother worked in many different places and she worked very much in the home as well.

So my own personal experience -- and I talk about my experience because I think that my experience is very representative of most working families, both in the province of Ontario and in the rest of Canada itself. There are many families that can't afford time off as a group to be able to come together as a family and to be able to celebrate in many of the things that families are able to do.

I bring my own experience to my decision-making, and I fundamentally believe that my own experience is fairly indicative of the experience of many families and of many of the families in my own riding of Downsview. As a result of that, I am not going to be supporting this particular legislation, because I don't believe for one minute that you can, with any legislation, protect people from being forced to work. This is an issue that will affect primarily and predominantly the working poor and families that won't be able to afford retreats and times on their own.

I have so much more to be able to say on this particular subject, but I understand and I have been slipped a note here which suggests that the Lieutenant Governor is waiting to give assent to bills and he is waiting to come into this House. So what I'm going to do is simply adjourn the debate so that I can rise again and speak to this another day.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member is quite correct; His Honour the Lieutenant Governor awaits to give royal assent to certain bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

Hon Henry N.R. Jackman (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 1, An Act to amend The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977 and the University Foundations Act, 1992 / Loi modifiant la loi intitulée The Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977 et la Loi de 1992 sur les fondations universitaires

Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long-Term Care / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.

His Honour was then pleased to retire.

The Speaker: It being nearly 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1755.

June 1, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

COR BAL

COURT REPORTERS

HEALTH CARE

INJURED WORKERS

EASTERN ONTARIO

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

FOREST INDUSTRY

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

FOREST INDUSTRY

BUDGET DEBATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

ASSISTED HOUSING

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

INSURANCE TAX

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION POLICY

RECOGNITION OF TORONTO BLUE JAYS

TOURISM INDUSTRY

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

LIBRARY GRANTS

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

GAMBLING

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL VICTORY BOND PROGRAM

GAMBLING

GAMBLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GRAVENHURST OPERA HOUSE

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GAMBLING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE