Hansard Transcript 1993-Jun-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Bill 18, An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder / Loi permettant aux malades chroniques d'installer leur propre téléviseur ou leur propre combiné téléviseur-magnétoscope à vidéo-cassette.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Timiskaming will have 10 minutes to open up remarks. Then every official party within the Legislature will have 15 minutes, with the honourable member for Timiskaming having two minutes to wrap up.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Today, I'm very pleased to be able to stand in my place and to really take advantage of a wonderful procedure that we have in the Ontario Legislature that many legislatures right across the world don't have, and that is the opportunity for a legislator in this place to bring up an issue that is important to one of his constituents and, I hope, to many people.

In talking about the bill today, what I want to say is that when you read the bill, it's very simple, and maybe to some it might appear to be inconsequential, but to many it is not inconsequential, because what we're talking about is equality of treatment and we're talking about caring.

The situation that I have found and that has been brought to my attention by a Mr Sampson in Kirkland Lake is that when he was trying to pursue permission from the hospital in which his wife Eleanor finds herself in the chronic ward to install -- the family wanted to buy a gift for Eleanor of a TV, and in this case they wanted a TV combination videocassette recorder so that she could play movies. She ran into a policy at that hospital that many hospitals in Ontario have, and that is that many hospitals have contractual arrangements with companies that basically rent TVs only to their patients.

I am going to show a lot of exceptions to that this morning. There are some excellent hospital policies out there in Ontario, and what I want to do today is to persuade the other hospitals to change those policies.

In fact, Mrs Sampson is unable to supply her own television set, and the rental in a lot of these hospitals and in her hospital in particular is $82 a month. Her family has to pay on her behalf $82 a month for her to have the "privilege" to watch television.

I guess this really begs the question of why this is important, and I just would like to talk about some of her reasons for a moment before I get on to the general subject of this.

First of all, I made the first point that for many people the rental of a television at this exorbitant price, $82 a month, is extremely high. In fact, that would be for most people about 20% of their old age pension. I think that's an exorbitant amount of money to have to pay for the privilege, so-called, of watching television.

The rental units in hospitals are extremely small. In fact, most of them average around a seven-inch screen. Obviously, these are frail people, because they are in chronic wards, and they have difficulty in seeing such a small screen. The rental TVs will not allow a VCR to be attached; they don't have that capacity and most hospitals won't allow that to happen, so that extra enjoyment most of us have the privilege of, to have a movie, is not there for those patients.

Many chronic wards have large televisions established in rooms down the hall. They have, actually, very nice lounges in most chronic wards and other places where chronic patients find themselves, but again, some chronic patients are too frail and don't have the mobility to get down to those rooms. So they need the convenience to be able to have the availability of TV in their own rooms.

I guess it would be really the time to talk about who this affects, because as I'm initiating this proposal on behalf of Mr and Mrs Sampson in Kirkland Lake, there are many people out there today watching who are shut-ins, who find themselves, because of ill health, watching TV a lot. They find themselves in many respects in nursing homes and homes for the aged, in chronic care hospitals and chronic care wards of our acute care hospitals. Those people find themselves in a place that now has become their home.

I think that's the point of all this. Yes, hospitals are institutions and hospitals have to be run as businesses, but hospitals in the chronic care facility in that setting are these people's home. I think they should be allowed the regular accoutrements that we all feel comfortable in having, that we call home. Something basic today in an age of telecommunications and mass media, the ability to have one's own television that one purchases, so that this is not an additional cost to a hospital, I think should be allowed.

I'd like to say that the other reason I'm bringing this up is that, as you know, most hospitals have patient advocates. In this case, the decision was appealed to the patient advocate, and again, this request was overturned. That's why I feel today that I needed to take this another step and try to bring this through as a private member's bill.

When I started to look into this, I thought maybe this was just an isolated matter; I found it wasn't. I had one of my assistants -- as a matter of fact, my legislative intern, John Martelli -- start to do some research on this.

We looked at the chronic care hospitals. There are basically 19 hospitals in Ontario that are absolutely specialized to chronic care. Actually, 15 of those have policies that do allow their chronic care people to have their own television sets, so there's some very good news there, and/or their own VCRs, and I think that's great.

We couldn't call all the hospitals across Ontario, but we started to do a random sample of about 30 of them, and it looks like only about 40% of those do not allow patients to have their own television sets. So there obviously is a recognition out there that this is a need.

What I want to do today basically is to push the point, to try to influence those other hospitals to make this happen for their patients, because I think that's very important. What this really strikes is that there's a tremendous discrepancy out there in the rights and privileges, if you will, of chronic care patients in Ontario, and I think this should be straightened out.

I want to talk about why there might be some reluctance there. I have great sympathy for that. I used to be a chair of a hospital in my riding. I was a chair at a time in the early 1980s when hospitals were given the permission to derive revenue for themselves. In fact, they were really encouraged to derive revenue as much as they could, because hospitals are a business and we have to try to run them more businesslike and we have to make sure they're cost-effective. This is obviously one avenue that hospitals can use to raise revenue. In fact, I'm not against this very thing being applied to acute care patients.

Many of us go to hospital and we're maybe there for a couple of days or maybe a couple of weeks, and maybe it's not that much to ask to pay a rental of $5, $6, $7 or $8 a day, if it's only a few days, to watch television. I can see the hospital getting the revenue from that and especially from having to pay for the service of bringing that in, installing it and taking it out when it's only a short time period. But when somebody's in there for chronic care, I think it's very important that they be allowed to have their own TV set.

Before I conclude my opening remarks, Mr Speaker, I'd certainly like to tell you some of the remarks we've heard from people representing hospitals. These are the people who think what I'm doing today is not a very good idea.

We had one administrator say, "Listen, we're not running an entertainment centre here; we're trying to run a hospital." I'd like to say to that administrator: "Well, no, you're not in the entertainment business. You're in the caring business." I think we forget that sometimes, that if you're running a hospital, you have to do it in a businesslike manner, right, but you are in a caring business, and that's the point I want to make today.

Another hospital administrator said: "We've never had anyone ask us for their own personal TV and we sure don't encourage it. If one gets one, they'll all want it." Well, I'm here today to say as an advocate that I think they all should have them if they want them, especially if people can't afford $82 a month to supply their own television entertainment.

Another employee of another hospital said: "Are you kidding? This place is looking for every penny it can get." Again, I am very sympathetic to that, especially when governments of the day obviously are cutting down on budgetary requirements. What I'm saying to hospitals is, I'm encouraging you to forgo that sort of revenue, from taking that from people who probably are the most susceptible people you serve in your system.

Let me read, before I close on this segment, one of the positive ones. This is from one hospital administrator who said:

"Of course they are allowed the choice to use their own televisions or VCR. As long as the equipment they bring to the rooms is CSA-approved, our policy is that exceptions are made for our chronic care patients. The cable company comes in and hooks up cable if they want it and the bill goes directly to the patient or their families. In fact some of our chronic care patients have their own telephone line, which runs in a similar manner."

So some hospitals understand that a chronic care room is a home for a person, and in some cases this is the last home that a person has. I'm looking for support from all my colleagues to support this bill so that we can make that life, and maybe the end of those lives, as comfortable as possible. I think that's the least we can do for these people.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on second reading of private member's Bill 18, An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder, that has been brought forward by my colleague from Timiskaming.

If passed, this bill would give chronic care patients the right to install their own television or television and videocassette in their rooms, rather than having to rent this equipment. It would allow the individuals to bring it from home with them.

I want it to be known at the beginning of my remarks that I will be supporting this bill in principle because it deals directly with the quality of life of those patients who deserve comprehensive physical, psychological and spiritual comfort, as well as symptom control and pain management, during the final weeks or months of their lives.

While most chronic care facilities across Ontario do allow the use of personal televisions and VCRs, there's a significant number of hospitals and chronic care wards that do not. Personally, I would like to see hospitals with strict television rental policies make exceptions for chronic care residents in order to make their final home away from home as comfortable as possible rather than have to legislate this policy.

I agree that this clearly is a quality-of-life and economic issue, and I think we all agree that after studying such legislation as Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long-Term Care, the government's record isn't very clear. But with Bill 101 we discovered the NDP's willingness to impose user fees on vulnerable adults, people struggling to survive on fixed incomes and others who are trying to live out their final days with dignity and a certain amount of comfort. Bill 101 confirmed the NDP's plan to charge vulnerable seniors more than $300 a month for nursing home care. The government will raise more than $150 million from this user fee. So these people who are paying this extra cost need some breaks, and a break would be for those to be able to take their own VCRs and televisions into their rooms.

1020

So I find it interesting that at the same time as the Health minister is paying for long-term care proposals on the backs of Ontario's frail and elderly by raising nursing home user fees by $150 million, the same government's Municipal Affairs is giving away $150 million worth of housing on the Toronto Islands and driving the private sector out of private day care services to the tune of $100 million.

The government has provided some shabby treatment of Ontario's vulnerable senior citizens who are unable to care for themselves, and since 1990 more than 20 nursing homes in this province have been forced to close their doors. Nursing homes in Orillia, Penetanguishene and Elmvale all have lengthy waiting lists.

So it is unsettling that the government goes to great lengths and expense to designate, proclaim and promote one month out of the year in recognition of our senior citizens. It is unsettling because the same government continues with its discriminatory policy that requires senior citizens over the age of 70 to undergo automatic driver's licence testing in the event of an accident. Regardless of the circumstances, the government wants to penalize senior citizens over the age of 70 even if they didn't cause the accident, and that's unfair.

The seniors in this province, the increased costs that they're having with regard to court action, real estate and mortgage transactions and the extra costs the government has put on their wills and estates, family law, this is the same government that is penalizing seniors in a government ripoff that will see the nursing home fees increased by $300 a month. That's why we need some type of legislation like we have this morning to give those people in the chronic care role a break. The people currently using chronic care facilities and those likely to need this type of service in the future need that break.

Facilities that currently provide chronic care include freestanding public chronic hospitals, chronic care units in acute care hospitals and freestanding private chronic hospitals. The steering committee determined that there are approximately 11,500 beds in Ontario designated for chronic care, and of these, 11,080 were staffed and in operation in 1991 and 1992. These beds are used for long-term stay care programs and shorter-stay assessments, rehabilitation and palliative care programs.

Volume 1 of this study contains 42 interesting recommendations that the government has failed to comment on since volume 1 was released last month. We don't know where this government stands on this very important issue.

Recommendation 4 reads: "Chronic hospitals and units should recognize and respect the autonomy of each individual; dignity of each individual; personal, cultural and spiritual interests of each individual; and to the extent possible, should facilitate each patient's participation in, if not direct control over, decisions with respect to his or her residence, activities and care."

I would suspect that allowing patients receiving chronic care to install their own television or combined television and videocassette recorder is a step in the right direction towards recognizing and respecting the autonomy and dignity of each individual. We have the chronic care units in most hospitals on floors where there are people -- some people I know in the city of Orillia, in one room they can look at a ceiling and they don't see trees; they don't see anything. They're in this room and it would certainly be nice for them for them to have their own videocassette, their own television that they could use without worrying about paying an extra cost.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd hoped that we weren't going to get into politics in this debate this morning. I'd hoped that, and then I heard the member for Simcoe East lambasting the government and its seniors' programs. Well, as you can see, I'm grey-haired and I can remember very well when my parents were seniors in England. We didn't have pensions and it wasn't until the Labour government of 1948 that we had health care, and they really suffered. I don't see, really, the seniors of this province suffering to that degree today. So I'm very sorry that the member for Simcoe East decided to interject some sort of political motive to this debate of the member for Timiskaming.

I stand in my place this morning to support the member's bill because I think it is very worthwhile and I think it's very much needed.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Good Liberal bill.

Mr Mills: "Good Liberal bill," he said. Well, it's a good bill. We're not getting into politics.

I can remember some years ago ending up in hospital myself, and I can remember that there was a crucial Blue Jays game on when this happened. I got marched in there and the first thing I said to my wife was, "I'm going to miss the game." She said, "Oh no, no problem, we'll get you a TV rental." So, as the member said, the TVs are like a postcard, you know. You're lying in bed here; the TV's up here. You can just see, sort of, the figures. You can't even read their numbers.

But I ran into a problem right away. They said, "We can't get you that TV installed, Mr Mills, until next week." So I said, "Holy smoke, I'm going to miss the game." But I said, "Never mind, I've got a small TV at home." I said to my wife: "Nip home and get it. Bring it up. We'll put it on the table."

They said: "Hold it. You can't do that." I said: "What do you mean? I'm a paying patient in this hospital. You're getting paid. Surely I've got a right to put the TV on the table." They said: "Oh no, you can't do that here because we've got a contract with some fellow who installs the TVs and takes them out and he doesn't come in until a week's time and that's when you'll get it." So I have a lot of empathy with even the people who happen, unfortunately, to end up in hospital for operations or whatever, for treatment.

Now, when we get to the chronic care patients, this is serious, because I've taken it upon myself to visit a number of chronic care residences in my own riding and I do feel rather sad when I see the lack of facilities, TV, that these folks can see because of some obligation that they have to rent from a particular company. Let's face it, most of those people who end up in chronic care are not rich; they have very limited funds.

The member has provided some idea of the funds required to rent a TV and I think this is pretty general. When you look to $82 a month to rent a TV, $984 a year to rent a TV that in most cases I think is about a nine-inch screen and is perched up on a long arm at the window. The type of viewing you can do is very limited. They can't even see what goes on here. They can't keep abreast of the parliamentary channel because it doesn't provide for that, whereas if you got your own TV and your own cable you can do that. I can see that this is a very, very big feature in the quality of life that people have in chronic care hospitals where they really depend on their TVs for all the enjoyment they get.

Also, I'd like to understand the opportunity of a VCR, because we all have our favourite movies and I must have seen that movie Chariots of Fire 20 times. I think that's the most inspiring movie I've ever seen and I can think of nothing better than if I was lying in a chronic care ward to give me some lift in life that I would like to be able to see Chariots of Fire again and again and again. I know I'm a bit square and it's not probably the viewing that goes on today, but that was an inspiring movie that would really help people who are under some sort of stress, I would think.

I think there might be a few problems. Every bill has got some sort of problem. I can see people dragging in TVs that they've had for 20 years, where the plug is hanging on a wire or with a piece of tape. I've seen that and sometimes I was guilty of that myself, but not any more since I nearly got electrocuted once.

But I think we could build into this some sort of inspection program whereby you bring your TV in and there's a local electrician there who can check this out to make sure that it's safe and those little things that we need to make sure that no one gets electrocuted or that it doesn't cause any fires. I think that's a minor step to carry out.

1030

Another one of our members wishes to speak to this bill. He's not here at the moment. I hope he is, because if he isn't here and I've stopped speaking, we've lost some of our time.

Interjection: Rotation.

Mr Mills: Yes, but eventually he's going to come up.

I just want to say that I commend the member for Timiskaming for bringing this forward. It addresses the real concerns of people in chronic care. It addresses the concerns of their relatives who want to provide a television, as the member rightly said, that they can see with some degree of clarity. I know that I have a problem looking at little TVs. It's rather like watching the Blue Jays from up there near the roof, you know. You see people running around, you never see the ball and then people cheer so you know they must have done something good, but you can't really see it.

Mr Ramsay: You should get better seats.

Mr Mills: I understand that. But this speaks to a real need, a real concern. The member started off his speech this morning and he said, "Some of you may think this is inconsequential." I don't believe it is. I believe that it's needed and it reaches to the heart of concern and care that we should have quality of life for those citizens of ours who are less fortunate than us. I commend the member and, when the time comes, I will be supporting it. I thank you for this time, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'm pleased to speak in support of Mr Ramsay's bill, which would permit patients in chronic care facilities to install their own television or a television-VCR while they're resident in the place.

I think we all know that those people who are in chronic care facilities are there not of their own choice in most cases; they're there for the longer term and they're there because they need to be for health reasons. When we were discussing Bill 101, the long-term care bill, it became very clear from advocacy centres, from consumers themselves, that there was an important aspect to people's stay in longer-term facilities in reflecting the need to recognize the dignity and the individual choice of the person who is resident in that facility.

We feel that this bill indeed is timely, because right now the manual and the regulations under Bill 101, the long-term care bill, are being developed and written. I think this bill underlines that, as we approach patients' rights or a method of respecting the dignity of patients, we should ensure, through some mechanism, the elimination of arbitrary rules that are placed by administrators of places and we should also ensure that there is a discussion of what facilities and what enhancements are in fact useful to the patient.

One of the things we should recognize -- and I've spoken about the chronicity of people who are in chronic care facilities -- is that frequently the recreational or entertainment vehicles that are available to them assist them in improving their health status. That has been underlined to a great extent by the advocacy groups and indeed by providers themselves.

I'm leafing through papers here, because I wanted to particularly raise a point which was contained in a letter from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly to Mr Ramsay, and I happen to have a copy of that. The advocacy centre indicates that it has been a strong supporter of the inclusion of a patients' bill of rights in any legislation dealing with long-term care. They go on to say:

"Although in some cases difficult to enforce, the patients' bill of rights is important as a statement of both rights and courtesies that should be afforded to patients and residents in an institutional setting. These rights and courtesies are important to the quality of life of these residents."

I believe that is a very fine summary of one of the reasons that I'm supporting this bill.

I think as we look at the nursing home situation and chronic care, although this bill relates to people who are receiving chronic care, we know that chronic care recipients will be not only in chronic care hospitals but will also be in nursing homes and in homes for the aged as the long-term care program proceeds. But I think we have to be very cautious in that in the long-term care program, enormous expectations have been raised for residents and potential residents with respect to what can be made available and what will automatically be made available to them. Certainly, we had to fight in committee on Bill 101 to ensure that a patients' bill of rights was included in that bill. Ultimately, the government agreed that the patients' bill of rights, which was previously in the Nursing Homes Act alone, would apply to all long-term care facilities.

There are other expectations that have been raised, not only about where the resident can find a place to live but about the cultural surround of the residence, about the religious services which are provided in a residence or in an institution. But even more so, there is a singular expectation raised about the care plans available to people, whether they're health and personal care, whether they're rehabilitative or whether they're recreational. I want to once again underline that while the government is demanding that care plans be put forward for patients, it has not guaranteed that it will pay for those care plans.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure and underline that one small aspect of courtesy and convenience for patients is ensured. I hope, if this bill does not proceed in the form it's now in through second and third reading and ultimately adoption, the concept will indeed be included as the regulations and the manual for long-term care facilities are further developed.

In closing, I'd like to congratulate my colleague the member from Timiskaming. I know that his office and he himself have done a lot of work in preparation for this bill. They've underlined the need for safety and maintenance standards, and I think that's a useful reminder to us all. They've underlined the fact that the courtesy of operation of one patient versus another in a ward or semi-private situation should be honoured. They've underlined that certain costs would accrue to the patient, the cost for the television but also perhaps the cost for cable, but those are issues which I think on a facility-by-facility basis can be readily handled. Along with the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and many others, I congratulate my colleague.

1040

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I wasn't actually scheduled to speak to this, but there are a couple of points that I'd like to make, if I could just get a drink of water.

The issue seems to be rather interesting, that we're at this stage debating this particular piece of work by the member from Timiskaming. It seems to me to be a commonsense kind of issue. It's hard to believe, "Can I bring in a TV to a chronic care facility, a hospital, because I can't afford the hook-up costs. I'm here not of my own free will, I'm here because I have to be" -- maybe not "own free will" -- but "I'm here because I have to be, and spending a great deal of time and having very little entertainment value obviously," that it gets to this state, that we're debating in the Legislature of the province of Ontario whether or not someone can bring a TV in for their own entertainment purposes. I will be supporting this bill. It seems to make sense to me. It's something that I would have no trouble supporting.

There obviously is a downside from the care giver point of view or the facility or the structure. Clearly they have a contract and there is going to be lost revenue. Clearly with that contract there are some kinds of exclusivity that they offer in return for a cut of the cost. So there will be a downside from a financial point of view for the facility offering the care. Ideally that means that if that revenue doesn't come from the rental of televisions, it will obviously have to come from either the patients themselves or the government commitment to the expenditure.

I can understand the fact that it's going to cost money but I think in the whole scheme of things, when you analyse that someone is in there, they simply can't afford -- and the member from Durham suggests that they can't afford or they can't even see those kind of postage-stamp TVs. Any reasonable person, I think, subject to some inspection to make sure they're workable and they're safe, would agree that it doesn't seem to be a very unreasonable request. I think the administrators in these facilities would give enough thought to the request that they would simply approve it without getting into this place. Clearly, and the member brings up a couple of examples, this is just not the case.

So we're here today debating whether or not someone can bring in a TV to watch while they're in a chronic care hospital etc. Sometimes this place is kind of hard to believe and this is one of the times. Surely there must be something better we can do and surely the people we pay to run these facilities -- we pay them enough that they can have enough common sense that they could make what I would think is a fairly rational and reasonable decision. So I applaud the member, I'll support it and I look forward to further comments by other members.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): While I haven't had the opportunity to sit in the Legislature over the last few minutes because of committee work, I do understand the importance of this issue and I can just imagine and guess at what the arguments are for this bill because I personally agree with the bill. I think that the member needs to be applauded for bringing such an item to the House.

I wish to just talk a little bit about why I agree with the bill. My strongest argument, I think, in approving this would be the cost factor to chronic patients who are either elderly or on some sort of a fixed income. I know that the price of the television sets and the rental of some of the VCRs in hospitals can add up to a lot of money at the end of the year.

If you look at one of the arguments -- and I read this in the package earlier -- that the author of the bill had used in the package, one of the patients was paying up to $1,000 a year for a television set in the hospital. A thousand dollars a year for somebody who's on a fixed income is a lot of money and I can't see why it's taken so long, frankly, for somebody to actually raise this issue. I'm not sure, I haven't had a chance to read in Hansard whether somebody has done that in the past, but I can't understand why this hasn't been brought up before.

Televisions are just one item that are very expensive if somebody were to take a television out with their stay in the hospitals. It doesn't include the barber and the beauty shops. It doesn't include prices like $7 per haircut and $3 for a wash and, of course, hairstyles are even more, $11 a shot for somebody who wants to look and feel a little better with their stay in the hospital. You get into conditioners as well, from what I could read here, at $2.75 to condition your hair and rinse your hair. If you want your hair rinsed, it's $2.75. These are costs that would be above and beyond the television sets and maybe we should do something about these costs as well at a later date. Maybe somebody else could introduce another bill that might introduce us to the problem when it comes to haircuts in hospitals as well.

I'm not sure whether anybody has had the chance to stay in a hospital even for a week, let alone a year, let alone six months, but when you lie in that bed -- and I've had the experience -- lying in that bed for a week, you want to get out of that bed. You want to get out and get washed up and you want to get out and cut your hair and you want to feel good.

While you're in that bed, you want to watch a little bit of television, you want to be able to pass the time in a way that would mean a little more comfort for a lot, and it's not as comfortable when you know you have to pay the $1,000 a year to rent a television set, and that's a low figure from what I can gather.

The member, I think, mentioned as well that 50% of the hospitals with a chronic care ward in Ontario are charging, and I think that's a shame. I think this bill is needed. I think it's a bill we need to pass not only here but pass unanimously in here and then perhaps get out into the community and talk about other things we could possibly be doing.

Telephones: advance payment of $35 for a telephone. A person on fixed income can't afford this sort of expenditure. A person who's working or is collecting some sort of an insurance package can't afford this sort of cost. So while there isn't anything negative to say about this bill, in my opinion, I would encourage all members to vote in favour of this. Hopefully, we can do that unanimously and, hopefully, our government can take a look at this and expedite this package as quickly as possible.

1050

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm delighted to be able to stand in support of the bill being introduced by the member for Timiskaming. The member for Timiskaming is really to be commended for this. I have noticed in my six years in this place that the member for Timiskaming, Mr Ramsay, is constantly bringing issues that are of importance to his constituents and the people of the north and the people of Ontario into this Legislature.

Some may say that Bill 18 isn't an important bill, that it's not an earth-shattering bill, but it is very important to perhaps a small group of people, a group of people who are quite vulnerable. It's an act that would allow patients receiving chronic care to install their own television or combined television and videocassette recorder.

As the member for Timiskaming has quite well pointed out, when he surveyed the chronic care hospitals, out of 19, 15 of them were already allowing patients to do this. However, in a random sample of some 22 Ontario hospitals that had chronic care units in fact the numbers were much lower.

The question I have for this Legislature today is, if 75% of the chronic care hospitals in this province are already allowing chronic care patients to have their own television and VCR units, then the issue of safety is a camouflage, because obviously these hospitals would not permit something that was not safe. As the member's bill quite validly points out, there's a requirement that these units would meet the relevant Canadian safety association standards, or any safety standards established by the authority responsible for the place where the person is receiving care. It's very clear that the member for Timiskaming has brought forward a bill which is quite well thought out and which will meet the needs of chronic care patients in this regard.

There is a wide range of support for this bill. I'd like to quote from a letter from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly. I believe the member for Halton, the Liberal health care critic, Barbara Sullivan, has already referred to a portion of the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly's letter, but I would like to read from another section. They say:

"Dear Mr Ramsay:

"I am certainly in support of your private member's bill which would have the effect of permitting all chronic care patients in residence in Ontario the choice to use their own television or television/VCR. I congratulate you on your sensitivity to quality-of-life concerns of chronic care residents.

"It never ceases to surprise me the way a certain proportion of the institutional sector dehumanizes the patients and residents living in those institutions. Access to street clothing, the right to personalized rooms with mementoes and personal items, the access to personal televisions and VCRs, the right to have privacy to the degree possible within a hospital setting are all simple pleasures that in some cases are denied persons who live in chronic care hospitals as well as nursing homes and homes for the aged. It is a sad comment that you have to go so far as to try to get through a private member's bill to ensure these types of courtesies are afforded to chronic care patients."

One of the comments I would particularly like to highlight is that these hospitals are, for many chronic care patients, their homes. It is a very dehumanizing situation when they are in a hospital setting without their personal mementoes and things around them.

This is very important. It's important for an economic reason, where many chronic care patients would not be able to afford the prohibitive costs associated, and it's important for quality-of-life reasons. I would think that members of this Legislature would want to support all the Mrs Sampsons of Ontario who cannot afford to put so much of their pension dollars into renting a television, a very small television at that.

I commend the member from Timiskaming for his sensitivity on this issue and for very much caring about the people of his riding and the people of this province, in trying to make the lives of chronic care patients a little better in this province. I hope all members of this Legislature will give his bill their full support.

Mr Ramsay: I wish to take up the remaining time of our caucus and then proceed into my concluding two minutes, if that's permissible.

I guess, Mr Speaker, as you were asking me at the beginning, I'd like to formally move second reading of Bill 18, An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder.

I'd like to, first of all, thank very much all the speakers who spoke in favour of this bill this morning. I'm very pleased to have that support and look forward to having this bill approved.

I'd like to just mention a few of the other quotes of how some of the other administrators in Ontario feel about this. Here's a quote from a Toronto hospital. It says:

"We make every effort to turn chronic care rooms into homes, and that would include TVs and VCRs if requested, and even personal furniture and wall hangings, but with some minor restrictions with respect to size and safety."

Another one up in Thunder Bay:

"Yes, we make exceptions, for our chronic care patients only. Usually the family will purchase the patient a TV or a VCR as long as it's safe and they pay for the hookup and cable. For most, their rooms are their permanent residences and must be treated as such."

One might ask also, "Why VCRs?" In many cases, this is the only contact that chronic care people have with their grandchildren, that now with the advent of home videos, they get an opportunity to share in those family occasions where they can't be present in the home for those occasions. So I think that's very important if the family is able to supply that.

Another hospital says:

"Our three-year contract with the TV rental company expires this year, at which time we will change our policy. Chronic care patients will then be allowed to bring in their own equipment. We have discussed the matter and feel that it is a quality-of-life issue. It really is ludicrous that some of our chronic care patients must pay a significant portion of their income to rent a small-screen television."

Another quote from a Toronto hospital:

"The people on our chronic care floors are not considered patients. Rather, they are residents who have made their hospital room their personal home, and thus we allow TVs and VCRs as long as they are deemed to be safe by our maintenance staff. A safety log is kept on equipment, and if the resident shares a room, we request that they use earphones."

Again, it looks like the application of common sense has won out in many Ontario hospitals for sure.

I'd like to conclude to say that I think this is a reasonable request and that I understand that hospitals are in financial crisis, but I think the revenue loss from only one component of their patients, the chronic care patients, would not be undue to bear. I certainly would encourage this to happen.

I think we have to ensure, as I've mentioned, that safety and privacy matters are dealt with, and I think these can be worked out by the various hospitals. In fact, we can see that a lot of Ontario hospitals already have this type of policy in place, and so my point here today is to encourage that.

Mr Speaker, I believe I would --

Interjection.

Mr Ramsay: Yes, thank you; I have my other two minutes. Thank you.

I have been in contact with the Ontario Hospital Association. They want to meet with me, and they have certainly pointed out to me that many hospitals in Ontario have very good policies. What I certainly will be encouraging other hospitals to do, and certainly the OHA to do, is to basically put those hospitals that don't have this policy in contact with some of the great hospitals in Ontario that do have these policies: St Joseph's in Guelph, West Park in Toronto, McKellar Hospital in Thunder Bay. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, as the member my colleague from Burlington South has informed me, has a very clear and humane policy regarding the use of personal TVs.

Clearly this is, as many members have said, a quality-of-life issue, and certainly the discrepancy in the policy across the province I think has to end.

In conclusion, I guess I have to thank the people who first brought this to my attention, and that is Mr and Mrs Sampson in Kirkland Lake. I know and am sure that both are watching today. Mr Thomas Sampson is watching in his home on his own personal television and, unfortunately, Mrs Eleanor Sampson is having to watch on a very small screen. So, Eleanor, I hope you can see me but I know I appear very small on your screen this morning and I know you're paying $82 a month for the privilege of watching not only your parliamentary channels but also other shows that you enjoy.

I hope that this exercise this morning, which I really feel is going to be supported by all members of the House, will have some effect not only on the hospital that you find yourself in, but for the other people who are watching, I hope that if they don't have that opportunity, their hospitals also will, when they have that opportunity, change their mind and re-examine this policy and make sure that their chronic care people are treated with the dignity and respect that I know they deserve and are given the attention and care of residents and people who are really in their homes and not in an institution.

1100

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotment for ballot item number 11, second reading of Bill 18, Mr Ramsay's private member's motion.

Would the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville please move his private member's bill.

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

Mr Runciman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords / Loi visant à protéger la personne, les biens et les droits des locataires et des locateurs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I thank the honourable member. The member for Leeds-Grenville will now have 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which all recognized parties in the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate. Then the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville will have two minutes to sum up.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This legislation was brought in primarily because of concerns I've been hearing as the Conservative Party's critic for the Minister of the Solicitor General in dealing with policing and law and order, community safety and justice issues.

It came to my attention some time ago about a significant problem, certainly in Metropolitan Toronto but also spreading into other areas of the province, primarily in public housing units, subsidized to a significant extent by the taxpayers of this province. I was informed, for instance, that there are approximately 400 crack dealers operating out of public housing in Metro Toronto alone. This is a significant problem. That figure has been confirmed by Metropolitan Toronto Police authorities.

It's a significant problem in not only the fact that these drug dealers are being subsidized by all of us as taxpayers in this province with very scarce tax dollars; at the same time we have people in real need of social assistance and social housing who are on long waiting lists and cannot obtain accommodation while we have people who are going after the children of this province, especially minority children, getting them involved in drugs, and we, as taxpayers, are subsidizing their accommodation.

It's virtually impossible in many instances to evict these individuals, a very difficult process, and what this legislation attempts to do is try and streamline that and make it significantly easier to evict this type of individual from apartment accommodation. As I said, my primary concern is with public housing.

Given the serious and insidious nature of the problem that this bill is trying to address, namely, the use of illegal drugs in apartments, particularly public housing units, I feel that all members of this Legislature, and indeed all Ontarians, will support this bill.

The only difficulties I've had in terms of reaction to this legislation up to this point have been from an organization representing lawyers who tend to represent some landlords, I gather, in terms of trying to evict these individuals. Because this bill will bypass that process so that a crown can initiate the proceedings for eviction following a conviction on a drug charge, it takes the lawyers out of the loop, who apparently do reasonably well, some of them in any event, in terms of representing landlords in trying to arrange evictions. That's the only group I've heard an objection from in respect to this legislation. Hopefully we won't be hearing other objections later on.

I guess we can perhaps quibble about some of the details in this legislation, but second reading is essentially dealing with the principle of legislation, and I would hope that no members of this Legislature would have difficulty with the concept, the principle, of trying to get rid of drug dealers, crack dealers, operating out of public housing in this province and jeopardizing all of us, especially the children.

Currently, it takes approximately a year to a year and a half to evict drug dealers from apartments in this province. There's nothing in the Landlord and Tenant Act specifically that mentions illegal drugs or their use or sale as grounds for an eviction. If a landlord wants an eviction, he/she/they must find other reasons for trying to remove a troublesome tenant.

In the year or year and a half that it takes to get rid of a drug seller, at least hundreds of young people will have purchased drugs and many tenants will have been intimidated and have lived in terror in many of those situations in public housing areas.

There's an old expression about a person's home being their castle. No neighbour has the right to make life a living hell for the neighbours by operating a crack house or a drug chemical lab out of their apartment, and no neighbour has the right to bring desperate and strung-out people into a residential area, people who frighten children and often commit violent crimes because of their drug habit. No one has the right to force innocent tenants to hide inside their apartments. That, in effect, is what's happening in many areas.

I ask the members to just think about it for a moment. How would you like to live in an apartment where you weren't sure if or when you could go outside or you're scared to let your children play, where your entire life, out of no fault of your own, has to be rearranged in order to avoid drug dealers and drug purchasers?

Most of us at some point have had to live in an unpleasant area in order to work or because we simply couldn't afford something better. That's certainly true for the vast majority of residents of public housing. Children -- I want to make emphasis in respect to children -- growing up in poverty have enough problems without being given crash courses on drug pushing, robbery and murder by the time they are 10 years old.

People now are forced to live, in many instances, in an environment with monthly shootings and stabbings, daily fights and disputes, needles outside their door and prostitutes harassing them. We have to wake up and realize that the drug problem is the single most serious crisis facing our province. It's a crisis which is tied to so many other social problems: crime, AIDS, health care, incarceration costs, policing, unemployment insurance, welfare.

Politicians -- and we in this assembly can begin this today -- have to send a clear and singular message to tenants, landlords, drug sellers and police as to whose side we are on. As I said earlier, this bill will streamline the eviction process for drug sellers who use their apartment as a base to distribute drugs. A prosecutor could apply for immediate eviction upon sentencing, provided the suspect and his solicitor had been notified in advance. Landlords can apply for an order of eviction after sentencing if 30 days' notice is given.

There is still opportunity for due process here. A convicted person can appeal the eviction order and indicate during the appeal trial why they should not be evicted. There are a variety of reasons that a judge may be persuaded -- for example, they may be in some sort of rehabilitation program -- those kinds of things which could be considered by the court in respect to perhaps rescinding the eviction order.

This new section of the Landlord and Tenant Act will specifically mention drug selling as a reason for eviction and will speed up the process by allowing immediate application. I want to dispel -- in case we're going to hear some of this later on -- some myths about the bill.

1110

Some people have stated that drug dealers can be kicked out of their apartments before conviction if they're being investigated by the police or complained about by neighbours, and this bill would stop this process. This argument is factually incorrect. No drug dealers could be kicked out of their apartment on the basis of hearsay evidence. It's true that some drug dealers are evicted before a conviction in the courts. That's only true if they get snagged on some other offence such as noise violations, vagrancy, disturbing the peace, that sort of thing. While it's true that those kinds of things certainly do come with crack houses, there are always some drug dealers who will not get nailed on these mitigating crimes and will not be evicted.

The second myth I want to deal with, and dispel hopefully, is that this bill will somehow make it harder to kick people out of apartments for other offences, that it will somehow raise the level of crime necessary to get evicted, and this too is false. People can still be kicked out for the other types of problems that I mentioned earlier. This bill will not in any way preclude a tenant from being evicted for other types of indiscretions.

The third myth I will have to deal with later on, but hopefully we're going to have support from all members of the Legislature as we proceed through this debate.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I, today, will be speaking in opposition to Bill 20, not because I think it's unimportant to control the importation and distribution of narcotics and drugs. Quite frankly, having served on the government anti-drug task force, I'm well aware, through our travels across the province and through hearing hundreds of presentations, of the need for better treatment and control of drugs. But I think that the bill put forward today in the House is draconian. It's almost like using a bulldozer when you could be using a chainsaw. It's flawed, it's redundant and unnecessary.

I would point out to you that section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act already provides that a landlord can take eviction proceedings if there's an illegal act going on in the rental unit. Unlike cases where there's an interruption of a tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises or there's a case of potential safety violations, where a tenant has seven days to make good the breach of the lease, in the case of an allegation of an illegal act, on 20 days' notice a landlord can bring that matter to a court of competent jurisdiction and seek a termination order and a writ of possession.

Not only does a landlord have to wait, as would be the case with Bill 20, for a criminal conviction, a landlord, upon becoming aware of an illegal act, can move well before a criminal conviction for termination of the lease. So in fact Mr Runciman's bill would probably slow the process down.

We've had part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act since 1978. It provides for summary proceedings. A landlord has access to these summary proceedings, as does a tenant. The beauty of part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act is this: On a case-by-case basis, on the strength of the evidence provided either by the tenant or by the landlord, a judge in a court of competent jurisdiction can arrive at a reasoned decision whether to evict or not.

Mr Runciman's bill, if you read it, would allow a judge, upon registering a conviction in criminal court for a narcotic offence, for some reason -- and this is another flaw -- Mr Runciman in his bill does not even mention the Food and Drugs Act. He only mentions the Narcotic Control Act, while many of our drug-related charges are under the Food and Drugs Act. It's a glaring omission.

But in any event, a judge in a criminal court, upon convicting an accused of a narcotic offence, could actually issue an order, without hearing any evidence from the tenant's family or neighbours or anything like that, terminating a lease, whether or not the landlord is there to make any submissions. The landlord may in fact not want to terminate the lease. That's how far this bill would go.

It doesn't pay any heed to the manner in which many drug dealers exploit vulnerable women and their children who, if a tenancy were terminated, would arbitrarily and summarily be thrown out of their premises. The sad fact of this bill is it doesn't solve the problem of drug dealing. It doesn't deal with any of the socioeconomic circumstances around the drug dealing. What it does is to force that drug dealer and his family, if he has one, to move to another residence. So it becomes yet another landlord's problem.

Any home owner or occupier of a condominium is not subject to such a sanction, nor is anyone who's found guilty of family violence, murder, sexual assault or a host of what society considers equally heinous or more heinous crimes, subject to this kind of sanction.

I would suggest, since time is running short, that we need to evaluate this particular bill on its merits. It has in fact no merits. I agree with the thrust of Mr Runciman's position that we need to deal with drug dealers, but we need to deal with drug dealers in a constructive way that's not going to force them into yet someone else's residence so they become yet another landlord's problem.

The fact of the matter is that we have an avenue available to landlords under the Landlord and Tenant Act: summary proceeding based on illegal acts. It's an inclusive term. It can even involve breaches of municipal ordinances.

Lastly, since my time is running short, there is a constitutional issue involved. The large majority of drug offences are dealt with in the provincial court (criminal division). The fact of the matter is that in 1978, when the Residential Tenancies Act was first introduced, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada questioning the constitutional right of a Rentalsman to evict tenants and the court held there that only a section 96 court, a court of competent jurisdiction, can evict a tenant, and all those sections of the Residential Tenancies Act were struck down.

Mr Runciman's bill would call for a provincial court judge to make a decision that superior court judges must make. For that reason alone, I seriously question the thought and reflection Mr Runciman has given to this bill.

1120

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'd like to start off my comments by saying that I applaud Mr Runciman's efforts. He's been long-standing and noted for his efforts in this regard. He's certainly approached this question in the past with the same intensity as he is today. I'd like to applaud him for that, because I think all of us in this House would agree that anything in our communities that involves the dealing of drugs and this plague that we have in society -- all of us would agree that we would like to eradicate that.

I know in my own riding the efforts that I have personally made when we were the government. With the anti-drug strategy that we had in place, we had funds available to communities for community-based prevention programs.

One of the things that I'm proudest of in my own community is the fact that in the various Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority buildings, we now have a situation which can be described as a greatly improved one. I was just visiting one of those places this morning and was told by the tenants there that things had improved because new security systems had been put in place.

This is over a long period of time that people in my community have been making efforts at dealing with problems that all of us are concerned with. The abuse of drugs and the kind of trafficking that goes on in our cities across the province, certainly all of us have endeavoured to stem that plague that certainly still exists out there. We're not saying we have been able to resolve the problem. That we have some measure of success is noteworthy, but in fact the war still is going on and it's still a very big problem.

So I would say to Mr Runciman -- the member for Leeds-Grenville -- that it is noteworthy and that it is certainly a worthwhile effort he's making to help to assist in the war against drug dealers and pushers. Obviously all of us would want to assist in that effort.

When I first looked at this piece of legislation, I thought that I could support it and I thought that there would be no reason why it would be a problem. I do support the concept and anything that would be in place to expedite the eviction, anything that would help expedite that process -- I think my cold is getting the better of me this morning, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, anything that would help us to expedite the eviction of drug dealers, who are a plague on our society, certainly would be applauded by anyone in this Legislative Assembly. I can't believe for a moment that that's not the case. So let's just put that aside for a moment.

I think what it really comes down to is, does this bill accomplish that? Does it make it easier in fact to do what all of us would want to have done? I think it's not such an easy question to answer, because it is a complicated matter.

I think part of the bill that is flawed stems from the fact that under Mr Runciman's bill, someone who is convicted under the Narcotic Control Act, it would permit by this legislation someone to go through the appeals process entirely. Even after a conviction has been laid, it would allow that person to continue with an appeal process and therefore prevent an eviction notice from being granted to a landlord at the time that a conviction is held by the courts.

Given that scenario, the appeal process could go on at length. In fact the appeal process could go on and extend past the life of the tenant's lease period. So in theory, you could have a tenant who has been convicted of a criminal offence -- dealing in drug-trafficking -- extend his stay at those premises long past the life of his own lease. That's in theory what could happen by way of Bill 20.

Now, that is rather different from what exists under the Landlord and Tenant Act currently, under section 107, because section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act permits, and I would quote from subsection (1) of that:

"Where...a tenant at any time during the term of the tenancy exercises or carries on, or permits to be exercised or carried on, in or upon the residential premises or any part thereof, any illegal act, trade, business, occupation or calling...the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice of termination of the tenancy agreement to be effective not earlier than the twentieth day after the notice is given, specifying the act or acts complained of, and requiring the tenant, within seven days, to pay the landlord the reasonable costs of repairing...."

But it allows the landlord to evict. It allows a method to evict this person without having to wait for an appeal process conducted by the courts, because if a person is convicted under the Narcotic Control Act, Bill 20 would permit them to remain in their premises, theoretically, long after that conviction has been held by the courts, until the appeal process is over.

That, I think, is in subsections (6) and (7). Subsection (6) reads: "The sentencing court or the Ontario Court (General Division), as the case may be, may order that the tenancy be terminated and that a writ of possession be issued, without further notice." However, subsection (7) says, "An appeal of the order may be made to the Divisional Court."

Again, I repeat, as a result of the appeal, an eviction could not take place. It would be forestalled and therefore the tenant would be permitted to remain in his or her premises until this appeal process has been expired, until all of the appeals have been exhausted.

So I say I would like to hear from Mr Runciman further on that as to how he perceives that. I don't think it's very clear how it would be that this piece of legislation, Bill 20, would expedite the eviction of someone convicted of these offences much more quickly than under section 107 of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act. That's a real question that I think we have concern with and I don't believe that it's clear. In fact I've had legal opinions now that have been given to us that suggest that is not the case.

We had several firms look at this, and I say to Mr Runciman that at first glance I was prepared to support anything that would expedite this process, and we still are, but on the other hand, I think that this legislation jeopardizes the expediting of that process. If that's not the case, I would like it proven to me before I would support this bill and I'd like to hear further comments from Mr Runciman on that matter.

I say again that in this province we certainly continue to have a problem with drug abuse and with drug trafficking and dealing. It's not something that's gone away. I have had firsthand knowledge of the problems that exist in my community. We have dealt with those, we continue to deal with them and we have a community effort that's under way to make our communities safer and to make them places in which people want to live, but it's not easy and all of us need to recognize that.

I would say to the government members that I'm certainly not impressed by the efforts that this current government is making with respect to that effort. They got rid of the anti-drug secretariat, and that was a great deal of concern for us, because some of the work that was being done in communities -- one community, as an example of this, is my own, where good work was done in very difficult circumstances in parts of the community that were in great jeopardy, having been seized by drug dealers and drug pushers etc. We now have restored some semblance of community spirit, some semblance of security within those neighbourhoods. That came as a result of the good work that was done through the anti-drug secretariat and the programs that had been established.

1130

We all understand that we're in difficult times. We know there's a call for restraint. Obviously, there's a problem in allocating additional funds. But as I recall, the secretariat's mandate was wound down, I believe, last year, if I'm not mistaken, and it was before this government indicated that it had a deficit problem which was now becoming intolerable to it. All of us had indicated that long before they realized it. But we can't allow drug dealers to run rampant in our communities. We can't allow for the kinds of abuses that we've been seeing. It is a plague on our society. We think this is a priority. We think that obviously efforts have to be made.

I know the legislation that's being brought forward by Mr Runciman does not call for additional expenditures; it is increasing powers, supposedly doing that. Again, I say I applaud Mr Runciman's efforts and I don't question his motives behind this. I sincerely do not.

I would like to hear from Mr Runciman again as to the effectiveness of that section in his legislation. My concern is with the appeal process, that an eviction notice can be halted by the appeal process in his legislation, so that someone can continue to live in their accommodation as the appeal process is winding down or going through its final conclusions, and until that is exhausted that person remains in his or her premises within that apartment building. That's the concern I have, and I hope he can rectify that as I sit here and listen to the remainder of his remarks, because I would like to support anything that certainly speaks to the concerns people have.

No one wants to see someone who's carrying on criminal activity, particularly drug dealing, continue to live in our communities and have the rights and privileges that all citizens enjoy. Obviously, there is a problem with that. We do not condone any of those actions. I don't believe anyone in this House would see it that way. I think all members would want to have swifter action taken against people who are really a plague to society in any way, shape or form that you can describe.

We all abhor those actions and I think all of us would agree that anything that would help to solve those problems would be a positive thing and something that all of us would support.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise today in support of private member's Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords. This bill was introduced May 18, 1993, by my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville. If passed, Bill 20 would provide a mechanism for the speedy eviction of tenants who have been convicted of certain narcotic offences committed in connection with the rented premises.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation that provides umbrella protection of both tenants and landlords. It does not pit one group against the other that lives within the law; it zeroes in on those tenants who choose to live a lifestyle that would eventually lead to charges and a conviction under the Narcotic Control Act.

I had the opportunity to provide a copy of this bill to a Ms Patti Richardson -- she's the president of the Simcoe County Landlords Association -- for her consideration and her comments. The Simcoe County Landlords Association was established in 1980 and it has 150 members. Ms Richardson says she expects to have more than 500 members by the end of the summer. Many landlords in Simcoe county who want to join the association could call Ms Richardson. She's from Midland.

She indicated that she supports Bill 20 in principle and suggests that it be sent to a standing committee of the Legislature where it could be fine-tuned to meet some of the minor concerns that the landlords may have.

I believe that the recent proposals by this NDP government make it imperative that Bill 20 is passed. For example, on October 8, 1992, I spoke in support of a resolution from my colleague the member for Mississauga South which opposed the Minister of Housing's draft legislation which will allow owners to create apartments in a house without municipal zoning approval.

I'm opposed to this accessory apartment legislation because it fails to provide adequate legal protection for home owners who need to regain possession of their accessory apartments. It fails to recognize that these apartments may not offer a reasonable quality of life for their occupants or be compatible with their surrounding neighbours. It interferes with municipal zoning authority and negates official plans and decades of land-use planning decisions. It fails to provide municipalities with licensing authority for accessory apartments and it fails to consider how municipalities and school boards will pay for the services required by the residents of these accessory buildings.

It fails to ensure that there is a mechanism in place like Bill 20 contains for the speedy eviction of tenants who have been convicted of certain narcotic offenses committed in connection with the rented accessory apartment.

The member for Mississauga South who brought this resolution to us here in the Legislature last October also raised the issue of non-profit housing subsidies here in the House two days ago. At that time, she indicated that in 1993-94, the monthly subsidy for non-profit housing would be a staggering $854 per household. In 1981, there was a total of 68,000 units with a total subsidy of $428,000. In 1992-93, there were 94,000 units; in 1993-94, there'll be 106,000; in 1994-95, there'll be 111,000 at a total subsidy cost of $977,000, and by the year 1995-96, there'll be 114,000 constructed units and a total subsidy cost to the taxpayer of $1 billion.

We need this legislation.

Perhaps it is time for this government to take note that it always advocated a system of shelter allowances which would provide direct financial assistance to needy tenants to rent their own apartments at a fraction of the cost of building and maintaining non-profit units. Subsidize the individual, not the facility. Allow needy tenants to remain in their own homes, rather than forcing them to relocate to new complexes or neighbourhoods. This would mean that the government would not have to pay millions of dollars to construct new units, as well as supplying operating subsidies.

Government members should join their opposition colleagues to give speedy passage to Bill 20, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords.

I want to thank my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville for bringing this legislation forward for a thorough debate, and to bring the aspects of those some 400 people, drug dealers, who are living in subsidized housing. I want to say that this brings it to the attention of many people who are not totally aware.

It was interesting that in the June 1 Toronto Sun, "Housing Horror" is what the headline is:

"But should programs keep charging ahead and charging us when there are 700,000 government-subsidized units across Canada? When annual operating budgets just in Ontario are expected to hit $1 billion in just two more years? When Queen's Park will impose more than $2 billion in new taxes" -- in this budget -- "just to keep afloat? When there are more vacancies than there have been in years?

"There are plenty of examples of public subsidies for low-income tenants being higher than the rent for private apartments that are sitting empty. But instead we get assurances that everything is hunky-dory."

What they're saying in this is an independent review is overdue. We could pay for it from the social housing industry's bills. It could save billions.

I would hope that the government members would indicate that they would support this legislation because I think it is important.

1140

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I would remind the member that we are here to debate Bill 20, and I wanted to thank Mr Runciman, the member, for highlighting a very serious problem. We certainly all here in this House want tenants, whether they live in public or private accommodation, to live in a safe environment.

On the surface, Mr Runciman's proposal sounds reasonable, but upon further study it is revealed that there is a constitutional and a legislative problem. There are fundamental problems in the two parts of the bill for tenant eviction and the problems make the bill in fact useless.

First of all, in the first proposal, where a prosecutor initiates eviction, the narcotics offences are prosecuted by the federal Department of Justice in a criminal court. Because criminal courts follow rules and procedures established by federal law, an application about a civil matter such as this, like eviction, would not be permitted. The law, if passed, would be useless. Also, I'd like to point out that what he is proposing amounts to giving a federal prosecutor the right to apply for what is an additional punishment for committing a crime, and undoubtedly this would be challenged under the charter.

Secondly, in the bill there is a proposal that the landlord can apply for eviction. Now let's be clear. The Landlord and Tenant Act, as it now exists, is a comprehensive package to resolve any dispute between landlords and tenants. It permits landlords to apply already for evictions where a tenant commits an act which is illegal. It also applies when a tenant or their guests interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of those premises by the tenant. It also allows for eviction when there is a risk to safety. These options are available to landlords for dealing with dangerous tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act and this is in fact faster than the Bill 20 process because evictions can happen even before criminal charges are dealt with by the courts.

There is another problem with Mr Runciman's proposal. The bill does not seem to set out any procedure to be used. This means that an application of the type that I just mentioned would have to be made using the regular and very costly rules of the court rather than the simpler process set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Another further problem I see with the proposed Bill 20 is that it further divides our society. It applies not just to those who live in public housing, but it applies to everyone who rents in Ontario. It creates two classes of people: those who own their homes and those who rent their homes. Home owners, condo owners and those who live in cooperative housing in Ontario don't face the loss of their housing if they commit an illegal act, and what Mr Runciman is saying is that those others who rent do face this problem. In the building where I live, there are those who own their units and those who rent their units. So it would be splitting and making people treated differently on that basis.

A further question I have for Mr Runciman is, you are proposing that this policy be in effect for drug dealers. Why not, I ask you, persons convicted of violent crime such as murder, sexual assault, spousal assault, child abuse, domestic violence? Why not include those?

To conclude, there is a great concern that I share. Tenants are entitled to safe homes and to not be surrounded by drug dealers. There is a clear process under the Landlord and Tenant Act, also in Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, where we can evict even sooner in a speeded-up process.

I suggest that the best, most efficient way of dealing with this problem is to open the Landlord and Tenant Act for review.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I will start by congratulating my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville in bringing forward this act, An Act to protect the Persons, Property and Rights of Tenants and Landlords. Above all, this is to protect the innocent tenants who live around these crack dealers. We know that in Metro Housing alone we have some 400 cases of drug dealers existing in this housing today and the police find it very difficult to get these people out, as does the management of the housing.

I'd like to start by reviewing some of the costs and negative impacts of illegal drug trafficking. We know that the direct costs to society are $1.9 billion a year. It's estimated that the indirect costs are perhaps five times that. We know that drugs destroy families and, above all, when we have young children who are in proximity to these drug dealers, they are in the formative years when they can easily be dragged into crime. We know that drug dealers are using young people as runners for them and the easy, quick, large money that they earn attracts them to crime. We must set a better example. We must protect these people.

There's an incredible burden on the state through added costs of health care, UIC, welfare, policing and correctional facilities as a result of any crime related to drugs.

Many of the people who are involved in drugs, who become users of drugs, end up going to the United States for treatment at the cost of the Ontario health service. So the taxpayers of Ontario, whether they are in proximity to drug dealers or not, end up being the victims of these drug dealers. We spent, in 1991, $30 million in sending people to the US for drug rehabilitation.

There's a tremendous crack problem in such areas as Regent Park, Alexander Park, Parkdale, Lawrence Heights, which are all ravaged by crack dealers. Law-abiding tenants in these housing complexes need relief and, above all, they need protection from drug dealers. There are many other problems in communities which can be certainly improved if we can take away this cancer on society.

Let's just look at the history of the lack of adequate government response to this problem. During the last government's reign, Ken Black did a study on illegal drugs and his study was widely praised. The Premier of the day named him anti-drug minister to emphasize the importance of the drug problem in Ontario. However, unfortunately he made him a part-time minister and also made him, curiously enough, Minister of Tourism at the same time. I find this a rather peculiar combination.

In 1989, the Liberal government of the day pledged to add 32 extra OPP officers to the drug squad, but unfortunately they waited over a year before they fulfilled this commitment.

One of the first acts of the NDP, when it came to power, was to disband the anti-drug ministry, which was certainly the wrong message to those drug dealers in Ontario and to the people of Ontario. They moved the responsibility for this to the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, and by downgrading this problem we saw that the government certainly thought there was no significant problem, and in fact we have seen no significant action by the PA, who is Mr Mammoliti, the member for Downsview. We've seen no activities of any significance on this particular matter.

1150

We know that other changes need to occur, and they are changes to the liquor act which would permit relocation of licensed premises where anybody knowingly permits the use of these premises for trafficking or with knowledge that there are people on the premises who have possession of drugs. We need amendments to the trespass act to make it easier for private property owners of shopping malls and other premises to be able to police these activities and we need to help school boards by providing additional powers to make it easy to obtain injunctions to keep undesirable people off the premises.

In closing, I would say that our leader, Mr Harris, has visited crack houses to see just the nature of these problems. I believe the leader of the Liberal Party has indeed done the same.

We hope that all parties will support this legislation, because it's for the safety and the security of our children, who must be our most precious commodity. We as legislators must find it incumbent upon ourselves to protect these innocent children. I believe that Bill 20 is a positive step in dealing with this insidious drug problem. I will close now to leave some time for my colleague to close.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I have lived at Jane and Sheppard in my riding for almost 31 years, and in that time I've seen crime reduced, especially over the last couple of years, by 42%. It's been reduced because we have been able to get rid of the drug dealers who have plagued us for a number of years. For that reason, I am going to support the member's private member's bill, because I thoroughly believe that we need to get a little tougher, a little stronger with drug dealers.

I have no pity whatsoever for drug dealers. I think that drug dealers are the scummiest of the scums, and if we don't become a little tougher, then things are just going to get worse in different communities. They're like cockroaches: You can spray a building full of cockroaches until you're blue in the face and you don't necessarily kill off those cockroaches. Those cockroaches go to different units, they spread out, they go all over the place. We've got to become a little tougher, and that's why I agree with the bill.

That's not to say that I think the bill is the best, because there are a number of amendments that I think the bill could inherit. I think, for instance, you should include the Food and Drugs Act in the amendment. What about amphetamines? What about people who sell cough syrup? What about those drug dealers? What about the ones who go to different doctors and get prescription drugs and do nothing but sell those prescription drugs on site? That's one of the amendments that I would propose at a later stage.

The issue is clear for a lot of people. They think, and the argument would be, "Why get rid of whole families? Why evict whole families?" In a lot of the cases, the families know that the father or the mother or the son is dealing drugs. When this happens, they need to pay.

Now, you say, "Children." Some people might use the argument of children. Does a drug dealer deserve to have the responsibilities of a child? My answer is that we've got to think seriously about that. Do we want to give the responsibility of children to a drug dealer? That's another reason I agree with the bill.

Then of course the argument of the Landlord and Tenant Act is a good one, but currently MTHA is evicting people even before, at times, going to court. At least this bill deals with the issue of the court's ruling on eviction and taking under consideration the family and the innocent people. I'm going to vote in favour of it.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I just wanted to comment briefly on some of the speeches that I've heard from the governing party, particularly the member for Niagara Falls, who put forward the comment that this was unconstitutional and it was not possible for us to put forward a law of this nature in the provincial Legislature.

Well, part of her argument related to the fact that in many of the cases where drug offences are being prosecuted, they are prosecuted by a federal prosecutor. Well, quite frankly, it does not matter whether a private citizen prosecutes an offence, a crown attorney from the provincial government prosecutes an offence or a federal prosecutor from the federal government or representing the federal government prosecutes an offence. The law is the law, and therefore, if there are provincial laws to put into effect as a result of a criminal offence, then that can be done, as is done in the case of impaired driving.

When a person is convicted in this province of impaired driving, an immediate result is a suspension of his licence under the federal Criminal Code but, as well, there is a suspension under the Highway Traffic Act, and that is done in conjunction with the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore, the argument that we cannot go into the Criminal Code and deal with the penalties associated with a criminal offence is wrong, false, and, quite frankly, it is misleading.

We believe that no one should stand behind a constitutional argument to protect drug dealers from dealing drugs in rented premises in this province. Therefore, I challenge all of the government members not to stand behind a fallacious constitutional argument in order to put down this bill.

Mr Runciman: I want to thank all of those who participated in the debate today, and I want to say in respect to the legal arguments put forward by members of the government side that I've had four lawyers in this Legislature -- representing different parties, I might add -- come forward to indicate that the constitutional questions and other legal arguments put forward by the government members were indeed inaccurate. I think it reflects badly on the research department for the government, I must say.

I want to say again that this is a significant problem. I mentioned at the outset that there are something like 400 crack dealers in Metro Housing. This is a significant problem. So to have members opposite, specifically the member for London South, express concern -- it's interesting. At the outset I said the only people who have expressed concern at this juncture to me were lawyers who represent landlords attempting to achieve evictions through the process that's now in place. Obviously there is a serious problem that currently exists and we have to do something.

There may be some problems in terms of this legislation; I freely admit that. But this exercise is to approve of the principle, and I think all of us can agree -- I hope all of us can agree -- that we have to deal with this vermin. We have to send out the message that we want these people out of public housing. We want them out and we want them out as quickly as possible.

I'll give you an example. There are about 360 units in the Alexandra Park housing complex at Dundas.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: There's an NDP member -- what riding does he represent? Chatham-Kent. Chatham-Kent apparently has no problem with crack dealers operating in subsidized public housing. The member for Chatham-Kent --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Runciman: The member for Chatham-Kent is interjecting that he has no problem with crack dealers operating beside public schools in this province like what's happening -- beside Alexandra Park, the complex, is Ryerson Public School. The police estimate 15 to 20 crack houses operating in that public housing complex --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Runciman: -- right beside a public school. And the member from Chatham-Kent apparently has no problem with that; no problem.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Runciman: The Jane-Finch area --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Thank you. Order, please.

CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 11, Mr Ramsay's private member's bill.

Any members opposing a vote on this motion, on this bill, please rise.

Seeing none, all those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it. I declare the motion carried.

The bill has been ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Speaker, I would request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social development.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of sending the bill to the social development committee, rise and remain standing.

All those opposed please rise.

Yes, we have a clear majority. The bill will proceed to social development.

TENANTS AND LANDLORDS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES ET DES LOCATEURS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with Mr Runciman's private member's motion, ballot item number 12. Do we have anyone opposed to a vote on this motion? If so, please rise.

All those in favour of Mr Runciman's motion please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "nays" have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Runciman's motion please rise and remain standing until identified by the clerk.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cordiano, Dadamo, Daigeler, Harnick, Harris, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Murphy, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Waters.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. All those opposed to Mr Runciman's motion please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Abel, Carter, Cooper, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Malkowski, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 29; the nays are 25. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? The bill will be ordered to committee of the whole House.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of sending the bill to the standing committee on justice, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to sending the bill to the standing committee on justice, please rise and remain standing.

A majority is in favour of sending the bill to the standing committee on justice, and it is so ordered.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

ESTIMATES

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): All members should rise, please.

The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1994, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

Signed at Toronto, June 3, 1993.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): This week is Mining Week in Ontario. Members of the Legislature will have received a booklet from the Ontario Mining Association titled Mining: Building Ontario's Future. It provides important facts on the industry and its critical place in Ontario's economy.

The mineral industry has historically played a key role in the economic development of this province, making contributions to employment, wealth generation, tax coffers, value-added materials and trade balance. However, over the past few years, the Ontario mining industry has suffered from low commodity prices, increased international competition and escalating costs of production that are serving to weaken its competitive position.

The provincial government cannot directly influence the price of nickel, gold, zinc, copper etc, nor does the province have control over the development of the mineral industry in other nations. However, the provincial government is in a position to assist the mineral industry to continue to play a vital role in the economic development of Ontario through a review of largely government-mandated costs of production incurred by this industry.

During a recent tour across the province to visit the mining sites and to meet with the front-line personnel, they indicated this government was showing little interest in helping to reduce their costs. One example which was brought to our attention time and time again was the fact that as the industry shows improvements in terms of a safer workplace, their WCB contributions continue to escalate.

Tonight, the Ontario Mining Association will be holding its annual Meet the Miners reception at the Royal Ontario Museum from 5 to 7. Meet the Miners is an important communications forum for the people of the mining industry, their associates and government officials to engage in constructive dialogue. I encourage all members of the Legislature to take advantage of this opportunity.

MINISTRY RELOCATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The Ministry of Health is proceeding with plans to move 500 employees from the offices on Overlea Boulevard, where they have been effectively housed for 25 years, to another location.

The rationale for this move is not known. It is rumoured, unfortunately, that the ministry wishes more attractive accommodation. What we do know is that the existing site is conveniently accessed by public transit.

The present owners of the properties are willing to negotiate concerning the space in question. As the government is committed to downsizing, the space cannot be at issue, but cost should be a consideration and a move of this nature will be costly.

In addition to the Ministry of Health, three other ministries are located in the Overlea offices. The lease for these offices expires in June 1994. There has been no indication that these ministries will be staying. If they leave, it will result in the loss of 1,000 employees from the area. The spinoff effect of this loss will impact hard on East York and will have dire economic repercussions.

At a time when all levels of government need to promote economic development and job creation, this move by the government will severely inhibit East York's ability to develop business growth in the Leaside-Thorncliffe area.

What is necessary now is a strong statement from Management Board directing the Ministry of Government Services to review the leases where they presently exist.

At a time when major ministry relocation projects are being reversed, I would strongly suggest another look be given at the appropriateness and the necessity of this proposal.

WINE AND DINE 93

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of a very exciting and appetizing event: Wine and Dine 93.

This first annual celebration of Ontario wine and food started earlier this week and will run through June 27. Wine and Dine 93 is a very special event indeed. Thirty-four chefs from Toronto to Niagara have combined forces with 13 Ontario wineries to create a dining experience that won't soon be forgotten.

Each participating chef has created special dishes made with fine Ontario ingredients, and this tasty cuisine has been matched to a selection of fine Ontario wines.

In addition to great food and wine pairings, each participating restaurant has organized special events such as winemakers' tastings and winemakers' dinners.

This allows patrons a chance to meet some of the Ontario top winemakers and creative chefs. Wine and Dine 93 also offers participants a chance to win great prizes.

Every Wine and Dine patron will receive a special passport. Once it has been stamped by three participating restaurants, it can be entered in a Wine and Dine sweepstakes. Lucky winners will receive one of 65 VIP winery tours or one of the 58 complimentary dinners for two.

I would like to congratulate the organizers of Wine and Dine 93 for coming up with a unique way of promoting Ontario's splendid agricultural products.

I urge members of this House to spread the word about Wine and Dine 93.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have waited all week for this government to announce that this is National Access Awareness Week, but alas to no avail.

This week is designed to raise people's awareness about the disabled community and the barriers they face in attempting to lead a normal mainstream lifestyle. The intention is to highlight obstacles and barriers that exist so that they can be broken down or removed, and also to pay tribute to those who have struggled selflessly for the dignity of disabled persons.

Despite consistent efforts to normalize the lifestyle of the disabled, the government has failed to act on issues that would improve the quality of life of the disabled community.

Transportation accessibility still remains an outstanding problem, particularly in regard to intercity and intraprovincial buses. The disabled remain barred from taking this cheapest form of transport.

Slashing the employment equity internship program is another blow to access and indicates the low priority given to it by this government.

To date, the government has failed to act on a promise to implement a pilot project that will give direct funding to the disabled for their attendant care.

The special services at home and sheltered workshop programs have also been cut substantially.

Last, but not least, there has been no movement on the Ontarians with disabilities act.

My sincere regards to the disabled community for a very productive and rewarding week. I wish them the best in the coming year.

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to remind members of the Legislature that this Saturday is Cornflower Day for ALS.

The same man who said, "I am the luckiest man in the world," when he retired from the New York Yankees in 1939, died of the disease known as ALS. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, still often referred to as Lou Gehrig disease, is as common worldwide as multiple sclerosis.

ALS is a fatal neuromuscular disease that strikes one in every 1,000 Canadian adults. ALS crosses all social and economic boundaries. The average life expectancy of a person with ALS is two and a half years. ALS affects twice as many men as women.

At present, there is reason to hope that a cure is within reach. Scientists have discovered the gene that causes ALS and are now working towards a treatment and eventual cure.

For the past eight years, the ALS Society of Canada has held the annual cornflower campaign to raise funds for medical research. To commemorate Lou Gehrig's death, this Saturday volunteers in communities throughout Ontario will be selling cornflowers to raise awareness for ALS and to ask for donations to this very worthy cause. In my riding of Dufferin-Peel, the Orangeville Optimist Club is organizing the local cornflower campaign and will be offering the symbolic cornflower in exchange for a donation to ALS.

All of the money raised during Cornflower Day this year will be used for research into the cause and cure of ALS and to increase public awareness. When you see the volunteers with the blue cornflowers, please give generously so that together we can eradicate this devastating disease.

1340

TEN STEPS TO COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise today before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce a group from the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings that is participating in the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's Ten Steps to Community Action program.

This is a program that aims to develop the kinds of leadership skills that rural communities need in order to ensure their survival as vibrant places to work and grow.

I'm proud to recall that it was first introduced about a year ago by the current Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Honourable Elmer Buchanan.

I would like to thank Linda Jones, who has been the program coordinator this year, and give special recognition to this group as they visit with us today in the Legislature.

I have had a lot to say about rural Ontario since I've been a member of the Legislature. You will recall that last year I introduced a private member's resolution on rural affairs. This is a very timely visit because the Ten Steps program is now part of Jobs Ontario Community Action, which was announced in the budget. Jobs Ontario Community Action has a strong rural component and it shows that my resolution and the hard work of the rural advisory committee in bringing attention to the needs of rural Ontario have been listened to.

Now we have an element of Jobs Ontario that will allow rural people to invest in their own communities and ensure that rural areas remain culturally and economically viable. I'm particularly pleased to see these people here today because it shows their commitment to making their own small part of the world a better place. It's good to see people who are working together so that our rural routes and small towns remain areas that we are proud to call home.

I'd like to once again thank this group for visiting the Legislature today and for participating in this program. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome the 16 Lennox and Addington Ten Steps to Community Action group members to the Legislature today.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the NDP government's announcement of potential dump sites in the greater Toronto area. For 365 days, people in York, Durham and Peel have been living in constant turmoil.

Last year, the region of York launched a charter challenge against the NDP government on the grounds that the whole Interim Waste Authority process is terminally flawed.

How ironic that on June 1, 1993, just one day after this government introduced the Environmental Bill of Rights, the trial judge supported York region's anti-dump court case by giving the go-ahead for a full trial.

I want to read into the record part of the statement made by Eldred King, the chair of York region, regarding the court's ruling:

"York region has been completely vindicated in its claim that the IWA search process is invalid.

"The June 1 court decision that Mayor Bob Johnston, town of Georgina, is entitled to a trial of his claim that the IWA search process violated York region residents' rights to fundamental justice and equality clearly shows there is a serious question about the legality of what the IWA is doing.

"The government should stop the search process immediately until the legality of what it is doing is settled. Why spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per week on work that may have to be redone," King said. "This is a complete waste of the taxpayers' money at a time when fiscal constraint should be the government's watchword."

Minister, do what my leader, Lyn McLeod, has urged from the beginning: Scrap the Interim Waste Authority process. Scrap Bill 143. Restore a true environmental assessment process with all alternatives on the table.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The NDP Agenda for People that helped elect Bob Rae's government has become an agenda for disaster. GO Transit will hurt 5,000 people in York region who need help most. Without consultation or consideration of their ability to pay, transit riders from Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan will pay close to 100% more when they go to work or go to the doctor's office or travel to school, especially when they use GO Transit.

Public transit is used by people who need it most, people with health and physical disabilities of many kinds -- blindness, epilepsy, strokes and other different disorders -- people who cannot afford a car, seniors and members of the general public who don't drive. Yet the Bob Rae cutback agenda is no longer an agenda for people; it's a senseless, hurtful agenda for disaster for transit riders who rely on public transportation systems.

Don't believe the government either when it announces toll roads for new highways and roads. When I was reading Bill 17, the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the fine print says, "The corporation may make regulations designating any highway as a toll highway."

This is highway robbery in the 1990s. They came along and said, "We will do it for toll roads." You read the fine print, the way I did yesterday in getting ready for the bill, and they're going to, maybe, toll every road, so any 400 road, any highway, any construction.

Interjection: Come on.

Mr Cousens: Come on? Then take it out of Bill 17 so that we don't have to face up with more hurtful, disastrous actions for people in the province of Ontario.

LA SALLE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mine's a little bit more positive.

The town of La Salle is proud to bring forth another strawberry festival, which promises to be even more successful than last year's. This tasty event will begin Friday, June 4, and continue through Sunday, June 6. The festival is entering its sixth year, and by all past accounts, thousands of pints of strawberries will be eaten this weekend.

Family fun is the theme again. Organizers have many interesting events planned, primarily along Front Road in La Salle. Planners of the festival highlight the fact that 35,000 people attended last year and so are equally excited about more coming this year.

Friday evening will see the opening ceremonies, followed by a steak barbecue and entertainment by the groups the Crystals and Eddie and the Cruisers. On Friday night there will be, of course, a strawberry-eating contest, followed by the fishing derby, which will see first light at 5 am Saturday morning. The parade will begin at 10 o'clock in Turkey Creek. This will be followed by a family fun run/walk, or you can join in the volleyball tournament or participate in the baby contest and car show, where 100 vehicles will be seen.

As you can see, the La Salle Strawberry Festival this weekend will be a berry good time. I hope that the good people from Windsor, Leamington, Cottam, Tilbury, Chatham and all points in between will make the drive to La Salle for this weekend.

Mr Speaker, thanks for yourself being a berry good fellow.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ESTIMATES

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Today the 1993-94 printed estimates were tabled. Under the rules of the House, estimates must be tabled within five sessional days of a budget being presented.

As members know, the estimates are the detailed spending plans of the government and constitute the government's formal request to the Legislature for approval. Once approved by the Legislature in the Supply Act, the estimates become the legal spending authority of each ministry.

In the budget speech I indicated that during the month of June I would be reporting on the achievement of $2 billion in expenditure savings through the social contract. As a courtesy to the House, I would like to briefly outline a timetable for communications around the achievement of those savings.

Last month's budget outlined a two-part package to reduce ministry expenditures and reduce the deficit. The first part was an aggressive expenditure control plan which cut $4 billion in planned spending. The second part of our package is the social contract. As members know, those negotiations are still going on, but what I want to make absolutely clear today is that this government is fully committed to achieving $2 billion in savings. We are at the same time committed to preserving services and jobs.

The savings achieved through the social contract and the expenditure control plan, $6 billion in total, mean that for the first time in 50 years, operating spending by the government of Ontario is actually going down. The 1993 budget provides for total operating expenditures of $50 billion, including $4 billion in reductions from the expenditure control plan and $2 billion from the social contract negotiations. The 1993-94 ministry estimates include the expenditure control plan savings and will subsequently be adjusted to fully reflect the $2 billion in measures resulting from the social contract negotiations. Included in the estimates is a table of adjusted ministry expenditures reflecting sectoral social contract savings. I will be making a subsequent announcement shortly with further ministry expenditure details.

To assure the House that it will be voting on estimates which fully reflect the fiscal plan contained in the budget and to facilitate the review of the estimates, I will be asking members to amend the estimates in accordance with the changes brought forward as a result of the social contract process.

1350

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Finance and say to the people of Ontario that the chaotic management of the finances continues. I think even fairminded people, Minister of Finance, would say that nothing that you know now you didn't know in December. You could have let the school boards, the municipalities, the hospitals, the colleges, the universities know what you had in store for them for 1993. Today they are getting close to knowing what's in store for them in 1993, and I will say to the people of the public of Ontario, those organizations are almost halfway through their year and it is only today that they are beginning to see what the government has in store for them. You could have told them that back in December.

I will also say that, as we look at some of your plans, there is a plan to save $500 million a year in pension money. I will say to the Minister of Finance -- I think he will recall this -- that he was supposed to make a payment to the pensions last year of $500 million; that was not made. He was supposed to make that payment this year; there are no plans in the budget to make that payment. Now we have the Minister of Finance saying they are going to find an additional $500 million.

I want to see where that $500 million is coming from, because that's an integral part of the social contract talks. The government promised last year to make a payment to the teachers' pension; didn't make it. It's supposed to be in this year; it's not in this year. It is delayed. That's $500 million. Now, central to the social contract discussions, is an additional $500 million in pensions, and we'll want to see that.

If one reads the public accounts, there is an unfunded liability, money owing in the teachers' pension, of almost $8 billion, yet we find these two things central to the social contract discussions: $500 million a year in savings in the pension when the government couldn't make a payment last year and is not planning to make a payment this year of $500 million. That I think is important as we look at these estimates.

Secondly, as we look at what's going on at the social contract table, I gather that the capital expenditure decisions will be as a result of the collective bargaining process. Certainly, I have no difficulty with others having a say in it, but in the final analysis, where we locate our hospitals, where we locate our schools surely should be a decision that is made by the public of Ontario, not at the collective bargaining table.

As we look at the decisions that are being made, I think in haste, for obvious reasons -- the Treasurer has to find $2 billion -- I will say there is great danger that we are going to make some fundamental mistakes in the interests of reaching a $2-billion decision very quickly with a gun at the head.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): What would you do?

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education asks what would we do. We would have started long ago to tackle it. When you have a gun to your head, you are going to make dumb decisions, and I predict, when you sign this contract -- the Premier says, "Why raise these issues now?" We are raising these issues now because when the contract comes forward on Monday, we will raise those issues on Monday.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I didn't say anything.

Mr Phillips: The Treasurer says there are significant savings. Again, we will look at the estimates, the savings from deferred savings. That's a strange statement to me, savings from deferred savings. Essentially, there are expenditures that should have been made this year that the Minister of Finance has simply delayed till next year. I understand that, I understand the problems they're in, but there are $540 million of savings from deferred savings. Essentially, they are simply the postponement of expenditures.

I also want to comment a little bit about some of the other things that are in the estimates. Perhaps the most challenged groups out there right now are our municipalities, our hospitals, our school boards. How they are going to handle the capital in the future is very interesting.

The province used to provide grants of $600 million a year in capital for school boards, for hospitals and for colleges and universities. You know what's going to happen in these estimates, Mr Speaker? The school boards, the hospitals, the colleges and the universities are going to have to borrow the money for the province and lend the money, the $600 million, to the province. That's part of these estimates.

The school boards and those other organizations are going to go out and borrow for the province $600 million, and then the province will let that debt run up and pay off one twentieth of that each year. Five years from now, we will owe $3 billion to the hospitals and the school boards; 10 years from now, $6 billion. That's what's in these estimates and that's why we look forward to a significant debate on them.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I just want to make a few preliminary comments about how disappointed I was not only with the budget but disappointed as well, reflected through the tabling of the estimates today.

The Premier promised us a three-pronged attack on the deficit and we agreed the deficit had to be dealt with. It was to be a three-pronged attack, he told us: roughly $2-billion tax hikes, $2 billion from the public sector employees, the extended public sector employees of the province of Ontario, and we thought there was a third prong: that they were going to cut back government spending, that they were going to participate, they themselves.

Last year the deficit was $12 billion, the Treasurer told us. It's in his estimates and it's in the budget. We know there's a tax hike of $2 billion. That should tell you that the deficit this year will be $10 billion. We know there's $2 billion coming out of the pockets of the civil servants and the public sector workers, who are also taxpayers; they're getting hit twice. That means the deficit should be $8 billion. If they actually participated, even $2 billion, the deficit should be $6 billion. But the deficit is $10 billion. Why? Because the third prong, the part where you cut back yourself, is not here. You hiked your own spending $2 billion so taxpayers are ponying up $2 billion. The public sector workers of this province, 940,000, they're going to pony up $2 billion, and you, in a disgraceful way, are still increasing your own program spending by $2 billion. I think it's a disgrace, I think it is a betrayal and you have misled the people of this province with what you told them in your budget.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party strays over the line. He should really choose his words a little more carefully and not suggest that a member is misleading.

Mr Harris: He's not misled the House today. They've hiked spending $2 billion. It was in the public statements out to the people, so I hope that clarifies it.

The Speaker: Helpful.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): If everyone could come and have some honesty at the table, we'd go an awful lot further. The Liberals come along today and say, "Oh, well, you should have started sooner." You should have started back when David Peterson started spending the money a few years back because we're reaping the harvest from when they went along and had complete abandon with no responsibility and now you come forward and, as we look at your books now, it's hard to add them. I mean, you've got so many places where the rounding is so large, we're talking in the orders of billions of dollars, and you're moving money around in such a mysterious way.

The tragedy is that as we in the Legislature try to find time to look at these estimates that are being tabled today, I can just tell other members of the House who haven't been around as long that we won't have a chance. It'll all come to the last minute and there'll be a rush-through of the estimates and this Legislature will not have the time to reflect and discuss and debate and investigate the books of this government. It hasn't happened for years and it's time it started to happen, because then there is some accountability that goes on. At this point, the government is able to use its majority to rush through anything it wants and we in opposition are not given the chance to make that kind of thorough inspection that is our right and our responsibility.

We look at this estimate process and now the Treasurer is saying, "Well, we're still hoping for $2 billion." I'm concerned with your whole concept of the future of Ontario. What we've got to do is get Ontario moving again. Have a vision for this province and this country that we're actually participating in growth. Ontario's always been known as the engine of growth in this country. Well, you come along and say, "Here, we can actually point to the fact that the government is going down." You should also comment that business and industry are having the biggest struggle and the most difficult time they've ever had, and you as a government are adding to their problems with the kinds of budget tax hikes that you have announced. There is no doubt that you're going to be driving people out of work this year. Some 50,000 people will be losing their jobs because of the $2-billion tax hike.

I am in support, as our leader is, and I want to thank our leader, Mr Harris, for commenting on this in the way that he has. We're looking for a positive approach to the deficit and the budgetary and monetary policies of this government. It can't be done unless we have some integrity on the part of those who are sitting down. I just wish that this government and this Finance minister would come clean with the books and tell us exactly what's going on instead of --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The deadline for the social contract talks is coming closer and closer and we are becoming more and more anxious that in some of the panic of last-minute negotiations there are going to be significant and long-term decisions made that will affect the future of health care in this province.

We have seen a copy of the latest paper that has now been put before the health care table at the social contract talks and it would appear that the government has put the future of private labs, the ambulance system and private long-term care providers on the social contract table.

A bargaining table is not the place to make long-term decisions about the future of health care in this province. This is not the place to start making tradeoffs that are going to have long-term consequences. I ask you to assure us today, before these talks go into their 11th hour, that you will not shut out private health care providers as part of a deal cut at the social contract table.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I've made it a practice as much as possible not to comment on every single exchange that takes place down at the Royal York Hotel and I'm going to try to keep to that rule today and certainly in the next number of hours.

I would say to the honourable member that of course the private sector, indeed the medical profession as private practitioners, plays a critical role in the health care system. The issue, however, of efficiency and savings to government and savings to the taxpayers of the province and also the quality of services that are provided are issues which are always open to discussion. I would hope that the honourable member would agree with that conclusion and would agree with the fact that in any government assessment of its expenditures, first of all, it's reasonable to discuss those with employees and it's reasonable to look for ways of saving taxpayers money.

I would suggest to the honourable member that some of these issues are issues that are going to take some time, obviously, to explore, that we're looking in the next day or so at a conclusion of a set of basic policy frameworks for the future and that's the direction that we're taking.

Mrs McLeod: I want to be clear that my question is not on the issue of physicians and physicians' services. My question is on three issues that are in the latest proposals put on the social contract table relating to private medical laboratories, ambulance services, long-term care providers, and that includes nursing homes, it includes home health care providers.

You will understand our concern because this idea that your government has of squeezing the private sector out of the provision of care is hardly a new one. It's been quite obvious that you have a stated preference for non-profit care.

When the union asked that this policy be pursued in their initial response to the government's social contract proposals, it did call forth a written response from government officials, and I'm glad that you've touched on the issue of the social contract talks focusing on cost-effectiveness and saving dollars because your officials, when they responded to the union proposal, said very clearly in writing, "The pace of implementation of this policy preference" -- the policy preference for non-profit care -- "will be affected by the very significant costs involved in a movement towards greater reliance on not-for-profit services in long-term care."

We are concerned that in the dying hours of these negotiations this policy has been put back on the table, despite the fact that your own officials have acknowledged that it will cost more money. Premier, again I ask you to assure us that you will not support decisions that are made in the heat of the moment which will in fact result in a more expensive health care system, not a less expensive one.

Hon Mr Rae: In a very general sense, I would say to the honourable member that of course the question of cost-effectiveness and quality of services that we deliver to the citizens of the province is the critical test. I certainly don't think these are issues that are resolved on ideological grounds. I think these are issues that are resolved on practical grounds.

The public hospitals of the province in their laboratories offer services which in many cases are ready to be used more widely. That's a fact. The ambulance services of the province, I think we all recognize, have been subject to considerable review. We have a report from Dr Swimmer which is before the province. So obviously the issues of the quality of services and the efficiency are critical, as well as the issue of costs.

But quite apart from the preamble to her question, the focus of the actual thrust of her question was, can I give my assurances that we will not do something that's going to end up costing more money. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition it's not my intention to be authorizing or approving policies that are going to end up costing the province of Ontario more money.

Mrs McLeod: Given the statement that your officials have made in writing, that certainly in moving towards not-for-profit exclusively in long-term care there will be a significant cost, we should be able to assume that those proposals will now be taken off the social contract table before those discussions proceed any further. Clearly there are not cost savings to be effected with this move.

The reason they are not likely to be taken off the table is because of the pressure at that table, which we understand, which is a pressure to preserve jobs, and that is clearly going to be the focus in these last hours. That is why I want to be sure you understand that you are not simply going to trade private sector jobs for public sector jobs.

When you put the private sector health care providers on the table as part of the bargaining process, you are jeopardizing private sector jobs across this province. Jobs are jobs. There are real people in those positions. There are real people who will lose their jobs if you shut down these private health care providers. I just ask you again for an assurance that you will not make last-minute tradeoffs with the unions at the social contract table that are going to put people in the private sector out of work by squeezing out private laboratories, private ambulance services and private nursing home operators and other health care providers.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that obviously the issue of jobs in the economy is the crucial issue for the whole of the province, and we are determined, and the purpose of the social contract discussions is to provide a sense of greater fiscal reality and fairness as we look at the next three years and to provide the basis for some major long-term restructuring of the public sector so that we can in fact deliver services more efficiently and fairly to the citizens of the province.

If the honourable member looks back at the history of her own government, and I know that it's not something that she likes to do, but perhaps she might reflect on the fact that when the Liberals were in office between 1985 and 1990, non-profit deliverers of service were given access, that in fact in terms of the new nursing home licences, non-profit deliverers of service were given a leg up, were given in fact preferred access in terms of many services. Those are facts, but I think -- and I can understand it in question period -- she's reading a little bit much into what she's got in front of her. I think she's extrapolating from that into a set of scenarios --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- that really don't have anything to do with the policies of this government.

Mrs McLeod: There's no extrapolation here. There is a very clear policy, a policy which could well be put into decisions in the next 24 hours in a bargaining setting which has nothing to do with making good long-term decisions.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I question, as the Premier talks about the principles of fiscal reality and fairness, whether or not the other group of people in the health care field whom I want to address with my questions today feel as though they are really operating on principles of fairness.

I was dismayed to hear the news last night and this morning about the 1,100 Ontario physicians who attended the US recruiting fair at the Royal York last night. You will be well aware that a great many of those who attended the recruiting fair were from this year's graduating class of doctors.

Last week the member from Halton Centre asked you whether or not you would encourage student doctors to attend the fair, and perhaps it was a little bit of a rhetorical question, which of course you didn't answer. But in fact you and the Minister of Health did encourage this year's graduating class to attend that fair in large numbers. You encouraged it by telling this year's graduates that they are not going to be able to practise in Ontario, and you certainly made the recruiters' jobs easier.

When asked what she says to convince residents to come to the United States, one of those recruiters said: "We don't have to tell them anything. Your government has already done that. In fact your government, by its actions, is the best recruiter we have."

1410

Premier, I ask you today, will you stop this exodus of a whole generation of doctors? Will you send a clear signal to this year's graduating doctors that you will abandon this foolish policy, that you will let them know that there is a place for them Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Sometimes I find it hard to believe my ears when I hear the Leader of the Opposition reaching for really the rhetorically absurd. I would say to her very, very directly that when she says this government has told the younger doctors or newer doctors coming into practice they can't practise medicine in Ontario, that is false and she should know it's false. She knows it isn't true. I'm astonished that the Leader of the Opposition would come up with that kind of rhetorical exaggeration. Indeed it's an exaggeration that leads to the utterance of an absolutely preposterous statement. She should know far better.

I would say to the honourable member that we have been discussing a proposal with the Ontario Medical Association as well as with the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario. Dr Evans has been involved in some discussions in which other proposals are being put forward, and we look forward to hearing what other proposals and other answers.

Let me perhaps say to the honourable member, is she saying that it's not legitimate for governments to try to control costs? Is she saying that the problems of the underserviced areas are being adequately addressed by the current programs which were put into place by the Conservative and Liberal administrations? Is that what she is saying?

Is she saying the government should not be expressing any concern about costs? Is she saying that Ontario should be the only province in the entire federation which is not going to have a serious program of attempting to control costs of physician services in all of Canada? Is that now the position of the Liberal Party of Ontario? What has Mr Bourassa done in Quebec? What are other governments doing in western Canada? What are governments having to do across the country?

The issue of the control of health costs is there. It's on the table. We're facing up to it because you avoided it the entire time you were in office, five years of evasion --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- because you avoided them for all that time.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I would suggest to you that, in the last eight weeks of sheer panic after you discovered you had to deal with your deficit problem, you have jeopardized all of the good work which in fact a previous Minister of Health under your government was beginning to do to control health care costs in this province and you have put the lives of the graduating class of medical students on hold. I ask if you think this is exaggerated or preposterous rhetoric that you go and talk to those young people. They will tell you that they have got to make decisions about their future today.

You can't give them a much clearer message than was given to them when they were told that there are only a handful of communities in this province in which they are free to practise. Let me tell you too that you gave a very clear message to about 2,011 other communities that were told that they could not hire new physicians. We hear from those communities on a daily basis, because they are worried about how they are going to meet their health care needs, not only today but in the future, as you drive out a whole generation of young doctors.

Premier, what are you telling these communities when you tell them that these young doctors cannot practise here? Are you telling them that their concerns are exaggerated and preposterous?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I'm saying that the Leader of the Opposition's description of the situation is. I mean, in her quest for whatever headlines she's trying to seize on a given day, she's reaching for higher and higher levels of rhetorical preposterousness. I recognize that it's an occupational hazard, I can say to the Leader of the Opposition, and I think I understand it when I see it. I think I'm seeing it and I've heard it very clearly the last little while.

I would say to her very directly that we are, first of all, engaged in some serious negotiations and some serious discussions, as are other governments across the country, with respect to the control of the cost of physician services and the cost to the entire province of this and, secondly, ensuring access to services and ensuring increased access to services in many communities, including, I might say, many communities in northern Ontario, which I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would know full well.

When I hear the Leader of the Opposition saying, "Oh, well, the status quo is fine and everything we did is fine" -- health care costs up 11% per year, every year you were in office. We were left with a situation when we took office in which the system was literally unaffordable. We have to make it affordable, we have to make it workable and we have to work with a system which needs to be reformed.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We are reforming it. We are negotiating and we are dealing with some tough problems, problems which you as Liberals systematically avoided during your term in office.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: Good-time Charlies who now don't know what to do.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): What is preposterous is this government's approach to the whole issue of planning the policy for physician resources in the province for today and for the future. I want to just outline in my preamble the kinds of things this government has done and why everything is so chaotic out there.

We have the Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis at McMaster charged with looking at this issue. We have an interim economic agreement between the government and the OMA whose first priority is charged with looking at the issue of physician resources. Out of the blue, we have a stupid announcement put on the table as part of the social contract discussions that our newly graduated internes and residents will be locked out of practice de facto, if not fully. Then we see a $110,000 panic piece of advertising talking to that same campaign.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mrs Sullivan: Then we see a new committee, chaired by Dr Evans, struck to get you out of hot water, and last night, Premier, we saw your --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mrs Sullivan: -- Minister of Health making a new announcement, on the run, in the corridors at the Royal York Hotel, saying, well, maybe you'd approach it in a different way, when there's been no proper policy work done.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mrs Sullivan: I'm asking the Premier to address this very serious question: Why is this policy being made on the run, in corridors, in panic situations and without a full policy development process that all of the mechanisms are in place to allow for?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that she --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Tell us where they can practise, Bob.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat for a moment, please.

Mr Mahoney: Where can they practise?

The Speaker: I ask the member for Mississauga West to please come to order. Intemperate language will not be helpful. Premier.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): How many would have graduated?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say directly to the honourable member that I'm not quite clear what her complaint now is. Is she opposed to the work that Dr Evans is doing? Is she opposed to the fact that there are discussions --

Mrs Sullivan: It's chaos and you know it.

Hon Mr Rae: She's opposed to the fact that there are discussions going along with payroll and the OMA. Well, this confirms my view of question period today. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition's concern was that we would not be able to reach a deal; today the concern of the Liberal Party seems to be that we might reach a deal and how terrible that would be. I think we got a sense of that.

There are discussions and negotiations going on which are involving directly the interests of the younger doctors as well as the interests that the province has with respect to controlling the cost of physician services and the cost of medicare across the province, just as is taking place across the country, and it took this government to do it. I can tell the member this issue has been raised by the government for some time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: There's no question we now feel it has to be dealt with as a matter of priority. I'm quite confident that we will be dealing with it successfully.

1420

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier, and let me say that it's never easy to cut back. We have pointed out some areas where we would have wanted to proceed very differently and some of the mistakes we believe you've made. Having said that, this is the last day of the House before tomorrow's deadline. We wish you well today and tomorrow and hope that you're successful.

Having said that, my question, though, is about the budget, something that you can do something about and that was within your control. My caucus last week, when it was constituency week -- we think you brought the budget in in hopes that the anger might go away -- toured this province and asked Ontarians what they thought of your budget. Today, if a page can assist me, I want to table the first 3,500 responses, if you'll take those over to the Premier and the Treasurer.

Of these responses, only 26 agree with your budgetary direction, less than 1%. We received support from people in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, in Financial Institutions, in the Ministry of Environment and Energy. We are receiving letters and faxes daily asking us to do whatever we can to change your mind.

They all agree the deficit's a problem. They all tell you they're willing to take spending cutbacks, even when it affects them, instead of a $2-billion tax grab. Given that 99% of the Ontarians we are talking to say cut spending, don't hike taxes, what more do we have to do to get you to listen?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll ask the author of the budget to answer your question, the Minister of Finance.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Minister of Finance.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity.

I think the leader of the third party was serious in his question and I'll try to give him a serious answer, because I spent last week travelling the province, as did my colleagues back in their own constituencies, consulting with people all across the province as well.

Since the leader of the third party sent over a box of ballots, I wanted to make sure that everybody understood what the question on the ballot was. I mean, talk about a time for leadership and tough decisions. This is what the leader of the third party asked the people of Ontario with this ballot. It's an option to tick off one of these two boxes,

"I agree with Mike Harris that Ontario needs a 1993 provincial budget with no tax increases, cuts in government waste and a prosperity plan to create jobs and renew the economy."

That was one box the taxpayer could check off.

Hon Mr Rae: Check that tough choice. Would you like to have free beer tomorrow or not? That's the question.

Hon Mr Laughren: I can just imagine taxpayers agonizing over the choice here. The next choice was, "I agree with Bob Rae that Ontario needs a 1993 provincial budget with $2 billion in tax hikes and a $10-billion deficit." Check off one of those, Mr Speaker. Talk about tough leadership for tough times. I have to hand it to the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I didn't read the ballot because I knew that you would, and I appreciate it. The ballot is really straightforward and what Ontarians told me was pretty straightforward and they had no difficulty making that choice, and the choice is exactly as you read it. They all know, you see, that tax hikes will stifle the economy, will kill jobs. They know that, and so they're prepared, as our ballot and the explanation sheet do say, to take cutbacks, even if it affects them.

Now listen, there's one sector of the economy that we are getting agreement on will grow as a result of your budget. It will flourish. All the experts tell us that. That's the underground economy, Canada's underground economy, estimated by some to be worth $90 billion a year.

A managing economist at DRI Canada says, "When top tax rates hit the 50% range, people work less and they do whatever they can to dodge taxes." By 1994, our highest tax rate will hit 53%.

What is it that makes you think you can get more revenue when people won't be working, you're going to lay off more people, our exporters will be more uncompetitive and the number one growth area is people trying to figure out how they can avoid paying taxes? How is this helping the deficit or the economy of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess I have a different view of the Ontario citizens out there as well, because both during the pre-budget consultations and then after the budget as well, what people were telling me was that while no one likes to pay more taxes -- who does? I understand that -- they wanted us to do three things.

(1) They wanted to get the deficit going in a downward trend rather than an upward trend. We've done that.

(2) They wanted us to reduce expenditures in the public sector. We've done that. For the first time in 50 years, we're reducing expenditures in this province.

(3) They wanted essential services, in particular health care and education, preserved. We are doing that as well.

We are doing what the people of this province told us they wanted us to do.

Mr Harris: When the Treasurer delivered his budget, the day before and the day of, Bob Nixon was here in the Legislature in Toronto. I didn't know why. I finally found out why when the budget was delivered. It was because Bob Nixon wanted to be here just as Gordie Howe wanted to be with Wayne Gretzky when Gretzky broke his points record. Gordie wanted to be there to congratulate him. I figured out Nixon, the biggest taxer in the history of the province, wanted to be here to congratulate Floyd Laughren when his record was broken. I don't know any other reason why he was here.

You criticized me because I didn't put the Liberals' position on the ballot. I looked for it. I couldn't find it. If I'd known what it was, I'd have put it on the ballot and given people a choice for that too.

The Treasurer would have to agree this is the single largest tax hike in the history of Ontario. Your government says you think it's important to hear what our constituents have to say. Over 99% of them are telling us this: "We would like the government to cut back on government spending by that $2 billion instead of the $2-billion tax hike. We'll help. Even if it affects us, we'll help them set priorities."

Will you listen to the people and accept their invitation to help you find another $2 billion in cutbacks in government spending and avoid the need for this tax increase altogether?

Hon Mr Laughren: I must respond to part of the preamble of the leader of the third party's question. When he said that he couldn't find the Liberal position, I don't think he looked very hard, because clearly the Liberal position is to increase spending substantially, no new taxes and reduce the deficit all at the same time. You should have put that on the ballot as the Liberal position. I just wanted to make that clear.

But in a more serious way, we did take a look at the committed spending of this province for this year we're in now. We said, "That must be reduced by $4 billion." We took a look at compensation in the public sector. We said, "That must be reduced by $2 billion." That is $6 billion in reduction in committed spending for this year. We are going to achieve those numbers. We are committed to those kinds of expenditure reductions, but for us to have now gone back, instead of taking $2 billion in tax increases -- I understand his position -- we would have had to reduce expenditures in the public sector by another $2 billion.

By our estimate, that would have cost at least 20,000 jobs, perhaps 30,000 jobs, in the public sector. The leader doesn't give the option of whether they're tax increases --

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

Hon Mr Laughren: -- or job reductions and talk about how many jobs would be lost with the next $2 billion in expenditure reductions. That is not what I think is good public policy when we're dealing already with a high unemployment rate.

1430

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Premier. I hold in my hand a copy of the social contract proposal submitted to health sector groups yesterday. One of the proposals made by the government was "to continue implementation of stricter monitoring and control mechanisms against fraud and abuse of OHIP cards."

For the benefit of all taxpayers in Ontario, will the Premier tell us what his government has done and what it specifically intends to do to deliver on this promise that was made at the social contract table yesterday?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I've said in this House before, the ministry has set up for the first time in the history of OHIP a portion of the office that is devoted to better registration and monitoring of health cards.

As has been raised in this House before, as a result of the preliminary work of that registration branch, we have in fact reduced significantly the number of cards that are held or were being used by people who were ineligible for OHIP. It is the first time that this kind of an examination has been under way.

Let me say to the member that it is certainly our intent to improve the way in which cards are monitored, to continue to remove people from the use of OHIP cards who are ineligible to use them and to build on the work that the secretariat has been doing. We anticipate that we can in fact even further reduce the number of people who use cards who are not eligible to use them.

Mr Jim Wilson: While the minister continues to talk about what her government is doing and what it intends to do to control health card fraud, the magnitude of the problem compounds on a daily basis.

I have in my possession a health card. This card was issued a short time ago to Gordon J. MacKenzie of Sudbury. Mr MacKenzie won't get much use out of this health card because he died three years ago. However, someone else could use this card, which was issued just a short time ago by OHIP, and OHIP would never know. In the interests of taxpayers, I'm sending the Minister of Health the card in the hope that after three years, perhaps she'll get around to updating OHIP's computer.

How can you say with any credibility that your government is controlling health card fraud at the same time you're issuing new cards to people who have been dead for three years?

Hon Mrs Grier: I suspect that in fact this card was issued to Mr MacKenzie because Mr MacKenzie, had he been alive, would have turned 65 and therefore justified a new card which entitled him to the Ontario drug benefit program. I regret that Mr MacKenzie's family did not notify OHIP of his passing. I suspect they notified Bell telephone, his credit cards, his bank. They did not notify OHIP; therefore OHIP had no way of knowing that in fact Mr MacKenzie was no longer eligible to use the card.

I also hope that Mr MacKenzie's doctor, if somebody presented identifying himself as Gordon J. MacKenzie, would know very well that in fact his patient was no longer eligible to use the card.

The management of this system for the first time in the history of medicare is a responsibility of the physicians, the patients, the taxpayers and the ministry. The ministry, by the establishment of our registration control bureau, is putting in place the systems to do that.

I welcome the information from the member. I will certainly transfer it to the ministry and we will ensure that this particular card is deleted as soon as it possibly can be.

Mr Jim Wilson: The family and the physician of Mr MacKenzie felt that they did notify the province of Ontario, because I have in my hand a copy of the death certificate, which indicates the date of death of August 6, 1990. It's an official province of Ontario, office of the registrar general, death certificate, so the government was quite well aware that Mr MacKenzie passed away in 1990.

The Health ministry's own studies revealed that major shortcomings such as this were brought to the government's attention as early as April 1991. It's also clear that the government has really no idea as to the extent of fraud in the system. The deputy minister says, the first day in committee hearings, it's a $20-million problem. After pressure, he admits it could be up to a $100-million problem. The government's own internal documents indicate that it's a $691-million fraud problem.

New physicians are being locked out of practice, seniors are being asked to pay user fees for prescription drugs, hospitals are being asked to do more with less, and in the social contract negotiations, more job losses will be the result of the social contract in the health care sector.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, how can you justify these cuts when you continue to allow millions of dollars to be stolen from the health care system?

Hon Mrs Grier: Part of the member's question was what action was taken when the fact that there had not been, ever in the past, effective control over health card numbers was brought to the government's attention. Let me tell him yet again that in May 1992 the registration program branch was established to do precisely what he and I agree needs to be done: get a better handle on who in fact has numbers and has cards.

The number of $700 million that he throws around and that other people have thrown around again was an extrapolation of a number of studies' worst-case scenarios. I would remind him that within that, over $300,000 of that worst-case scenario was identified as being payments that should be made on behalf of Ontario residents by the federal government. It was not fraud.

I should also say to him that over $8 million was given back last year by doctors who were identified as having overbilled the system by error, by misuse. Every incident of improper use of a card is investigated and every evidence of fraud is certainly referred to the OPP. There are many cases where that has happened --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and everything that can be done to ensure a better control over this system has begun, for the first time, to occur.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Quite clearly, one of the intentions of the social contract discussions is to reduce costs through cutting payments to transfer payment agencies, and we take that as a given. But you'll recognize that there are a number of participants at the social contract table discussions that are not in fact receiving any kind of transfer payments, any kind of grants, from the province. They are still being told that they're going to have to send a cheque to you, to the province, as part of their contribution to the social contract.

I give you two examples. Ontario Hydro, which two months ago announced its own program of cuts, including job loss of up to 4,500 positions, is at the social contract table. They receive no funding from the government but they've been asked to give the province $80 million.

The Municipal Electric Association, representing hundreds of municipal electric utilities, none of which receives a dime from the government, has been told to send the government a cheque for $20 million as its share of the social contract.

Why are you making Ontario Hydro pay you $80 million, forcing it to push its rates up when it's doing everything it possibly can to keep its rates down? Why are municipal electrical associations required to help pay for your financial mess, when they receive absolutely no funding from you at all?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I just would say to the honourable member that we are obviously faced with the reality of a situation which is, I can understand, uncomfortable for the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that we believe everyone in the broader public sector has to play some kind of role and some part. There are still discussions under way with all of the groups you've referred to as to exactly what form the contribution to the social contract discussions will take place.

1440

Mrs McLeod: This is not a question of my discomfort. You are creating a whole series of problems which you won't even identify as being problems.

So let me give you another one, and that's the number of school boards that are at the table that receive no grants from the province, specifically boards in Metropolitan Toronto and in Ottawa that have not received a penny in operating assistance from Queen's Park in years, and there is still tremendous confusion as to how your government is expecting to exact approximately $100 million that it says it intends to get from school boards in Metropolitan Toronto and in Ottawa.

Your Minister of Municipal Affairs said on May 19, "Of course, the public school boards in Metro do not qualify for grants and therefore you can't take back something which they are not receiving."

So I ask you, how do you plan to force the Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa boards to contribute to the social contract? Are Metro Toronto and Ottawa property taxpayers going to have to make a direct contribution to your empty coffers?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, and I'm sure the member will know from her reading, it's interesting that the state of Texas has just gone through a very interesting transformation in terms of dealing with the fact that there are very rich school boards and there are school boards that have a very low assessment base. Somehow we have to find a way, as we look at the future needs of the province, to deal with that question. So I would say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, there are discussions under way with those school boards about how a reconciliation can be effected which treats them fairly and others fairly.

But I would say to the honourable member that I know the game she's playing. Every aggrieved group out there, she's going to say, "Well, I'll advocate for you and I'll advocate for this and I'll advocate for that." She's a full-blown participant in the complaints process and she'll bring that forward. I will say to her that the simple articulation of a grievance and a complaint can never arrive at a reconciliation of public policy which is required.

Is she suggesting that somehow the school board which she used to be a chair of and used to represent in northwestern Ontario should subsidize, that the citizens of Thunder Bay should subsidize the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Unbelievable, my home owner taxes to subsidize you.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: I'll be fascinated to take that case to her citizens in the Lakehead, understanding that they're going to be subsidizing Bay Street. That'll be the day.

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

Hon Mr Rae: But she'll be taking another message when she goes up to the northwest and says: "Oh, no, no, no. You won't have to pay either. You won't have to pay. You won't have to pay. You won't have to pay." It lacks credibility in this day and age. It's the old politics. It won't wash. It won't work any more.

Mr Stockwell: That's criminal, absolutely criminal.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: Home owner taxes subsidizing the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: If the member could come to order, his colleague could pose a question.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Premier.

Your waste disposal policy for this province indicates that you will not allow incineration; you will not consider the policy of incineration; you won't consider the policy of the long rail haul.

Your appointed chair of the Interim Waste Authority, Mr Walter Pitman, indicated in a statement made last week that was reported in the Toronto Star that legal action could easily change the context of the Interim Waste Authority's site selection process. Mr Pitman was referring to legal action filed by Superior-Crawford Sand and Gravel. They want the Interim Waste Authority to consider land that they hold that's adjacent to the present Keele Valley landfill site as an expansion to the Keele Valley landfill site and as in fact a part of the IWA site selection process.

In other words, Mr Premier, contrary to your instructions, Mr Pitman is prepared to change the rules of the game. He's prepared to change the rules of the IWA and he's now going to consider another alternative. Do you agree with Mr Pitman, as your appointed chair of the IWA? Does the government agree that legal action could change the IWA's mandate and the site selection process?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Life is complicated enough without anticipating what a court might or might not do or what a court of appeal might or might not do or what anyone might do. I would offer the generic point to the member that anything any of us do is subjected to a decision of the courts. That's my definition of the rule of law.

Mr Tilson: Yes, I'm pleased to hear the Premier's agreement with that, because I do too.

Mr Justice O'Brien, as I'm sure the former Minister of the Environment just has whispered in your ear, has told you, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled this week that a trial brought forward by the mayor of Georgina, Mayor Johnston of the township of Georgina, should proceed to determine whether or not Bill 143, in the site selection process, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr Johnston is submitting that the Waste Management Act, Bill 143, violates his personal constitutional rights and the rights of York region residents by not allowing the consideration of alternatives, specifically the policy of incineration and the long rail haul option. That was the decision of Mr Justice O'Brien.

Your government, through the IWA, has spent, as of the end of April, over $30 million in your process to find three supersites, a tremendous amount of money. Your ministers have no idea what you'll be spending in the future as far as finding these three sites. The question has been asked and we've never received an answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Tilson: Yes, Mr Speaker. My question is, in light of this decision by the Ontario Court of Justice, in light of its decision that Mayor Johnston's constitutional rights can proceed to court and may be affected, will you make a commitment today to stop the IWA search for the three superdumps and allow, as our party has been suggesting since you came into this terrible policy, a full consideration --

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

Mr Tilson: -- of all alternatives to landfilling in the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mr Rae: I will undertake to make my answer shorter than the question, Mr Speaker. Mr Justice O'Brien's decision relating to the application by Mayor Johnston is a decision which obviously I'm sure the IWA will want to reflect on in terms of it's a procedural decision indicating that a trial process could take place, and I wouldn't have any comment on that decision whatsoever.

FIRE SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General may be aware that in 1989 the former Solicitor General announced the resurrection of the Fire Services Review Committee, which has been in existence in some form or another since 1973.

As the minister is aware, this committee was established to modernize the provision of fire services in this province and address some of the major concerns raised by the fire chiefs, firefighters and municipalities in this province.

It's been four years since this committee was formed. Is this committee still active? Is it reporting? Are there any recommendations coming from this committee?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I want to thank my honourable colleague for this important question. The honourable member will know, as will a lot of members of this House, that the Fire Departments Act has remained essentially unchanged for over 40 years. The Fire Services Review Committee was struck for the sole purpose of updating and modernizing that legislation and bringing it into the 1990s and preparing us for the new century.

The committee's draft report will deal with a number of important issues, ranging from firefighter safety to minimum fire protection. One of the things that the report will do is consolidate all of the various pieces of legislation into one updated law that can be referred to by the citizens of Ontario.

To answer directly the question of my honourable colleague, the draft report will indeed be out into the hands of the participants within the next few weeks.

1450

Mr Duignan: Many residents in my community and indeed from across Ontario have written to me, particularly those communities that are in the unorganized townships which have basically no fire protection. How does your ministry propose to address this situation, which is crucial to many people, especially in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think the honourable member knows, but perhaps a lot of people don't -- certainly I wasn't aware until I became the minister of the Solicitor General's ministry -- that indeed there is no legislative legal requirement for fire services in the province of Ontario. It is solely at the discretion of individual municipalities.

We have of course the overwhelming majority of citizens who are covered by municipal fire departments. A lot of the smaller communities are also covered off by contracts with neighbouring municipalities that indeed have fire services, but there are a number across the province that still do not have formal fire protection.

What this legislation will do when it's eventually introduced is that it will ensure that there's a minimum standard of fire protection in the province of Ontario. In the meantime, the office of the fire marshal, which is a part of my ministry, will continue to work with communities, supplying assistance and advice and ensuring that everything that can be done will be done to provide at least a minimum level of service. The important thing is that we will have a legislated requirement for fire services in Ontario when indeed we see the legislation.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the budget, and I hope we have a chance to discuss many items in the budget with him at committee.

The first question I'd like to ask on the budget is that there is in the budget a whole new way of spending money on capital for schools, hospitals, colleges and universities. It used to be that the province provided about $600 million in grants every single year. It's been going on for years and years and years.

This year in the budget there is a brand-new way of providing the province's $600 million a year. As I read the budget, it works this way: The school boards, the hospitals, the colleges and universities must go out and borrow the money on behalf of the province. They will go out and raise the $600 million and provide it to the province in the form of a loan. The province then will undertake, over 20 years, to repay that loan. That is a strange way of doing business. It is moving $600 million a year of government spending and government debt off the government's books on to these, I think, relatively hard-pressed organizations.

My question to you is this: What is the public interest that is being served by the province having these organizations go out and borrow the money on your behalf and lend you $600 million a year?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'm having difficulty with the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's analysis of how this is to be done, because it's wrong, I suspect. All we're doing is debenturing the capital for the schools or the universities or the hospitals or whatever, just the way, I suspect, if you were to do a count, most if not a lot of the schools were built in this province back in the 1960s, and 1970s too I guess. So that's not the case at all.

They're certainly not borrowing on our behalf. That's the exact opposite of what's happening. What will happen is that simply we will pay to the school boards, to use that example, our portion of the cost of the capital and the interest to the school boards every year. So we're not putting a burden on the school boards and, secondly, they're not borrowing on our behalf.

Mr Phillips: I think we should have a good debate about this. The Minister of Finance says I'm wrong. In your budget it says very clearly that these organizations are going to go out and, on behalf of you, get $600 million. Then it says, "This will not impose any additional cost on the institutions, as the province will provide the institutions with annual instalments required to repay the loans."

It is clear that they are going to go out and borrow, on your behalf, $600 million a year. What will happen is that every single year the province is going to run up almost $600 million in brand-new debt off the government's books. In five years the province will owe $3 billion to school boards, colleges, universities and hospitals.

If the Treasurer is saying I'm wrong, I would like him to prove that. I'll give a very simple question. In five years, will you owe these school boards, these hospitals, these colleges, these universities $3 billion? Will you be required, on an annual basis, to repay them about one twentieth of the cost? In 10 years will you owe $6 billion? In 20 years will you owe $12 billion?

It's an important question, because in my mind, unless we get a clean answer from this government, we can't deal with the finances. I'd like to know if in five years the province will owe these organizations $3 billion. You say I'm wrong. Prove it.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think he wants me to make his day here. Let's use a specific example. If we went out on the capital markets and borrowed $600 million a year for five years to provide capital funding for the schools, at the end of five years we'd owe $3 billion to pay back for the money that we had provided to the school boards. This way nothing has changed, except that we are going to be paying the school boards every year the cost of the money and the interest payments, but the overall impact on the school boards and on the province is negligible.

Mr Phillips: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Finance said I was wrong and then he just got up and he said I was right. I would like to --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, the member does not have a point of privilege.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Move the debt off your books.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, please come to order.

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Your ministry lost the court case at Cape Croker, and on the other side of Georgian Bay you lost the case with the Chippewas on Christian Island.

Taking that into account, your conservation policies are really no longer lawful in the province of Ontario. What is your conservation strategy now to protect the fish stocks in Ontario?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I would disagree with the member on his conclusion as to the Cape Croker and Saugeen decision. In fact, from our perspective, the decision from Judge Fairgrieve says that the province continues to have the authority to regulate the fishery, specifically the commercial fishery. The province continues to have a valid scheme of regulations which is licensing and the setting of quotas.

What the decision said was in that particular case, the case of the Saugeen and Cape Croker people, the actual quotas that the ministry had set were not justifiable. I think it is a little irresponsible for the member opposite to use that kind of language. If he cares to read the case and read it carefully, I think he will find that much of what the Ministry of Natural Resources has been trying to do and continues to try to do in terms of conservation of the fisheries resource has been held to have constitutional validity. I might say to the member, we are trying other initiatives as well, cooperative initiatives that governments in the past have tried and have failed at.

Mr Jordan: It's quite clear that the regulations you now have are not acceptable to the courts in Ontario. The fines that were given out have been rescinded. Now you're saying, as you pointed out yesterday, you have to come to an agreement on the definition of conservation, and once you've come to an agreement on that, you feel you can bring these treaties together and come up with a way of policing the fishing in of Ontario.

Now one of your own staff people indicated that with 37 treaties trying to come to an agreement on the definition of conservation, this thing could go on and on. My question to you, in all fairness, is, what is your strategy in the interim? How do you plan to regulate the commercial fishing industry? How will you guarantee your ministry's role as having jurisdiction over natural resources in this province?

Hon Mr Hampton: I can only invite the member to read the decision again, because the decision clearly upholds the authority of the Ministry of Natural Resources to regulate the commercial fishery. It also upholds the schemes and the strategies which we have utilized in the past, licensing and quotas to regulate the commercial fishery. It says that we have to be more attentive when dealing with first nations in terms of the allocations, since as we know from recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions and other court decisions, aboriginal people who can show an aboriginal or treaty right to harvest have a primary allocation.

What the decisions say is that we have to be more attentive in our work with first nations. We have been doing that over the past two and a half years and intend to continue to do that. We believe the best way, in the longer term, to regulate the fishing resource in Ontario is to work cooperatively with the first nations and work cooperatively with the other interest organizations.

I would invite the member to assist us in that regard, because I think we are making significant headway, perhaps more headway than any other province.

1500

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, I just advised you that I would be standing on a point of order. The point of order refers to section 34(a) of the standing orders. As you are aware, this particular section gives the procedure for a member who is not satisfied with the response to an oral question.

Yesterday in this Legislature I directed a question to the minister responsible for women's issues. She, in turn, chose not to answer that question but in fact to direct it to the Minister of Health for response. Yesterday, prior to 4 o'clock, I filed written notice of dissatisfaction with the response of the minister for women's issues and I found that my written request was denied because I had directed it to the minister responsible for women's issues.

Mr Speaker, I would specifically refer you to the wording of section 34(a). It says, "However, a member who is not satisfied with the response to an oral question...." It doesn't say "not satisfied with the answer to an oral question"; it specifically says "the response." The response to the question I asked, which was directed to the minister for women's issues, was to refer it.

Mr Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the fact that my notice was denied, I was dissatisfied with the minister for women's issues' response and I would like you to rule why I cannot have her answer, in this Legislature, why she refused to answer my question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before responding to the honourable member's request, I seek a bit of information from her. Is the honourable member saying that she is dissatisfied with the minister having referred the question?

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I said I was dissatisfied with the response of the minister for women's issues. The minister's response was to refer the matter. I am dissatisfied with her response and that's exactly what's provided in the standing orders.

The Speaker: First, I appreciate the member's concern and she was indeed kind enough to send me notice in advance. I don't believe that the member has a point of order. However, I am quite happy to take a look at it again.

The practice in our chamber, for some considerable length of time, has been that filing for dissatisfaction is in response to the answer provided by whoever answers the question. So, to use yesterday's example, the minister chose, which is perfectly in order to do, to refer the question to another minister. That minister then provided a response. It's been our practice that a member would file dissatisfaction with the response given by that minister. That's been the practice and it's very clear.

However, the member gives me cause to think about something and I'm very pleased to do that. So I will consider it and I will converse with her later on.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, there's just one other point that I neglected to give you. I have asked you for a written ruling on this whole issue, but I would refer you to the copy of Hansard of yesterday. The title that Hansard, which, as you know, is a neutral, unbiased, non-partisan body, gave for my question was "Women's Issues," so I would just ask you to take that into consideration as well.

The Speaker: The member will know that the titling is unofficial and that the remarks made by members are verbatim. It's an official document, but the titling is unofficial. However, I appreciate the concern and the added information which she has provided to me.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario re Bill 38, an amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act to permit wide-open Sunday shopping and eliminate Sunday as a legal holiday.

"We, the undersigned, hereby request you to vote against the passing of Bill 38. We believe that this bill defies God's laws, violates the principle of religious freedom, reduces the quality of life, removes all legal protection to workers regarding when they must work and will reduce rather than improve the prosperity of our province.

"The observance of Sunday as a non-working day was not invented by man but dates from God's creation and is an absolute necessity for the wellbeing of all people, both physically and spiritually. We beg you to defeat the passing of Bill 38."

It's signed by 69 residents of the province.

GAMBLING

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here that's been signed by the people in Kitchener and Waterloo.

"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 ever 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 from the members at Olivet United Church and I hereby add my signature.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition with approximately 20 names on it. It's regarding opposition to casino gambling and it comes from many members, I believe, of the Kintore United Church and people of Kintore, Thamesford and St Marys area.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): "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 operation 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 introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

That is signed by scores of constituents of mine and I have affixed my signature as well.

1510

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): 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 (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive 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 activities invariably attract 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:

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

That's signed by 41 people from the Orillia Christian Reformed Church and people from Orillia, Coldwater, Washago and Gravenhurst and I have affixed by signature to it.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition signed by 26 members of the congregation of Immanuel Alliance Church in my constituency of Peterborough:

"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 operation 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 of 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 introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government, in its expenditure control plan, without consultation has proposed to reduce the ability of new family practitioners, paediatricians and psychiatrists to receive full payment from the Ontario health insurance plan for services provided;

"Whereas the reduction of payments to these physicians will result in the lack of their ability to practise medicine;

"Whereas these same reductions in payments will limit the choice the citizens of Ontario will have in selecting a physician of their choice;

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

"The Ontario government must reconsider this arbitrary and restrictive decision and look at alternatives in consultation with the Ontario Medical Association and the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario."

I concur fully with this petition, I've affixed my name to it and I hope the government gets on with the job.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"In response to Floyd Laughren's announcement of his expenditure control plan to reduce health care services by $4 billion, we adamantly oppose the user fees for drugs used by seniors. We feel the druggist dispensing fees should be carefully looked at, as well as doctors overprescribing medication.

"We feel that an alternative plan will be forthcoming that will not further burden seniors."

This petition is signed by members of the Seniors' Club 162 of Smiths Falls, Ontario, and I affix my signature to this petition along with 47 others.

GAMBLING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition from a number of persons from the Windsor area. It was provided to me from Reverend Marwood from the Roseland United Church in opposition to the establishment of casino gambling.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by 200 residents of the great city of Brampton and it's addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have released draft legislation for apartments in houses, granny flats, to permit accessory dwelling units as a right in all residential areas and to permit granny flats;

"We, the undersigned, object to the draft legislation for apartments in houses -- granny flats -- for the following reasons and petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"(1) That the province examine the implications that the proposed legislation may have on the rights of property owners, landlords and tenants with respect to their expectations of zoning authority in the neighbourhoods in which they live;

"(2) That the province not entertain this proposed legislation removing the right of local government to regulate development without adequate public notification and opportunity to review and comment on the draft legislation;

"(3) That the local municipality be granted the authority to regulate and licence or register accessory apartments;

"(4) That the province, in consultation with local and regional authorities, examine methods of compensating the municipality for increased costs of servicing the residential growth accessory apartment;

"(5) That right of entry for bylaw enforcement officers to inspect accessory apartments during reasonable hours be incorporated into the legislation;

"(6) That representatives from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be requested to conduct a public meeting in Brampton to discuss the draft legislation with the community; and

"(7) That the city of Brampton support granny flats as a form of housing intensification, subject to the assurance that the units will be removed at the end of their intended use."

I have affixed my signature thereto and I agree with the petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition 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 operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible 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 introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very happy to lend my support to this petition opposing casinos, and I will add my name to it.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the Christian Reformed Church in Georgetown, Ontario, protesting the opening of gaming casinos in Ontario.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): 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 operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas credible 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 introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

That is signed by several of my constituents and I am happy to have signed it as well.

1520

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition that has been signed by approximately 213 people in the riding of Waterloo North in Elmira. They are primarily high school students at Elmira District High School. They are opposed to the bylaw on wearing bicycle helmets and they have indicated:

"I am against the new bylaw on wearing helmets while riding on bicycles in Elmira."

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have another petition here from residents of the Beachville, Woodstock and Ingersoll areas. There are 30 names and those people are opposing casino gambling as well.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition that's signed by a number of residents in the Kent county area and it's dealing with the support of the voluntary use of bicycle helmets and is asking the government to withdraw the mandatory use of bicycle helmets and that it be done on a personal right of the individual that is guaranteed under the Constitution. I respectfully submit this petition to the Legislature.

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 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 40 people and I have attached my name.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This completes the time allotted for petitions.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you could clarify for us the presentation of petitions. I'm looking at the standing orders here. There doesn't seem to be a requirement in the standing orders for us to sign the petitions and yet I know that we are requested to sign them.

I'm also not clear from the standing orders whether it's a requirement for us to read the petitions. I notice that the member for Halton North and the member for Oxford have both presented petitions this afternoon which they simply said opposed casino gambling, but they did not read the petitions into the record in the House.

Could you clarify for us what the requirement under the standing orders?

The Acting Speaker: On that point of order, all petitions must be signed by the member of provincial Parliament making the presentation. The member can agree, disagree or not comment. That's left up to the individual member, but the petitions must be signed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES

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

Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers / Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): This new bill replaces Bill 105, the Farm Organizations Funding Act, and responds to concerns raised following the introduction of Bill 105. For example, there is no provision for fines in the new bill.

The bill allows my ministry to assume the role of collecting farm business data and forwarding farm organization fees to accredited farm organizations. Initially these organizations will be the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, the Ontario region of the National Farmers Union and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

This bill provides eligible farm businesses with the option of requesting a full refund of the fee from the appropriate farm organization. The legislation also provides for special funding to an eligible francophone farm organization.

I would urge members of this House to encourage the important work of Ontario's general farm organizations by supporting this legislation.

I would just conclude with a note that we have some members from the farm organizations with us today: Bill Weaver, who's a newly elected first vice-president of the OFA, who's with us; Carl Sulliman, who's the CEO with the OFA, is here as well; and Geri Kamenz, who is a senior manager with the OFA, is with us as well. I appreciate them taking the time to be with us for the introduction of this bill.

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 Downsview had the floor and may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Just to pick up very briefly on some of my comments that I made the other day with respect to this legislation -- and I won't belabour the point much longer because I understand that a number of my colleagues as well as many of the opposition members want an opportunity to speak on this particular legislation, so I won't go back to many of the arguments I've already presented -- as I stated the other day, I understand the decision that was made and the rationale why it was made.

However, I personally don't believe that we're doing working families any favours by allowing them to either shop or work on Sundays. It's not so much the shopping, because many people consider that a leisure pastime. However, it's the working element of it that I find is offensive, and quite frankly I don't know how you deal with that particular element of the legislation, because I suspect that it will happen.

It doesn't treat families fairly. Primarily it doesn't treat working families in a fair and evenhanded way because it will force them, essentially, into the workplace and quite frankly it'll be something that will be disruptive to the family unit.

I don't believe the money arguments, because, you know, if you're a working person and you have $100 disposable income and that's the amount of money that you're going to be able to spend, I don't believe that all of a sudden magically you're going to have more money to be able to put back into the economy if you have an additional day within which to spend that money. If you have $100, you can spend it just as easily in six days as you can in seven days.

So I don't support some of the economic arguments that have been made with respect to Sunday shopping, and quite frankly I think this legislation will be very disruptive to many of the -- we call them mom-and-pop shops, but many of our corner stores, our convenience store facilities, because now they will also have to compete on Sundays with supermarket chains and many of the bigger enterprises, which quite frankly I believe will run them into the ground, and some day my suspicion is that we will go back on this.

1530

On the whole issue of public opinion, well, in the city of North York a referendum was taken in 1991, and if you analyse that referendum on Sunday shopping, you will find that many of the working-class neighbourhoods voted overwhelmingly against Sunday shopping. It's the well-to-do neighbourhoods that generally are more supportive of this legislation. Of course, they have the money to vacation with their families in Florida and elsewhere, and they don't mind the fact that other people have to work on Sundays, quite frankly, as long as they're not prohibited from being able to shop if they wish to shop.

On the basis of many of those reasons, I will not be supporting the bill that's before this Legislature. I will be voting against it.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to participate in this debate because the last time this issue was discussed, I was the Chair of the justice committee and I really didn't have an opportunity to say an awful lot. That was probably to the relief of a lot of people on that committee.

I remember the member from Cambridge. He was definitively against this entire issue. He used to come in with a duck or a chicken -- I can't remember which it was; I think it was a duck -- and he indicated --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Everybody wants to shop now.

Mr Callahan: My good friend from -- what's your riding?

Mr Mills: Durham East.

Mr Callahan: -- Durham East says everybody wants to shop now. Is that the way this government operates? You let people operate outside the law for six months or a year now and then you decide, well, if everybody wants to do it, let them do it. I'd have real concerns if you applied that logic to things like bank robbery or fraud.

That's in essence what you're saying. You, as a government, haven't got the integrity to bring in legislation until now, and what you're really trying to do --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton South has the floor and may continue.

Mr Callahan: What they're attempting to do is now say: "Well, we've taken a public opinion poll. Everybody's shopping anyway, so let's make it legal." That is hardly the way to pass legislation, and it hardly reflects the long hours and the hard work that was put in by the justice committee when the Liberal government was in office.

My good friend from Cambridge participated in it fully. He had very serious objections to Sunday shopping. His leader was going to bring in a common pause day. He was going to ensure that workers in supermarkets and in the wholesale vegetable industry and all sorts of other industries were going to be protected, because in fact wide-open Sunday shopping was going to have a dramatic impact on these people, on their lives, their families. But I've yet to hear the member for Cambridge peep about this bill.

There were other members on the justice committee as well from the New Democratic Party who were totally against it. This was against their principles. It was not something that could be done. The Premier of the day, then the Leader of the Opposition, was pure. He was pure. It wasn't going to happen. We were going to have a common pause day. He went out to the public in the election and he told the people that. It's no wonder that the electorate is so turned off with politicians when they hear politicians on the one side of the coin saying that they're not going to do something, and thereafter they change their minds. The reason they change their minds is, as the member for Durham East says, well, everybody's doing it, so let's legalize it.

That concerns me, because the next step is what we're seeing now: legalization of casino gambling, again something that the purist, the then Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the now Premier -- he was a purist. His party said, "We will not have casino gambling." But it seems as though if everybody's doing it, let's legalize it. I wonder about prostitution. Is that next? It must be coming hot on the heels of these three issues because it seems as though that's the way the New Democratic Party operates: We'll let them operate on the sly and we will let them get away with it, and if it becomes popular, we will legalize it.

We saw this morning in private members' hour a large number of New Democratic Party members voting against a landlord having an opportunity of terminating the lease of a tenant who is a crack dealer. I found that absolutely astounding, that these people would vote against that type of a bill by Mr Runciman, the member from Leeds-Grenville. A perfectly reasonable bill: Get rid of crack dealers, let a landlord throw them out if they're selling crack out of his house. A large number -- I think there were 25 members and there were only 52, I think, in the House this morning for that debate -- 25 of the New Democratic Party stood up and voted against Mr Runciman's bill.

What does that tell me? What does that tell the people of Ontario? We've got casino gambling, which was not going to be allowed because it would wreck the family. We've got a private member's bill this morning where they vote against it in relation to crack cocaine, the most dangerous drug on the street. We've got Sunday shopping where the Premier preached during the election and throughout the entire time they were in opposition that they would in fact not do this, they'd have a common pause day, and where are we? We're absolutely nowhere.

This government, I think, operates on the basis of what the people are allowed to do for a period of time and then, as long as it becomes popular, we'll legalize it. I have to tell you that my understanding of leadership and of good government, for whatever jurisdiction, should be based on the principle that issues brought forward as public policy should be considered, the public should be given an opportunity for its input and, once that's done, then you make the determination of whether or not you should pass legislation to allow it or disallow it.

But not this government. This government operates like shooting from the hip. They can go in opposition and they can spend thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars going out on the road to listen to the public. The public told them at that time and told the committee that there were certain areas where they were concerned about Sunday shopping. Proposals were made to give the municipalities the local option, which in fact was a very wise policy, because what it did do was reduce it to the lowest common level of government, a place where people could go and air their views and tell their municipal politician, "We want it," "We don't want it."

They could have done the same thing with casino gambling. Why not give the citizens of Ontario -- they're 18 years and over; they're fully mature to make decisions -- why not give them the opportunity to speak out on these issues? Why should they be implemented by the Premier of this province, particularly when he campaigned so strenuously against these things as being sinful, as being family breakup matters? Now, as Premier of this province, he introduces them and supports them fully.

So I say to you, it's not the least bit surprising that the public has simply decided they're going to wait, they're going to try to "Stay alive till '95" because there's nothing they can do about getting rid of this government. They can't believe anything they put forward. They seem to have a special interest, a special agenda which is limited to certain people. It's not for all of the citizens of Ontario and, that being the case, I think people just sort of click it off and they figure, well, maybe in 1995 a government will come along that will listen to us, that will not campaign on promises and then break them.

I've given just a few examples and I'm sure the people watching this debate probably remember far more numbers of promises made by the Premier, attacks made by him when he was in the opposition, here as the opposition leader, that he has now just brought -- open the floodgates and say, "Well, let them happen." I just find that extremely difficult to handle.

We heard the Treasurer this morning talking about the very interesting type of financing he's got for schools and for hospitals. The thing he doesn't tell anybody is the fact that for 35 years this will be an albatross around the necks of our children, of their children. Yet this gentleman here, as Treasurer, is going to try to establish a principle that will be a problem not just for this government but in the future for all other governments that follow.

I have to say to you that, having watched what went on in the justice committee and having heard some of the concerns of people who came before it, it certainly was not the way to do it, just leave it hang out there and, if it becomes popular or something they figure they might win a few Brownie points on, "We'll legislate it, we'll legalize it." Well, if that's the way to --

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Brampton South is giving an excellent speech and I think there should be a quorum here in the House to hear it.

1540

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Brampton South may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Callahan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the member from Eglinton drawing the Speaker's attention to that. It seems to me that a government that considers this to be a piece of legislation it wants to pass can't even keep enough members in the House to preserve a quorum.

Mr Mills: Look at the interest you've got.

Mr Callahan: The member from Durham East tries to point over to this side, but he doesn't realize that they're governing. They're the government, eh, Mr Speaker? It's their job to keep a quorum in the House to ensure that the House can operate.

If they're not interested in that, why don't they act like a dose of Excedrin for the people of this province, call an election and give the people an opportunity to take another look at the gamble they got involved in on the last occasion. It truly was a casino election. It was a casino election where people had said to themselves: "We've tried the Liberals, we've tried the Conservatives. We're now going to give the New Democratic Party an opportunity to govern."

I can tell you that as I walk down the street I don't think there's one person who stops me and says, "Jeez, we want that government around for another 10 years." What they say to me and what astounds me is they say, "Can't you get rid of them now?" I say to them: "You can't. You voted them in. They're a majority government. You have to stay alive till '95." That's the watchword on the street.

I have to say I find it interesting that they had all of these complaints and all of these protections for union members in their opposition to Sunday shopping. The Minister of Labour, who is just coming to join us for this debate, was very adamant about the workers being given a common pause day. Yet now we find that these people will have to work seven days a week, they'll be at the beck and call of the employers, and it's all done in the interest of it being a popular thing to do.

I think that opening up a bit of Sunday shopping is a good idea. It gives people who are working in various shift work the opportunity to perhaps buy in a marketplace rather than one that's controlled. But by doing it this way, by doing it without giving the people at the local municipal level the opportunity to have their say, and by saying: "Big Brother knows best. The New Democratic Party government knows best. We don't need public hearings. We don't need to know what the public of Ontario wants. We've taken our polling and our sampling of it. It's a popular move and we're going to introduce it," it's just one more gamble. It's another casino operation being put forward by the New Democratic Party.

I suppose the only difference between this and casino gambling is that at least we get a chance to debate this in the House, because it is a piece of legislation. I have to at least congratulate the government for bringing it in the front door as opposed to the back door by which it brought in casino gambling. As you know, Mr Speaker, they can bring it in by regulation. There may have to be some house-cleaning bills to put through the House in order to implement it but, in essence, it's through the back door.

It really amazes me that there are people like the member for Peterborough. She stands up, she reads petitions about how casino gambling is going to impact on family life and how it shouldn't be brought in, yet she does this by petition, supposedly representing the residents of her community.

She doesn't have the courage of the member for Victoria-Haliburton who said to his party: "I'm sorry, Mr Premier, you and the party said casino gambling is not good. We should not have it."

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: He had guts enough to put his money where his mouth was and not stand over on the other side of the House and shout things that I can't understand. He had the guts to move into an independent position in order to properly represent the people from his community. How many other people have done that over there? None of them.

You don't have the commitment to the principles that the New Democratic Party has espoused since day one. It amazes me that the New Democratic Party, when it meets in convention, doesn't take the whole bunch of you out and lynch you. You have gone totally astray from what the New Democratic Party policies are all about. I will be surprised -- I'm going to watch with great interest what happens at the next gathering of the New Democratic Party. We will probably find that Peter Kormos will be running against Frances Lankin. You'll get one side of the room for Peter and one side for Frances, and Bob will be given a vacation. He probably wants a vacation anyway. He's finding that he can't make peace with anybody.

Sunday shopping is only going to increase and enhance the problems in this province.

Mr Mills: If you're so interested in Sunday shopping, where's your party?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Durham East will have an opportunity to question or comment. The member for Brampton South has the floor. Interjections are out of order. Please proceed.

Mr Callahan: I think, Mr Speaker, the member from Durham East -- and I don't want to provoke the zoo -- I suspect wants to let his good wife -- and that's all right, that's fine -- know that he's here and doing his job. That's good. I like that.

However, I want to go back to the issue at hand. We travelled this province, and we spent a lot of money travelling this province, the member for Cambridge will remember. He was very pious on the hustings, very pious. He used to sit in the committee and he used to preach: "There's no way you'll have wide-open Sunday shopping. Common pause day." He got accolades from a lot of the public people who appeared before us, because they thought this New Democratic Party could be trusted. They thought they could believe in the promises that were made. They thought these people weren't just playing political games.

As it turns out, unfortunately, the members on the justice committee for the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, were in fact playing games. They were playing head games with the people of Ontario. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent going around this province, listening to these people, and while this was going on, the New Democratic Party had no inkling that it would ever form the government. They figured they never would have to account for what's happening now. They thought they could espouse the principles with a halo.

The day of reckoning came. The people of this province gave them the right to govern. What have they done with the right to govern? They've thrown it away. They're now about to insult the people whom they said they represented, who funded them with their money, who had to pay on a checkoff to pay for their expensive campaigns. They're now down at the Royal York Hotel trying to milk a deal out of them instead of looking at the waste in government, instead of trying to collect some of the moneys that are outstanding, the $120 million outstanding in family benefits. They give it to their own collection agency here in the government.

Would you like to know what the track record of that collection agency is? They collected 10% of $120 million. Now, one would think that's not a bad track record, until you bring them in and you find out how much it costs to put that collection agency together within government. You wind up with it costing 20% to collect it. With 20% collecting 10%, you're down $10 million. I'm sure there examples of this throughout the government. It's rampant.

Instead of doing that, what they're doing is they're down at the Royal York and they are trying to cut a deal. If the deal isn't cut, according to the latest press reports the Premier says, "The jobs are gone." What a fine thing to do: 40,000 jobs, like that. What a fine thing to do to the people who've supported you, not just with pounding the bricks for you during an election, but also contributing their money to the campaign chest. That's really astounding, but it's one more example of the piety of the New Democratic Party.

I'm surprised that there aren't New Democratic Party members ripping up their cards. I'm surprised they haven't waged a major campaign to destroy their cards in the New Democratic Party, saying: "We can't believe in these people any more. They're doing all sorts of things. They're demonstrating to us that they can't be believed."

1550

What is Bob Rae going to say in the next election campaign when he goes out on the campaign trail? Perhaps he should go now before he disillusions the party entirely. Perhaps he should call the election now, and then he could go out and try to explain, "Well, Sunday shopping, we were opposed to it; we wanted a common pause day."

The people would say, "Well, Bob, why did you do it?" "Well, it was popular; it was popular." "Well, Bob, why did you do casino gambling?" "Well, it was popular." It was also a way that the Treasurer, who is holding his breath, is expecting there's going to be a windfall from this endeavour and there probably will be. Unfortunately, it will be a windfall on the backs of the poor, on the backs of the people who will risk everything in the hopes of perhaps trying to salvage something from this province that's been decimated by the policies of this government.

They have not brought in one single piece of legislation or one piece of policy legislation that has recognized that you need to encourage business. You need to encourage small business particularly. In fact, by this Sunday shopping legislation the mom-and-pop stores are gone. How can they compete? I suppose what they'll do is they'll give them an alternative. They'll probably say to them, "Okay, how many slot machines would you like in your mom-and-pop store to compensate for the loss of business we've taken away by giving you wide-open Sunday shopping?"

There are communities, obviously, that do not wish to have wide-open Sunday shopping. The New Democratic Party, although it said there would be a common pause day and it's reneged on that, could have at least considered the question of the local option that our government provided.

Mr Mills: That was a disaster.

Mr Callahan: How do you know?

Mr Mills: It was. I was on council. I know.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Callahan: Give me a break. Yes, you didn't have the guts to take on the decision-making process. You let your people down. The member from Durham East says he was on council at the time. Well, obviously the reason he didn't want it was that he didn't have the guts to make decisions, and he's just joined a party that's formed a government that hasn't got the guts to make the decisions.

What they think is that the government can do everything. They think the government should run everything in the province. They don't believe anybody else has the capability of running anything in this province.

I have a lot of small stores in my riding, nice people eking out a livelihood. They have their kids working in there with them. They work long hours. They work from eight in the morning till midnight. Some of them work all night. What have they done? They haven't even asked them. They haven't even gone to them and said, "What impact is this going to have on your business?" They've just snuffed out those jobs. They've said, "Well, it's popular; that's why."

Well, it may be popular in Toronto. It may be popular in Peel county. I mean, we're a big city. But it's obviously not popular in smaller communities. They don't want their family life interfered with, thank you. You're interfering, with casino gambling, with wide-open Sunday shopping and Lord knows what else.

I think it's time that the members of the government, those people -- I think there are truly good people over there who are really concerned about this. They feel somehow as though they've been -- I don't want to use the word "raped," but assaulted, because they're being told in their caucus: "Well, just play along with us. Vote with us because you have to vote with us. If you don't, the government might fall. Trust us."

Is that what the Premier is saying, and the other senior ministers? They're saying: "Trust us. We'll fix it all up. We may ruin the province with this casino gambling but we'll fix it up. We'll come up with some way to do it." Or have you got a social contract going with your caucus? There's got to be some way that these people are sitting on their principles, and none of them has the guts of the member from Victoria-Haliburton. He hasn't even left the party. All he's done is he's probably sacrificed the opportunity to ever get ahead in his own party while it's in government. But I'll tell you something: If I were his constituent and viewed that, I would say, "There's a man of principle."

The rest of them, you know, they play a good game. The member for Welland-Thorold speaks a good game about this. I haven't seen him move anyplace. He's prepared to support Sunday shopping, something his predecessor was vehemently against. In fact, the reason we travelled this province, quite frankly, was because Mel Swart was a fine man. He was a man of principle, and the net result of that was that we wanted to give Mr Swart an opportunity to hear from the public and to bring all the concerns before that committee so that a decision could be made. Mr Swart was a New Democratic Party member in the finest tradition.

His successor espouses a great game, claims that he's against Sunday shopping. I wonder if he talks to Mel. I wonder if Mel talks to him. If he wants to get his message across, the way to get his message across to this government is to walk over there or over there or over there and ask the Speaker to put his seat aside independently. He doesn't have to leave his party, but unless he does that, I think it tells the people who voted for him in Welland-Thorold: "You are not representing me. You are saying things and carrying on and getting lots of press as though you're opposing the government and you're not doing anything about it." I think the people of Welland-Thorold, in the next election, will understand that. I think they really would.

Mel Swart, a man of great integrity, has had some rather disparaging comments about the Premier, for the very reason that the Premier has gone back on his promises and he's the leader. He's the man everybody looks to as the Premier of this province to direct the public policy and the ship of state. I'll tell you, at the moment I think the ship of state has run out of wind. They're floating aimlessly. They're about to crash on the rocks. We would certainly like to give you a push over the rocks. I think the best way to avoid coming on the rocks right now is for members over there to get off their principles, assert your principles.

You were elected by the people of your riding, not by the Premier of this province. You owe your allegiance to those people. They pay your salaries. They're the taxpayers. They're the people you have to go home and face every weekend in your constituencies. I wonder what they say to you, or do they even come see you? Maybe they don't come to see you any more. Maybe they say: "It's a waste of time to go see my local member, because he's just simply an extension of Bob Rae and those other four or five strong cabinet ministers who run the show. It won't do any good to go see him, because when vote time comes they stand up like they're joined at the hip."

Let me tell you, people have very long memories. I don't know about you, but my impression as I go around this province and talk to people is that they are mad. Their anger is turning somewhat into depression because they don't see any future on the horizon.

Look at young people this summer. Young people this summer will not have any jobs. It's as simple as that. What is this government doing to help those young people? Nothing.

Do you not care about the young people in this province? Do you not care that they're able to go back to the universities and the community colleges or back to whatever type of education they're taking? Does this government not have any compassion? Have they simply abandoned all their principles and they're totally devoid of any responsibility for this? Are you simply going to drive the ship on to the rocks and say goodbye because you know you have no chance of ever forming the government again? Is this what it's called? Is this the mindless direction of the ship of state?

Sunday shopping is something that can become very personal to individuals. It can become very different in various areas of Ontario. It can have an impact in Ontario on businesses in a different way. Some communities will love it. Some residents will love it. I'm sure the people out in Ontario probably think it's great.

As the member from Cambridge used to say at the justice committee hearings when we were going around with our bill, "You know, maybe the public likes it, but then, if the public had to work seven days a week or they had to work on that day that they could have with their family, they perhaps would think twice about it." I thought to myself that was a very genuine statement, yet here we are. The member from Cambridge, a fine gentleman, is simply ignoring it and going along with the herd; he's going along with the caucus. He's saying: "There may be a chance. I have to have party solidarity at all costs."

I suggest that if there's one thing about politics that makes it noble, it's the fact that you don't have to kowtow to the powers to be. Maybe you'll lose your extra emolument for your Chairman's job or your PA job, but your allegiance is owed to the people who voted for you. They gave you a sacred trust.

The Premier has abandoned that, so don't count on him. He's broken so many promises I'm surprised the people of Ontario have not just sort of marched on Queen's Park to shout and shout and tell him that. I'm sure they do in many other ways. But you people have the power and this may be the only opportunity you'll ever get to have this power, because I suggest that a lot of you are going to be decimated in the next election. Here's your chance to speak out for those people in your community, the mom-and-pop stores, the young people, the people who are poor, the people who have drug and alcohol problems.

1600

Mr Perruzza: All the people you represent, right?

Mr Callahan: If I do, I'm proud to. The member in the New Democratic Party says those are the people I represent. We all represent an entire cross-section of Ontario, and if I do represent people like that, I'm proud of it. They're as important to me as any other people. If you don't have any, or you don't see them -- perhaps you walk right by them. Perhaps he walks right by them and doesn't realize that what he's doing to his residents by not giving them a say in how Sunday shopping will be allocated in particular areas is in fact doing a disservice to his constituents.

I want to say finally, in the short time that's remaining, I'm hoping to see, and I think the public of Ontario is hoping to see, and the long, hot summer won't kill that thought in their minds, they're waiting to see the members that they voted for in the New Democratic Party to government get off their principles and do something dramatic to demonstrate that they in fact do not agree with the things that the Premier has tried to do, either unilaterally or in concert with maybe two or three of the major ministers. I'm waiting to see what's going to happen. I'm going to count. I'd be very disappointed, as I think your residents will be, if they find that the only person who has the guts to show what he believes in is the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I listened with interest to the member from Brampton South when he talked about the local option and how this was an excellent way to go, that we should all consider the local option as the way to proceed on this item. Having been involved in a municipal council when this topic was being debated for many years, I must say I think that's about the worst possible option that could be before us. It's my sense that this issue needs to be determined on a provincial basis. It's my sense that either we go this route and allow open Sunday shopping or we close it down altogether; one or the other. Anything in between is simply a dog's breakfast.

I can tell you, in Metropolitan Toronto, and people from other places may have different views on this, but I was certainly approached by many merchants, many business people in Metropolitan Toronto, and their message was, if you open up Sunday shopping, let's say in the city of Toronto, but you don't open it up in the city of North York, you're going to have a tremendous competitive disadvantage. Then you get involved in what's called the domino effect, because you can't allow that to happen. You can't allow the businesses, just a few kilometres apart, to be at a disadvantage. So what happens is that if it opens up in the city of Toronto, then other municipalities -- East York, North York, Etobicoke, Mississauga -- have no choice. They have no choice. They have to follow suit or else their merchants are at an extreme disadvantage.

So what it really boils down to is finding one municipality in an area and then building on that. It's the worst possible option, and I hope that we never go in that direction.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): The honourable member Mr Callahan, the member for Brampton South, referred on several occasions to my participation in this issue and I thank him for that. The people in Cambridge are always delighted to know that their member is effective in speaking on the issues. But I do want to emphasize today the difference between a member of government and a member of opposition.

We have listened to a long opposition speech, and basically what the member did is he discounted the past. He's now a member of opposition and he is opposing opening up Sunday shopping. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, there's not a person in the province of Ontario who doesn't realize that the Liberal administration that preceded this government wanted in fact to liberalize, to open up Sunday shopping, and that was the basic consequence of the local option, and now he opposes liberalizing of Sunday shopping.

What is the opposite situation for a member of government? There is no doubt that a change has taken place, but a government must be pragmatic. I think when you look at a government like this, a mature government, a government that says, "Things change, things are not just in the status quo" -- you know, I go to the same coffee shops. I go to M&M, I go to Tim Horton's, I go to Dianna Restaurant, the same coffee shops, the same restaurants, the same senior homes, the same Legion halls, the same Newfoundland club, and I listen to the people. What they're telling me now is, "We support the direction of the government." What they may have told us five years ago, three years ago, certainly has changed, and when you have a government that's responsive and pragmatic, the government listens and the government acts.

Mr Perruzza: As I've said before, I'm going to be voting against this because I essentially campaigned against this and I feel in my heart of hearts that I couldn't support it. But what I can't stand is when I hear Conservatives, but primarily Liberals these days, who stand in their place and accuse us, accuse the NDP of all kinds of things. I have to tell you that sometimes they drool, they foam at the mouth with accusations and insinuations. There's all kinds of innuendo, but my colleague from Cambridge said it best.

You know, when I was a municipal councillor and those guys, the Liberals, were in power, you couldn't figure out what end was up. You couldn't figure it out because none of us knew. You'd read the papers, you'd listen to the stuff, the dictates would come down, and what did they decide to do with this question? They passed the buck. They decided essentially: "We're not going to make the decision. Let somebody else do it."

They said, "In the city of Toronto, let Vaughan compete against North York, because Vaughan may take a position and North York may take a contrary position." If you live in Vaughan and you do business in Vaughan and you have a little shop, the little mom-and-pop shop that he professes to represent, you've got to be closed because that's it, he decided; they weren't going to let you open. But cross the street, cross Steeles and you can shop and you can let that little mom-and-pop shop put that other little mom-and-pop shop out of business. That's the people he professes to represent, and that irks me. It irks me because when I hear that foam-at-the-mouth babble, that foam-at-the-mouth hypocrisy. It just dumfounds me. You wish you had earphones in this place sometimes to be able to shut yourself off from it and say, "I don't want to listen to any of the foam-at-the-mouth babble because it absolutely is not true."

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind all members that they're bordering on unparliamentary language. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I listened to the member for Brampton South with a great deal of interest and I must say that at times I got a little out of hand and I apologize for that. But nevertheless, as the parliamentary assistant to the minister, I have gone around and listened to more people's comments on Sunday shopping, so-called, than perhaps most people in this House. I have taken note of that.

I'd just like to remind the member for Brampton South what one of his own members said, the member for Scarborough North, Mr Curling. He said there are many other things, many issues that must be dealt with, that we'd like to move on. He's talking about Bill 118. He says: "Make a decision. Let's move on it. It will not be perfect." That's from his own caucus.

Then Mr Curling goes on: "Here is an opportunity, Mr Speaker, to say that you have listened." We did listen to the public. This is responsible government. We listened to the people, what they said. Seventy-two per cent of the people said that they want uninterrupted Sunday shopping, 24% of the people said that they want Sunday shopping on a regulated basis and only 5% of those people said that they didn't want Sunday shopping.

I just want to take you back through Hansard to Kingston. We had Mr Carr. He said: "We don't have time. Forget it. Will you politicians in Queen's Park" -- this is municipal politicians telling us this -- "make your decisions? We can't pass it on to another level of government. We're the last level of government." He's talking about us. "We can't palm tough decisions on another elected government. You were elected to make a decision. Make a decision." That's from the third party.

1610

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Brampton South has two minutes in response.

Mr Callahan: First I'd like to respond in a couple of words to the member from Cambridge. I never realized that "pragmatic" meant the same thing as "opportunistic," but from what he said, I think he's equated those two words. He said that this government was being pragmatic; I suggest this government is being opportunistic. It simply took polls. I just hope your polls are right and that you don't have to look at this about four or five years down the line and find that because you did it in a way that didn't give the people in the municipalities all over Ontario the opportunity to have their say, you destroyed the province.

I have to refer to the member from Downsview. I didn't realize he was voting against it. I applaud you for having the guts to do that. You have probably limited your career. You will never get into cabinet and I'm surprised you haven't lost your parliamentary assistant's job or your chairmanship, whatever you do, one or the other, because that seems to be the trend over here. If you do anything against the government, you lose those opportunities. But I applaud you for doing it.

The member from Durham East apologized. No need to apologize. What's said in this House, I mean every word of it, and if you disagree with me, that's your right. In fact, I wish you would disagree with a lot of the things that the government is doing today. Those things that you campaigned for and you believed in -- and I know you're an honourable person -- to be able to support those that are now being espoused by the Premier and those four or five cabinet ministers who are the power brokers in this place, and the fact that you can change the insurance bill -- I'm sure Mel Swart is totally opposed to that -- the fact that you can bring in casino gambling, which there's no question, Donald Trump -- quite frankly, the guy who owns Trump's Castle in Atlantic City actually said you will have an increase in crime, you will have an increase in a whole host of problems. Where are all the opportunities for the public to air their views in that regard?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to rise today and talk briefly with regard to Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping.

I would sooner have been rising today speaking on the budget that this government presented a few weeks ago. I understand the debate will be very limited and there will not be much opportunity to debate that major budget. But today I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on what has turned out to be an extremely controversial piece of legislation, Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping.

This bill was introduced and received first reading on June 3, 1992, which is a year ago today. Bill 38 enables retail business establishments to open on Sunday, with Easter Sunday and other holidays which fall on a Sunday remaining as retail business holidays. Because of the amendments set out in section 1 of the bill, section 4.4 of the act, which relates to Sunday openings in December, is unnecessary and is repealed, terms and leases requiring Sunday openings to be of no effect. And the amendments will be retroactive to June 3, 1992. That is when this bill was first introduced and received first reading.

It's also my understanding that retail workers are provided with the same protection as currently exists under the legislation or is present in the Employment Standards Act, such as: both full- and part-time retail workers will have the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work; the worker who has agreed to work on a Sunday and wishes not to do so can refuse with 48 hours' notice; employees will be entitled to 36 continuous hours of rest in every seven days whether they work Sundays or not; and hospitality industry employees are exempt from these portions of the act.

As I noted earlier, Bill 38 has become an extremely controversial piece of legislation. I have received an incredible number of letters and petitions from across the riding of Simcoe East related to Bill 38. The constituents writing letters or signing petitions are either completely supportive of this legislation or completely opposed to it and the battle lines have been drawn and neither side appears willing to compromise.

I've presented petitions in the Legislature on behalf of churches in Orillia, Elmvale and Penetanguishene, just to name a few, but that were signed by hundreds of concerned constituents. They are opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping and the end of the common pause day. These petitions contain the same basic message, which is:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business. We 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 cause increased hardships on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, 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."

As I said earlier, these petitions were signed by hundreds of sincere, concerned residents from Orillia, Elmvale, Penetanguishene, Hawkestone, Coldwater, Severn Bridge, Brechin, Shanty Bay, Rugby, Warminster, Washago, Minesing, Phelpston, Perkinsfield, Hillsdale, and throughout the townships of Flos, Mara, Medonte, Orillia, Oro, Rama and Tiny, and even from Gingersnap Junction.

Clearly, their opposition to Bill 38 is obvious, as is the opposition of Mr C.W. Armstrong of Clagar Holdings Inc in Elmvale, who wrote to the Premier:

"When you people were considering and asking for advice in regards to Sunday shopping, it would be interesting to know how many who advocate Sunday shopping would be or are prepared to work on Sundays themselves. Do you really think those people who supposedly have the extra cash to spend have been hiding it in their socks waiting for Sunday openings? Are they kidding? Who's kidding who? Too bad. In the real world, it doesn't matter who does the math, you can't get 10 kilograms out of an 8-kilogram bag."

Heather and David Low of Orillia expressed their opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping when they wrote to the Premier and said:

"First, let us state clearly that we are strongly opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping. We feel it is appalling that corporations feel they can break the law by staying open on Sundays. What kind of example is that to our children and youth of Ontario? Maybe the law will change. We hope not. However, the opening of any of the large chains in particular at this point tells our young people that breaking the law is okay. Is it okay to break the law in this case? I think not. Let us keep a common pause day in Ontario. It will be good for us all."

Just as there are two sides to every story, there are two sets of opinions when it comes to the debate surrounding Bill 38. On wide-open Sunday shopping, there appears to be just as many people supporting Bill 38 as there are who oppose it.

Eighty-five-year-old Ann Hart of Orillia wrote to me and said:

"I used to think it was terrible to open stores on Sundays, but I have now changed my mind. There's no doubt the churches are against it, but I have faith in God and I believe good people can find the Lord in their own homes and be the first to help the young people who have to work to live. I hope I don't offend your views, but with so much unemployment one is obliged to do the right thing. I am 85 years old and I believe in our good Lord, but I still think our children need our help."

Another resident of Orillia, Mrs Muriel Wright, wrote me and said:

"I am a strong supporter of Sunday shopping in Orillia and trust that you will be able to support this view in the House. Orillia is a tourist area and our businesses need this support from our government. A Toronto-based group has no right to interfere in what is an Orillia decision to make."

Mr Tony Goepfrich is enjoying his retirement now, but when he was manager of the Zellers store in the County Fair Plaza in Orillia he wrote to me and said:

"Sunday openings were a great success for retailers, consumers, workers and the government. For retailers, it increased sales in an otherwise grim year; for consumers, it provided an added convenience; for workers, it provided increased employment and increased payrolls; and for the government, it provided a much-needed boost to retail sales tax revenue.

1620

"Sunday shopping made an important difference for the retail sector. The retailing sector in Canada is undergoing a profound transformation. With these changes, it is imperative that the Canadian retail sector position itself competitively. Sunday shopping, on a continuous basis, is one of the steps needed to achieve this. The federal government has recently announced its own initiatives designed to assist the Canadian retail sector. The provincial government now has the opportunity to act. Sunday openings will not cost the government or the taxpayer, and it will create additional employment."

In a news release, Mr Julian Huffer, president of the Huronia Tourism Association, announced that the Huronia Tourism Association has adopted the position, and I quote, "That it endorses the concept of free choice in the matter of Sunday openings." In supporting the free choice concept for Sunday openings, Mr Huffer indicated:

-- Ontario as a whole is a tourist destination, not just arbitrarily designated areas.

-- Being a multicultural province with a variety of religious beliefs, how can any one day be designated a common pause day?

-- With the reimposition of Sunday closing, thousands of workers have lost their jobs or had them dramatically reduced.

-- A common pause day is discriminatory and unacceptable since there are those who want to work but can't and those who must work even if they don't want to.

-- Vocal groups, not always representing the majority, can politically intimidate local government bodies, especially in smaller population centres where fear of recrimination prevents many well-meaning people from speaking out.

-- As in the 1950s, when Sunday sports, cinemas and liquor were suggested, there has been a hue and cry about the destruction of family life, whereas the province adopted these activities and life proceeded without the predicted dire consequences.

I trust my colleagues here in the Legislature agree that there is a great deal of conflict, controversy and differing opinions swirling around Bill 38. People either support it or they oppose it; there is no middle ground. Bob Rae said in the last campaign, or before the campaign, that a common pause day was the policy of the government. Workers wanted the Sunday off. I was with the committee when they travelled part of the province. All the unions that made presentations wanted Sundays off. Single parents want Sundays off. But young people, single people, want to work. So, as I said, there is a lot of controversy around this bill.

Because of this, I believe this piece of legislation should be sent to a standing committee for public hearings and then there should be a free vote in the Legislature where each and every member can accurately reflect the views and opinions and concerns of his or her constituents.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I listened intently to the views and concerns that were raised by the member opposite and I feel very much that he has reflected the opinions of a cross-section of Ontario. This in fact is a very, very difficult bill. It's a very difficult issue, and it's something that the people of the province have needed to listen very closely to.

With our party, I find that this particular issue has a certain evolution to it and that in the context that we are in today, perhaps the shape or the issues around the issue have changed somewhat. It's been a very difficult process for members of all sides of the House to engage in this particular issue and to have discussions about this particular issue.

I know that during the time I was the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I had a chance to listen to a number of different views on this particular issue. People gave all different types of impressions on how they felt about where we should be on this issue. Some felt very strongly that we needed to address the Sunday working; some felt very strongly that we needed to address it simply from an opportunity point of view. I find, in listening to the people, that there was a split, but the split was more directly influenced, in my mind, by the people that felt they should have the choice of working or shopping on Sunday.

One thing that I found very notable was the youth of the province and the opportunity they felt it presented to them. This particular issue of openings on Sunday they felt gave the youth of this province an opportunity for work, an opportunity they felt that may not be there particularly in times such as this, very, very difficult times, times that are very trying and not as great an opportunity as there has been in the past.

I understand the member's point of view, I understand the conflict in his mind and I understand that it's a particular piece of legislation that will have a lot of discussion on both sides.

Mr McLean: I want to thank the member for Elgin for his comments. There's not much more that I can say other than to say that his remarks will be much the same as mine, and I know many members in this House feel the same way. It's a very controversial issue and it's not easy to deal with. That's why our party is allowing our members to have an open vote according to the wishes of our constituents, I think the majority of them, and that's not going to be easy to determine. It's a very tough position for everybody.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too am pleased to join in this debate today. I realize that the issue of Sunday shopping has been an issue that has been around for a very long time and has bedevilled a whole series of governments.

Even though we no longer live in the Presbyterian Ontario of the 1800s, when streetcars were banned on Sundays and steamboat excursions and rail excursions were banned on Sundays, there is in fact still some attachment to the idea of a common pause day in Ontario, notwithstanding the fact that we've become a more pluralistic society over the years and over the generations. In fact, in my own riding of London South there are a large number of constituents who don't celebrate their Sabbath on Sunday. There still is a strong desire on the part of retail workers and small retailers and their families to enjoy a day on which they can relax and rejuvenate from the daily grind and commercialism of the week.

I don't believe that the issue of Sunday shopping is necessarily one only of Sunday shopping. It's also an issue concerning Sunday working. I was pleased with the introduction of Bill 115, which sought to ensure that a larger sector of Ontario does not have to work in order to provide shopping convenience for other sectors that are able to enjoy their common pause day. I know polls tend to show that a majority of Ontarians favour wide-open Sunday shopping, but I think if you asked some of these people polled whether they'd like to work on Sundays themselves, they're very apt to decline to work on Sundays.

I know for a fact that many retail workers in my riding want to be with their families on Sundays in the same way that their owners and their managers are with their families on Sundays. I still get calls regularly, virtually each week, from sales people at Patton's Place in my riding, a furniture retailer, many of whom are on commission and feel they can't really voluntarily decline to work on Sundays.

I also think of the plight of the small retailers in my riding and across Ontario and the concern they have. Many of these are run by sole proprietors or are run by their families. These small retailers certainly don't have the same luxuries that larger businesses have to opt to stay open on Sundays and in fact may lose a considerable portion of their market share to the larger retailers.

1630

The larger retailers and the media certainly benefit from Sunday openings. The media benefit because of increased advertising sales and the larger retailers may benefit from the increased share of the market that they derive from Sunday openings.

I also question whether or not Sunday openings have generated more jobs, sales or tax revenues. For example, a Radio Shack store in my riding was open for a few Sundays after we permitted Sunday openings and closed down shortly afterwards, after testing the market for three or maybe four weeks. So we need to be concerned about the smaller retailers.

We also need to be concerned about protection for workers. Some workers maintain that they have suffered cutbacks in their hours due to the higher operating costs of opening on Sundays. They feel it's very difficult for them to complain if they're suspended or laid off or disciplined. They feel there's a level of intimidation and coercion.

In fact, in the report to the Minister of Labour from the committee to advise on the impact of Sunday shopping, presented in February of this year, many of these workers indicated that the choice whether or not to accept Sunday work is not truly voluntary in many circumstances due to peer pressure from other workers, the fear that the employer or the supervisor will look unfavourably upon you when it comes time for a promotion because you are not a team player, or the pressure from an employer who says that the store will be in financial danger if it does not open with adequate staff. It may be financial pressure on the workers, knowing, if they're on commission for example, that they'll face lower income and lost sales if they forego Sunday work.

With Sunday openings, some of these workers indicate, especially in the grocery business, that these stores are seeing some of their sales shift from other days to Sunday. As a result, the hours of opening and number of staff may be cut back on other days during the week.

There were a number of very positive suggestions made in the advisory committee report, including posting of notices as to workers' rights, prohibiting employers from asking questions about Sunday work availability on application forms and various other very constructive suggestions that might offer greater protection to workers than is presently the case.

I would also like to see some attention directed to the needs of workers required to work on Sunday with regard to transportation, getting to and from work, and with regard to child care for those single parents who may feel obliged to work on Sundays.

Some would argue that no worker has to work on Sunday, and if you read the strict text of the Employment Standards Act, that may be the case. A worker who is terminated for ulterior reasons or who is disciplined can file a complaint, but of course it takes some time for that complaint to be dealt with.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I find it incorrect that we don't have a quorum present when we're debating something that this government campaigned against in the last election and now is doubling back on. Surely, the members should be here to hear this.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for London South may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Winninger: I'm also cognizant of the concerns expressed by the United Food and Commercial Workers, which indicate that retail workers are relatively underorganized and underpaid, and that the service they provide imposes social burdens on them which have to be addressed.

I'm mindful that as recently as May 1992 a resolution was adopted by our party reaffirming its support for the current common pause day legislation and enforcement of same. So in light of the fact that there's no demonstrable proof that Sunday openings have led to increased sales, and in fact my suspicion is that we have the same sales and the same revenues spread over seven days instead of six with potentially greater costs, certainly for small retailers and family businesses, mom-and-pop operations, and due to the fact that many of these mom-and-pop operations are small convenience stores that are being forced out by the ever-growing market share that larger grocery stores are able to command, I'm not even sure if there's a potential for more jobs as a result of Sunday openings.

I'm also concerned, as I said earlier, that retail workers may not enjoy the protections they really need to be able to exercise a meaningful right to refuse to work on Sundays. I realize the Employment Standards Act may vouchsafe to retail workers 36 hours of continuous rest every seven days, but the kind of implied and subtle coercion, if you will, that exists in some of these retail outlets can certainly infringe on the rights of workers and not give true meaning to the protection we're all seeking to afford to them.

I realize there may be a growing demand for Sunday openings. I realize that the fabric of Ontario has changed over the generations, and because of our more pluralistic nature, Sunday does not command perhaps the same attention it once did. We do need to enjoy a common pause day when personal and community life can be reaffirmed, and I think that's a long-standing tradition of this party that needs to be articulated from time to time.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I would support the member from London South's statement. I found out, as I went through my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay, that 60% to 85% of the people in every community were opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping, and I'm not talking only of the general public. We went into every store on our main streets. We talked to the people who owned the stores and found out that indeed the independent store owners, from grocery stores on down through to the smallest independent on the main streets of our towns, 60% to 85% of those people were opposed to it. After all, under wide-open Sunday shopping, we're going to be forcing these people to work seven days a week, some of them.

When I look at it, yes, in my area we have a bit of a conflict. The resort industry would like to see Sunday shopping, but indeed, is it fair to force that on the small independent or even the large independent merchant within the community? That's what this does. Already I'm hearing from people that they're being told, "If you don't work Sunday, your hours are going to be cut back," and that, sir, is forcing people to work on Sundays and that was one of the things I thought was not going to happen under wide-open Sunday shopping. It's already happening out there in the community, so therefore I support the statements made by my colleague from London South.

1640

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I concur with some of the comments by the member, certainly his concern for small business operators who do want a day off and who labour very hard six and seven days of the week. One of them in my riding is Mr Matthews of Drummond Home Hardware on Drummond Road, who has been in contact with me in the last few years. Also, my own father operated a jewellery store. I know he worked very long hours and needed Sunday off.

But I think two things are very clear now: First, shoppers want that choice and, second, the retailers and the tourism operators across Ontario -- every retailer, I think -- want that choice. We have now, over the past year, given them that opportunity and that choice. I feel now that if we vote against this, it's like trying to go back in time when we have operated under this system for the last year and I believe our society has not fallen apart.

I want to add one other thing, that in my own riding of Niagara Falls people are desperate for jobs. They want any job, and in this economy, if we can provide students and/or other people with that opportunity, I think we should.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London South has two minutes in response.

Mr Winninger: I certainly appreciated the comments of my colleagues from Muskoka-Georgian Bay and Niagara Falls.

I think it's important to remind the House that the divergence of opinion you hear expressed today indicates that this government doesn't necessarily all sing from the same hymn book or read from the same prayer book on the issue of Sunday shopping. Those in the opposition who suggest that members of this House are not free to express their opinions ought to remember this day and this debate, which is a fine example of the flexibility shown by this government in allowing its members not only the privilege of speaking their frank opinions with regard to this vexing issue but also to exercise a free vote if they so choose.

I think we also should remind ourselves that under Bill 114, and also under Bill 115, there were many businesses exempted that offered the kinds of commodities that people would require on a Sunday, including food, entertainment and various other amenities that the consumer might seek.

As well, both Bill 114 and Bill 115, perhaps in their own way, with some difficulties, attempted to promote tourism in Ontario, either through the municipal option or through province-wide criteria. I think people who say there's no choice if we don't proceed with this legislation ought to be reminded that there was choice under the previous acts.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address myself in the half-hour that is allocated to me today not so much to the government members or even to members of my own caucus or the third party, because I understand and I realize that the bill will pass, that the government has decreed to change its position and to move forward with it; however, I do want to address myself to the people who may be watching out there in the public, because ultimately it will be the people who still will make or break what, in my opinion, Sunday stands for and what Sunday means and a position that I will be speaking on and that will lead me to vote against the bill that's before us.

But before I go into this detail, I have brought something that I bought not far from here. I'm sure you immediately recognize what this is.

Mr Mills: What is it?

Mr Daigeler: It's a rose. I invite you, Mr Speaker, I invite those on the other side of the House, I invite those who are watching, to think for a moment, what is a rose? What comes to your mind when you see this flower?

Mr Mills: The old country.

Mr Daigeler: To me, immediately I think, something special. It's different.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): My wife.

Mr Daigeler: The former Minister of Colleges and Universities is saying he's thinking of his wife. The member for Durham East is thinking of the old country. So immediately something is coming to our minds. It's special, it's different.

It is different, it's special, because I think there's a lot of beauty to a rose. Look at the flower. Look at the colour that is there. Look at the delicate arrangement of the petals that are around. In fact, smell. It has a beautiful fragrance. And as the member for Hamilton West said, because he was referring to his wife, a rose is also a sign of love. It's a sign of community.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm not opposed to the member personally, but I believe our standing orders do state that you're not allowed to use items or objects to make your speech flowery. I think that the member is making his speech very flowery by the use of this flower. I think we should stick to the bill, Bill 38.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham East does bring a point of order to the attention of the Speaker. Indeed, props are not considered to be parliamentary.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I think it is possible to bring a rose into this chamber.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): We want to know where you bought that rose.

Mr Daigeler: I obviously have caught their attention, so obviously it is working. If he will only permit me for a few more minutes to think what this rose represents, then I will explain to him where the connection is with the bill before us and with Sunday.

As the previous Minister of Colleges and Universities, the member for Hamilton West, said, this rose is a sign of community. It's a sign of love. It's a sign of bonding. However, at the same time, when you think about a rose, you have to take the time. I would ask the member from Durham East not to rush. Take the time. Think about the flower. Think about what a rose means. Take the time. Yes, there's a cost associated with it, and that's another point I want you to remember. There's a cost associated with a rose.

Finally, I say, why did I bring the rose? I could have brought another flower. Yes, that's true. There are other flowers out there that are beautiful, but most people -- I got an immediate reaction from you -- will be able to associate with a rose. They know this is a sign of love, a sign of friendship. They recognize the beauty in a rose. In fact, this recognition goes not just in this chamber; it goes across cultures.

Finally, what it does take, however, for a rose in order to grow and to be appreciated --

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I really appreciate the fact that I'm hearing a sermon intended for a Sunday on a late Thursday afternoon. I like it.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Daigeler: I would appreciate if the members would have the courtesy to not interrupt me constantly, because what I'm trying to make here are, in my opinion, some very important points that are very important. I would have thought that members of the NDP would take the time to reflect on what they're passing and what they're doing. This is the purpose of my speech this afternoon: if you just take the time to realize what a rose means and what Sunday means.

1650

My final point was that a rose needs care; it needs protection; it needs trimming. There's a lot of work, there's a lot of care, there's a lot of attention that goes into the cultivation of a rose.

Now, for all those rushing members over here who didn't want to take the time to look at the rose and make the connection with Sunday, I'm coming there. But before I come there, I just want to make one point. As I will use these six points that I was describing the rose, I will use these six points to describe Sunday.

I want to tell you that other than the governing party, there's some consistency in my own position because I have in front of me here an article of the -- guess what? -- Toronto Star, dated December 5, 1987. This seems like a long time ago; it's actually six years. Guess what it says? I'm quoting here from the column by Rosemary Spiers, who used to write for the Toronto Star.

She said, "The issue of Sunday shopping went suddenly to cabinet last Tuesday and last Tuesday to the Liberal caucus." She went on to say -- frankly, I think she had some good moles there; I still don't know who provided her that observation, but anyway she apparently found out -- "Only a few Liberal members objected, such as Hans Daigeler from Nepean."

So I've had a consistency on this matter and I'm very pleased that I finally do get an opportunity to put my viewpoint on the record and to speak, while I realize, as I said at the beginning, that the matter pretty well has been decided, to at least indicate, to give an opportunity to the members opposite and to the people out there to reflect on what we're doing and perhaps to do what I would like them to do: appreciate the roses and appreciate what Sunday means.

First of all, I said a rose is different; it stands out; it's special. I think that's what Sunday is as well. It's something special. It's different from the other days of the week. It's unique, it has a special character, it stands out and, frankly, it makes life more interesting.

It's like spice. It's agreed you don't necessarily need spice -- you need food -- but it adds a flavour. It makes it different. It makes it more fun. In my opinion, that's what a Sunday is. It's different. It's like a rose. You don't need a rose, you have other flowers, but it adds a special characteristic, it adds a special flavour to our life.

Then I said a rose is something very beautiful. It has many aspects to it. It has colour. It has fragrance. It has smell. I said it has form in its shape. It has grace. The same thing can happen on Sundays. It's an opportunity to enjoy the beauties of the world of nature. We go out there and observe what the world is around us. It gives an opportunity to enjoy also the beauties that people have created, men and women: art, pictures, museums, literature, books, whatever it is.

It's a day where we can rest and enjoy and appreciate the beauty that is out there; frankly, it's also a day where we can just relax and sit back and do nothing. Again, for me that adds to the beauty and the richness of life of all of us.

A third point, and I think a very important one: I said the rose is a sign of love, is a sign of community, is a sign of friendship. Again, that's what Sunday is all about. It's an opportunity to get together, to renew friendships, to visit neighbours and, yes, for some people to go to church and establish community there.

But I don't think you have to be a churchgoer to appreciate and recognize the importance and usefulness of cultivating, of working on friendships and relationships and community and building your family, your friends, and making sure that you can enjoy and appreciate what the other people are: not just what you are yourself, but what the other people are.

To me, frankly, like with the rose, it's a very important aspect of life that we have symbols, that we have occasions, specific occasions, specific symbols, that represent more than just myself as an individual, that remind us of our community of being men and women, because, you know, the rose is a sign especially of the relationship between men and women.

I think Sunday too can be an occasion where men and women meet each other; again, where all these pressures during the week -- and again, the member from Hamilton West said he was thinking of his wife. Yes, Sunday also can give us an opportunity. I speak about myself because I'm down here so often at Queen's Park. I'm not back in my riding. I'm not back with my family. I'm not back with my wife. It gives an opportunity on Sundays to renew that relationship of love.

If that opportunity is taken away, are we taking away a very important opportunity to renew friendship, to rebuild community and to strengthen love? Frankly, that is my point. That was my point when I was using that example and that beautiful flower of the rose to indicate what's so important about Sundays.

Now, what was my fourth point? My fourth point about the rose --

Mr Mills: I have a garden full of them.

Mr Daigeler: -- was that, yes, you do have to take the time to reflect about the rose. You can't, like the member from Durham East was trying to do with me, rush it. You have to pay attention. You have to take a close look. You have to go close and smell. You can't just do all kinds of other things. There is a cost associated with Sunday and with the enjoyment and the beauty of Sunday.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Halton Centre --

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Halton North.

The Acting Speaker: -- on a point of order.

Mr Duignan: I wish to draw the member's attention to the fact, and I really do hate to interrupt the flowery speech the member has, but we sent a glass of water over so he could put the rose in it, so it would be well to allow the hot air that's sort of emanating from over there --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's not a point of anything. The honourable member for Nepean.

1700

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much. At least you gave me an opportunity to drink a glass of water. However, I do hope that those people who are watching out there are not disrupted in their train of thought about what is, in my opinion, an extremely important aspect of our social life, and I would hope that the member opposite would take a moment to --

Mr Farnan: To smell the roses.

Mr Daigeler: Yes, as the member from Cambridge said, precisely, and that's where I want to end up, and I'm very pleased that in fact it is working: We should take the time to smell the roses. Now, what does that mean? I will come to that very shortly.

First, however, before you in fact can smell the roses, there is a cost associated with it. Yes, if you take the time to enjoy nature, to enjoy the beauties of the world, yes, you can't go out shopping. I understand that, and sometimes when you're working all week -- and unfortunately too many people are caught up because they have to work so hard -- the only time left seems to be for shopping on Sunday.

But is that convenience really worth it? I recognize, I appreciate the fact that not shopping on Sunday can be an inconvenience. I don't deny that. But as was mentioned by several other members, there is a cost for shopping, for having the stores open, on others. There's all the workers, who are often forced, as was mentioned already, to work. There's a cost for those people.

But my main point here is that Sundays do not necessarily come natural. We have to take the time to reflect on it and step back and make a conscious decision: "Yes, I want to do it differently. I don't want to get caught up in the flood of things. I want to step back and take the time to look closely at what I'm doing, to take the time to look at the flower and realize that Sunday's something special, at least different, that there's a lot of beauty that this day can offer to me."

My fifth point about the rose was why --

Mr Mills: This is like a sermon.

Mr Daigeler: The member from Durham East is saying this is like a sermon. Yes, frankly, I admit there is an element of sermon here, and I don't want to deny that I have a background in theology. I studied theology and I am coming in that sense from a spiritual basis. But some people understand this as narrowly religious. I don't agree with this. I do think what we're talking about here are some very basic values in society that I call -- yes, I don't deny that. I call that spiritual. I may call that religious.

But I think there are some very basic cultural values at stake here, which frankly the NDP used to speak about. I was with the member from Durham East on the committee, and they were the ones who used to talk about the important values that are at stake with this legislation.

So, yes, the member from Durham East is correct: It is a bit of a sermon. But in my opinion, it is a reflection that hopefully many of us would make, because I think it's worthwhile, not because I want you so or somebody tells you that's what you have to do, because I think there's a lot to be gained for you and for all of us by taking the time to think about it and, in my opinion, by keeping Sunday the way it used to be. So that is my main point.

But, again, yes, why Sundays? Frankly, I think that's a very good argument. I said, why a rose? Why did I bring in a rose? It is true I could have brought in other flowers. There are some other very beautiful flowers, and certainly Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday are nice days of the week too, and I think it's possible to do what I was saying, to enjoy the beauties of life is possible on another day as well. The member from Durham East was talking about his country. He wasn't born in Canada. I wasn't born in Canada. But immediately, from another country, he recognizes what a rose means. I recognize what a rose means. Others from other cultures recognize it as well.

I think that's what is happening with Sundays as well. We can come or we have come, the world over, to an agreement that yes, Sunday is that day where we want to take the time to build community, see nature, enjoy the world and, as was said, smell the roses, enjoy, appreciate, see the beauty that is still there in the world. That goes far beyond the achievement of work and that rat race we're all involved in.

I grew up basically in the 1960s. I was born before the 1960s, but my conscious age began with, I guess, the late 1950s and the 1960s. If you remember the promises that were made then, it was the leisure society that was supposed to come.

Mr Mills: Flower child.

Mr Daigeler: It was the flower generation, yes.

Mr Duignan: Do you remember San Francisco?

Mr Daigeler: Precisely, and frankly I think they were on to something. We have lost an aspect of the flower people from San Francisco, as the member from Durham East mentions. They were on to something. Obviously, they got sidetracked a little bit as well.

But I think the point here that I'm making is that by this measure that the government has put forward before us, in my opinion, we're losing out on something that could be important for us. I am not ideological enough to say, "This going to be the end of us." No, it won't be the end of the family. We're all resilient enough. We will continue to enjoy life and we will continue to see beauty. But I do think that more and more the pressures on us are such that we no longer see the beauty of a rose, that we no longer have the time to enjoy life, to be just ourselves, to be what we are and to do less. There's a time for doing, yes, and for me that would be during the week, and there's a time for being and for enjoying life.

My final point that I had made about the rose is that the rose, in order to grow and to be what it is, needs protection. It needs care. It needs cultivation. It needs a lot of work. The same point applies to Sunday. It needs care. It needs protection. For me, that is what the Sunday shopping law was all about. It was that framework that asked all of us to take the time to sit back, to enjoy life and to see the beauties.

It's that protection that we're taking away with this particular bill. As I say, I think that's unfortunate. I think it makes us less human. I don't think it makes us unhuman, but there is an element, a richness to a day of special attention.

It's like with the rose. There's a richness to a rose that we don't find in other flowers, but if we take the time to look at it, if we take the time on Sundays to enjoy the beauties of nature, to enjoy friendships, to rebuild families, I think then we will understand what I mean when I say I'm afraid that with all this shopping craze, we're losing something in our humanity. That's why, on the deepest level, I'm opposed to this. I have been opposed to it, as I indicated earlier, from the very beginning when this was first announced.

1710

Let me perhaps conclude with the advice that I would like to leave with the members opposite and that I would like to leave with the members of the public. Frankly, the member for Cambridge already, on his own, arrived at the same advice and that advice is, take the time to smell the roses and take the time to enjoy Sundays and at least, if it's not going to be Sundays, don't forget to smell the roses. Don't forget to enjoy life and that there's more to life than work and making money.

If that's something I have done this afternoon it is that, when you see a rose, I hope you'll think of Sundays. And when you think of Sundays, remember the roses and remember to smell the roses. Remember to be human and remember your fellow human being and remember that there's more to life than making money and more to life than work.

Mr Mills: I've listened to the member for Nepean and I'd just like to tell him, and he knows this already, that Sunday to me is also a very special day. In fact, unless I'm ill, I'm always in Courtice United Church regularly of a Sunday, without fail, and being brought up in the old country where we mostly worked seven days a week, Sunday to me was also a very special day. Sunday, to me, is still a very special day.

But the population has spoken, the people of Ontario have spoken and they want to shop on Sunday. I don't think I have a right as a legislator to put my values on the line and say, "Well, I don't believe you should do this, that you shouldn't shop on Sunday because it's a special day."

I have lots of roses in my garden and I spend lots of time smelling them. I don't mind telling you, they're a very special flower to me, but let's look back at the history of where we've come. We're now in 1993. I look back and I see in 1883, 100 years ago, the Presbyterian Church lobbied about the use of streetcars in the cities. They stopped streetcars running. That wasn't very forward thinking, because in those days not many people had cars, and how the dickens were they going to get to the Presbyterian church? But they stopped people travelling. That was in 1883.

We jump forward to 1943. In those days, the cinemas in Toronto were only open if you were a soldier. If you had a uniform on you could go to the movies. Let's jump forward to 1950. Then there was a referendum that allowed people to watch Sunday sports. And this is a killer: In 1960, the Attorney General then, Kelso Roberts, sitting over there, in what was the government then, said he would no longer consent to prosecute people who operated coin laundries.

Mr Speaker, with deference to you, sir, with 1993, attitudes have changed, but personally --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Mills: I know, Mr Speaker -- it's up to us to conduct our lives accordingly.

The Speaker: The member for Nepean has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Daigeler: The member for Durham East, whom I respect and we have other opportunities to talk to each other, raises an important point and I agree with him. What right do I have to impose my values? What rights do you have to impose your values? As I think I made clear, I wasn't trying to impose values. As I said, ultimately the protection of Sunday and the law for Sunday will only stand if the people themselves see that special day as important, as necessary and see the protection is necessary.

However, I did ask my own constituents, I did ask the people in my riding. I can tell you certainly that when this was first announced it was very clearly against Sunday shopping. I did a survey last year and there has been a change, as the NDP has indicated. There's more support for Sunday shopping now. However, in my own riding it was exactly 50-50. So 50% said, "Yes, we're in favour of opening Sundays," and 50% said, "No, we don't."

I certainly take that as good authorization for me to make a decision in this House according to my own best conscience. However, I should indicate to you that there are times where I feel the obligation and where I think I have the right -- that's why we are in a representative democracy, that sometimes I will be able to put forward viewpoints, and justify them hopefully, that may not fully agree with the views of my constituents. I know I have done that, for example, on the Meech Lake debate. The electorate has the right and the opportunity, frankly, to express their agreement or disagreement when the election time comes and I'm fully conscious of that. However, on this one, I actually asked my voters and they were split on it.

Mr Turnbull: I'm particularly pleased to speak to this bill today. I will start by making the comment that one of the NDP's principal platforms in the last election, not just sort of an aside but one of their principal platforms, was that they believed Sunday shopping was evil.

I will say from the outset, so that anybody watching this or listening in the Legislature has no doubt, I will be voting against this bill. The reason is because I, like the NDP, ran in the last election on a platform that I was against Sunday shopping.

When we consider the amount of cynicism that exists for politicians today, I would just like to read something from that famous document, Agenda for People, that was put out by the NDP during the last election. This is dated August 19 under the heading of "Bob Rae, Leader of the Official Opposition."

I quote: "Men and women across Ontario have told me that they don't want promises that can't be kept and they don't trust parties that pretend to serve every need and satisfy every demand. That's the cynical way of the Liberals, that's the cynical way of governments in Ontario and Ottawa today. New Democrats offer a different approach. We acknowledge that our Agenda for People will not meet every need. We can't satisfy every demand."

That statement by itself was not unreasonable because that was a reflection of how people were feeling about governments, but unfortunately that attitude still exists today and it's fuelled by this government's flip-flop, not on, as I say, an issue that was just by the way. This was one of the main planks of your election platform.

I made a commitment to the people of York Mills. When people asked me during the election, "Where do you stand on Sunday shopping?" I told them I'm unequivocally against Sunday shopping. I can tell you there were some people that this did not sit particularly well with, but I was upfront with them, I told them that and I'm sticking with it.

However, it is perfectly reasonable with the passage of time for opinions to change, but I really believe that we have an opportunity here which would get the NDP out of its present problems both on Sunday shopping and on casinos, if you want to change your mind, given the fact that you campaigned so vociferously against these issues in opposition. The solution to that is my private member's bill which I introduced in the last session to allow for citizen-initiated referenda and also to allow the government to put referendum questions. These would not be questions that would cost the public purse a lot of money, because they would not be freestanding referendums; they would be referendums that would be held at the time of a provincial election.

The government at any time could decide that there was a question which was so pressing that it was worthwhile asking the people, and these are the kind of questions, quite frankly, on Sunday shopping that should cut right across party lines. It should not be a political issue. It should be a matter of conscience and a matter of what the electorate wants.

1720

If we were to have a referendum at the time of the next election and the majority of people in Ontario said, yes, they wanted Sunday shopping -- it may quite well be the case -- I would certainly abide by the feelings of the electorate. That would be perfectly reasonable for me to change my mind at that time. However, that is not the route the government is taking.

This is exactly one year to the day that the government came forward and said it was going to allow wide-open Sunday shopping. In the interim we have had shops that have been operating outside of the confines of the law but with the assurance from the government that the government wouldn't prosecute anybody who was open. Well, given the fact that we've been able to operate for one year outside of the law, I don't see why you couldn't wait until the next election, which as far as I'm concerned can't come soon enough. It would certainly get you out of your present difficulties.

I know that many of you have spoken and said that you will be voting against this bill. Indeed, on all sides of the House, in all parties, people have spoken both for and against Sunday shopping. This is a way of making reference to the people about a question which it's perfectly reasonable for you to make reference to them.

The response to the voters should be, "We want direction," but you're not prepared to do that. This is what fuels the cynicism, the fact that you went out and you constantly said: "We will have a different way. We will be different. We will listen to you. We will have a more open government." None of those things has occurred.

In fact today we should basically be debating the budget bill. You brought down a budget which is the largest tax grab in provincial history -- $2 billion. The public will begin to start to understand how serious it is when they get their paycheques next month and see the amount that you have taken out of the economy, which will have serious repercussions. We will lose 50,000 jobs according to the Conference Board of Canada as a result of your budget, because for every $40,000 of tax increases you lose one job. Therefore, $2 billion means you will lose 50,000 jobs as a result of this budget.

But, no, we're not getting an opportunity to debate the budget. We're debating Sunday shopping, which has been floating around for a year, but you're bringing it now. It's so important that you bring it now when we should be having a debate on the budget.

There is no doubt that people have every right to be cynical when you do these kinds of tricks. You've taken this huge budget grab. Take the heat now. If you bring it in, at least stand up and defend it. You're not prepared to do that. Instead, you're bringing in a bill for something that you announced exactly one year ago. Where is that commitment to open government which we heard from Mr Rae when you took office?

I want to just talk about the question of protection of workers. This government in opposition certainly was saying that there was no way you could protect employees. My colleague Mr Stockwell read in extensively from Hansard from when Mr Rae was in opposition about how you couldn't possibly protect workers. I won't read that in again, but I will reflect on the fact that it was your party that always said you would protect workers.

Let me tell you something. There has been nothing that has happened to protect workers in the meantime. If you think that you can protect workers with this kind of legislation by saying, "Oh, we'll wave the wand and say that an employer can't discriminate against you," you are dreaming. If somebody is coming to be hired and the employer gets an idea that they're not going to work on Sunday, they won't get the job. And of the existing employees, if they refuse to work on Sunday, they're not going to get sacked, they just won't get a promotion.

Mr Mills: Are you voting on this or not?

Mr Turnbull: I've already said, Mr Mills, that I'm against it, very clearly, if you would pay attention. I'm not doing a flip-flop, unlike you.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): You've had three different positions on this, for heaven's sake. Your party has had three different positions on it.

Mr Turnbull: Very curious that one of the ministers is heckling that we've got three different positions. I will point out to the minister that in point of fact, our party has always allowed a free vote on this and there has never been any doubt whatsoever that our party would let people vote with their consciences. I know the pressures that are going on in your party at the moment to get people to vote along with the government.

We know that you cannot protect workers, and the unions know that you cannot protect workers. You cannot also protect tenants in malls. Any suggestion of that, they say, "Oh, we will not allow a landlord to push you out because you're not opening on Sundays." What a naïve comment. It shows that you don't understand basically how business works.

The fact is that come lease renewal time, if the economy has improved and there is a shortage of shopping space, which may be some length of time before that occurs again, they just won't get the lease renewal on the terms that they want. So much for your protection of workers. So much for your protection of landlords. If you're honest with yourselves, you will know that what I speak is the truth.

Let us just talk about the question of a common pause day. It has great merit. There is no evidence that, in any society in the world where they have gone to seven-day shopping, that society has been kinder or gentler. It has invariably become more ugly and more grasping and meaner. I have not heard any evidence from any of the members across the floor to refute that.

The real question that has to be asked when you're talking about Sunday shopping is not whether people want Sunday shopping, but whether they are prepared to work on a Sunday, and there is a vast difference. Those people who may say, "Yes, I kind of like Sunday shopping," if they are office workers or steelworkers or auto workers, or indeed MPPs, should be asked the same question: "If you approve this, will you work on Sunday?"

Mr Mills: I worked on Sundays right here, on committee. On committee every week I worked on Sundays.

Mr Turnbull: The member for Durham East is screaming across the floor, in his usual hyena fashion, that he'd work on Sunday. Well, I'll tell you, I've worked a lot more Sundays in my life than most of the people on the other side of the floor put together.

Mr Mills: I have worked more Sundays than you have ever lived.

Mr Turnbull: So the real question is, will the people work on Sunday?

Mr Mills: You don't know what it is to work on a Sunday. I have worked on more Sundays than you have lived on this earth.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Mr Turnbull: The answer, I believe, is in fact that they won't work on Sunday, and on that basis I oppose this legislation too.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: I've had an accusation, Mr Speaker, by the member for Durham East that I'm arrogant. It's very awkward when I speak the truth, isn't it, Mr Mills, because the fact is, I'm talking about your --

Mr Mills: I have worked more Sundays than you ever have.

The Speaker: Just a minute. Will the member for Durham East please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just relax. And the member for York Mills, would he please take his seat as well.

Mr Turnbull: You are sanctimonious.

The Speaker: I would ask the members to just turn down the temperature a little bit. It may be of assistance to the member for York Mills if he would direct his comments to the Chair, and if the member for Durham East would just relax.

Mr Mills: Yes, Mr Speaker. I apologize.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It rather hurts when somebody is speaking about the electoral record of this government, but it is the truth, and every word I have said so far is the truth and I can back it up.

Let us just look at the impact on business. We know that the impact on business is quite significant.

This is a summary of the impact on small convenience stores. From June 7, 1992, to September 30, 1992, the members of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association reported that they lost $59 million in total sales. Convenience stores lost $12,000 each per month for the months of June, July, August and September.

1730

Those convenience stores, to a great extent, are the stores which allow people who've recently immigrated to this country to be gainfully employed and integrate into our society. Often their language skills are not the greatest and they manage to make their way without any handouts from the government. Instead, the government is going to drive them out of business. To date, just within this survey period, there were 2,000 stores closed and thousands of jobs lost. Can you imagine that kind of impact? That's as a direct result, according to their own association, of wide-open Sunday shopping.

Let's talk about cross-border shopping, because one of the reasons the government said it was bringing this in was to halt cross-border shopping. Indeed, I guess you could say cross-border shopping has gone since we've had wide-open Sunday shopping. However, let's examine why people go across the border. Overwhelmingly, the reason people go across the border is to be able to buy goods with less tax than they pay here in Ontario. Some of the taxes, we all agree, are fair. There has been general acceptance by all parties in this Legislature that heavy taxes on alcohol and tobacco are a way of paying back for the social ills that they cause and for paying for a lot of our medicare, which we hold so dearly and which we would not like to see moving into the model of the US.

That is one of the problems we have. It appears with cigarettes that we've actually crossed that Rubicon, that we now have taxation at such a high level that people have decided they're going to buy illegal cigarettes. It's estimated that one third of all the cigarettes sold in Canada today are smuggled cigarettes. That is a serious question and it's a question this government has to come to grips with. Are you going to continue to tax to the level that you start seeing diminishing returns? That's a question for another day, but it is a serious question. That's the greatest reason people go cross-border shopping.

Also, people like to go for the trip across the border. I suspect that even if prices were approximately the same, we would get an element of cross-border shopping. But they're not. We know that taxes are too high in Canada and we must address that. But opening shops on Sunday here is not addressing that. We're just sticking our heads in the sand.

The opening of stores in Ontario has resulted in fact, according to all the store owners whom I have spoken to, in a redistribution of the sales. They haven't increased sales, by and large. They have just redistributed them over seven days. As we redistribute those sales over seven days, we know that the cost of labour goes up. Eventually, if this recession ends, once again, we will see it reflected in higher prices, because if your costs go up in operating the store seven days and yet your sales haven't gone up, therefore there will be much less profit. We know there are many stores in Ontario that are not making any profit today. They've got losses and we've seen significant bankruptcies in stores since we've had Sunday shopping.

But it's not all because of Sunday shopping. It's because of our uncompetitive situation and the fact that there's a lack of confidence in this province, to a great extent because of the actions of this government, but not entirely this government. I'm not one who would blame everything on one government. I think we've got a cumulative effect of many administrations at different levels thinking that there was no end to the taxes they could suck out of taxpayers. We're beginning to see it coming home to roost.

To return to what I was saying before, there is a way for this government, and that is, please, accept my private member's bill which I introduced to the Legislature in the last session. It passed at second reading, but the government voted down referring it to a standing committee, and then it died with the closure of the House at the end of the last term. I reintroduced it on May 17. It is called An Act to obtain the Opinion of the Public on Questions of Provincial Interest; the Provincial Public Consultation Act, 1993.

I did it on behalf of citizens who feel they do not have an adequate voice in what the government is doing, and I deliberately chose a fairly high gateway for people. We required 15% of the eligible voters to sign a petition before it could be forced on to the next provincial ballot.

This hurdle is very high. It is as high as the highest hurdle of any state in the US which has referendum legislation, but also within the legislation it called for the ability of the government to refer matters of importance such as this and such as casinos to the public where it should indeed be decided, because there is a smugness among legislators if we think that we can be all high deciders of the fate of people.

These are questions that we should be asking the people because they go to the moral fibre of our province, and it cuts across all political parties. That, sir, would be a reasonable way of resolving this question. We've established that the government waited for a year before it brought in legislation, notwithstanding that it brought it in now, at this very time we should be debating the largest tax grab in history; instead, the government has closed us down with just two days of debate.

My own party has had two speakers speaking on that subject, and last week, which was a constituency week, all our members went out across all of Ontario and consulted widely with citizens, with chambers of commerce, with union members, with business people, with municipalities as to what the impact of this budget would be. They told us, "This is a very serious problem,"and they gave us many instances of problems that it would create. They asked us, and we committed, to go back to the Legislature and reflect their concerns, but we are not being allowed to reflect those.

One final point on the question of the fact that we should be debating the budget -- instead, we're debating Sunday shopping -- is that in 1988 when the Liberals brought in a large tax grab of $1.3 billion, the NDP government, which was then the official opposition under Bob Rae, stalled the House so much that the Treasurer of the day, Mr Nixon, was not able to read the budget speech in the House. Instead, he had to go into the lobby of this House and read the budget speech out there.

Notwithstanding those tactics, they had a total of 13 days of debate of that budget, of which four were immediately following the budget. Instead, we had one day immediately following the budget because the budget was so carefully engineered that it was brought in one day before we had constituency week.

To go back one year before that, this same government tried that tactic but it was even more crass. It brought it in the very day that we were rising to go into constituency week, so there was no debate immediately following the budget, and then guess what? They did not allow us any debate of that budget because they said: "Oh, you've stalled us on other legislation. You're bad boys" -- bad boys and bad girls representing the people who we were elected to represent.

We have to have a voice, because otherwise democracy is seriously impaired. So once again I will say that this is very serious that today we're debating Sunday shopping one year after the bill was announced, and yet at the very same time we should be debating the budget.

I wonder if any of you across can possibly look at me and say, "Yes, that's reasonable that you only get two days of debate of the budget." How can you possibly call yourselves a democratic party when you are violating all of the traditions of democracy? There is something wrong with the way this House works, and unfortunately it is not just the NDP that bears the brunt of it; it is all parliamentarians and all parliaments that get the disrepute from this complete disregard for what the voters are saying. As the opposition, we must have a voice, because that is what the parliamentary tradition is built on, and if you take that cornerstone out, very soon we will find that the whole of our democratic process will crumble.

1740

To return to Sunday shopping, I will not be voting for it. I am very sorry for those members of the government who feel so uncomfortable because they know they electioneered on the platform that they were against Sunday shopping, and nothing has happened in the meantime to change my mind that you have found some magic way of protecting workers or tenants, because there's nothing that you have presented to date which would indicate that.

So, on behalf of those workers who don't want to be forced to work on Sunday, on behalf of the small businesses that are being forced to open, not just in malls but also on streets, because one of their competitors has opened up, I'm speaking out today, and I ask you once again, put this bill on the back burner and refer it to the people. I would prefer that you referred it to people by way of an election as soon as possible, but I believe you're probably going to drag this out for another two years. But given the fact that you have spent a year with de facto Sunday shopping without a bill, I believe that you can wait another two years.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): There are two points the honourable member made in his comments that I think are worthy of some rebut. He talked about cynicism and made reference to the cynicism that the population has of politicians in general.

He also talked about the need to listen to people and the views of his constituents, and as have other members who are opposing this legislation, he referred to the fact that in asking his constituents for their view on this bill, he acknowledged that they were divided, that in fact, as another member, from Nepean, had said, it was perhaps 50-50.

So the solution of the member for York Mills is that we go to a referendum and ask people what they think, knowing, as he's already said, that the population of the province, I think it's fair to say, is generally divided and there is no consensus on this issue.

The point I want to make is that when the member talks about cynicism, nothing makes people more cynical about their politicians than to see those politicians abrogate their responsibility to show some leadership and to make some decisions.

I think it was Edmund Burke, a famous Irishman, who, in his address to the electors of Bristol, pointed out to his constituents that he owed them the best use of his intellect, and I paraphrase, not merely to be their mouthpiece.

So I urge the honourable member to show leadership, to vote -- he says he's going to vote against it -- but not to duck the issue. We are here to take some decisions. Sometimes they're unpopular; sometimes they are difficult. But our government is not afraid to acknowledge that views in this province have changed, views in this province are divided. But one thing we are totally confident on: The people of this province want a government that's not afraid to come to a conclusion as to what it believes is in the best interests of these people and then to take those tough decisions.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I don't generally respond during this time, and usually I don't respond to the comments from the member from York Mills because I don't usually listen to them, but some of his statements were just so laughable that I feel compelled to respond.

First of all, he talked about the different positions that the members in the Tory caucus have and the fact that they're going to have a free vote on this and that obviously shows some respect for the differing opinions of the other members in the Tory caucus, and he respects their ability to make those different types of decisions, but he doesn't have the same respect for his own constituents to exercise their responsibility to make decisions as to when they want to spend their money in his own riding.

This also comes from a member who is probably fairly right-wing on most issues and tries to convince us of his neo-conservative philosophies, his free trade philosophies, his laissez-faire, free-market, dog-eat-dog, only-the-strong-survive attitude towards things. In this case, he wants us to believe that he's really a champion of the rights of workers and that he's going to stand up to make sure they don't have to work on Sundays. I just find that kind of ironic.

He also brings up the issue with respect to small convenience store owners and argues that, "Well, we should try and do something to protect the small convenience store owners." But the only reason that they would benefit from the protection is because they would have to work on Sundays and nobody else would. That would be the only way they would benefit. I can't understand how he feels that we should have some legislation that makes people in convenience stores work but no one else.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I just want to thank the member for his comments. Contrary to what the other side said, I think he brought a --

Mr Mills: If you're in favour, Gary, I give up, after all you said in the committee.

Mr Carr: I beg your pardon?

Mr Mills: Say what you said on the committee. If you're not for this, I give up.

Mr Carr: Oh, no. I'm voting for it. I was making the comments the member for Durham asked on voting.

But I think the member brought to the debate both sides. He attempted to explain a little bit about what was happening in terms of his own personal history, and I would say that some of the comments that were made about his comments were blatantly unfair.

I had a chance to spend, I guess, four weeks with my friend from Durham on the committee, listening to people across this province. I was one of the ones who had a chance to sit and listen for four weeks while this government tried to defend its position. So don't anybody on the other side talk about any other member's position with what has happened with this party on this particular issue and this particular bill.

My friend for Durham East, during that period, spent those four weeks, as a parliamentary assistant, trying to defend the legislation, and now of course he's going to be the one supporting it. So for him to make comments across the floor about this particular bill, when we spent the time during that period listening to him defend it, day after day the same speech coming out, so did the people on the other side -- I think the comments that were made on the member's speech are blatantly unfair.

He's the man who brings to this House a great deal of determination. He might not always agree, but he is somebody who feels strongly, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for York Mills for up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Turnbull: I find it totally laughable that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Minister of Health, makes those comments and then walks out before she gets an answer. But I'll put them on anyway.

I won't even waste my time with Mr Lessard because his comments were so stupid. But let me tell you that when we talk about abrogating responsibility, this government, above all, has abrogated its responsibility. It has a responsibility to listen to the people. The people are very clearly saying, "We do not want the budget," and this government is gagging the opposition from being able to speak this budget.

There has never, ever been more of an abrogation of responsibilities at any time in this Legislature, because, to my knowledge, there has never, ever been a party that has been so despised by the public that it's even losing its own deposit. It's 8% in the polls. We know that, between elections, typically the governing party may lose some by-elections but they don't normally lose their deposit, in particular in seats that they used to hold.

1750

I mean, it's just so laughable that this government, which spouts all of this pious tripe that we saw in the Agenda for People, which was a complete, utter lie to get themselves elected, having got elected, they ignore what the people are saying and, above all, ignore the opportunity for the opposition parties to be able to present a balanced approach to what is wrong with the budget. This party, when in opposition, wouldn't allow the Liberals even to present their budget in this Legislature and then got 13 days of debate. This is hypocrisy, and it's the kind of hypocrisy that not just my constituents but people all across --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I guess when we as members come into this Legislature, we do come in here with a large variety of backgrounds, a lot of different interests, a lot of different opinions. Sometimes we like to think that our opinion is the most correct opinion. There are times when we go and think we've got the answers to everything. I think we make a big mistake when we do that.

I've opposed Sunday shopping very often in the past and I think it's time for me to come to the understanding that I can't make the decisions without talking to the people whom I represent. In talking to the people whom I represent, I've talked about this issue in particular. I've talked at a coffee shop on Dalton Road in Sutton. I've gone to the Texas Burger in Uxbridge and I've sat down and talked to some of my constituents there, because I want to hear what their opinions are on this. I feel that for me to just put my own opinions on it and say, "This is the way it's got to be," isn't the correct way to do it.

I've been in Angie's restaurant in Stouffville and have talked to constituents on this issue. In Maple Glen Apartments, the seniors' building, mainly seniors, right in Sunderland, I've gone up and down the halls and talked to some of the people there. We've talked about this issue on occasion as well.

When we talk to people, they talk to me about the need for young people to have some employment. I've got to think back too. When I went to high school, though it was many years ago, you used to have to pay your own tuition. It used to cost us money out of our pocket to go. I come from a large family. I had nine brothers and sisters, and mom and dad couldn't afford to pay the tuition for all the kids to go to school. I was the fourth-oldest, and my oldest brother and one of my older sisters and myself had part-time jobs while going to school. We helped out. We helped pay our own tuition.

We've changed the Education Act and high school students don't have to pay that tuition any more. I think that's a good move and I applaud the government of the day for doing that. But it was because I had that opportunity to work on Sundays, because I worked as a doorman at the movie theatre and picked apples on Sunday morning to help pay for some of my education and still found time to attend church, Holy Cross, where my father's a deacon -- you've got to talk to people. We can't just decide that we know exactly what's best.

The polls will say there are 72% of people in favour of it. I really do have concerns about the working people, concerns that they won't have any protection.

I guess we're fortunate because of the partisan nature of this Legislature, because there are times when the opposition members might stand up, for whatever reason they feel is right at the time, and read lake after lake after lake. The reason is to delay things. Or, "I move a motion to adjourn." We have all these things. The bells will ring and things get delayed.

When that happens, though we have important things we'd like to see passed, like Bill 40, the Labour Relations Act legislation, things are delayed. We have had a chance to let Bill 38 sit out there for a year and now we're talking about it today. It's been a year. Today's the anniversary of it in fact, one year today. Because it's been a year today, we've had a chance to evaluate the impact. I haven't had a lot of people come to me and say: "We've got a real problem with this. This has really had a negative impact." I was one of those people who said it's going to have a negative impact, but it didn't.

I think that when we talk about the committees, and we did have committee hearings on this, when the mayor of Georgina came to that committee, one of my own mayors came into the committee, and said, "Look, we need to do this because we're a tourist area," you've got to respect them, because it is a tourist area. There's a lot of tourists who go there. You have to respect that. So we have to take a look perhaps at the past to recognize that we've got to change. We've got to take a look at things.

In going through this process, I didn't want to limit myself to the people I talked to in the doughnut shops. I drew up a list of people from my riding whom I wanted to talk to, people who are leaders in the community, mayors in my community, like the mayor of Brock township. I phoned him up and asked him his opinion on this. I phoned up some of the clergy in my riding to ask them their opinion on this. Some of the clergy definitely opposed; some of the clergy had a different opinion.

In fact, I had a doctor call me up and ask me if he could come in and sit down and talk. The reason he called me up was he wanted to talk to me about Sunday shopping. He felt that the rules put unnecessary pressure on the family, and the family has got enough pressures today.

As we come out of this recession that we're in right now and as the retail market increases and improves -- I think we can see some of that happening right now -- there's going to be the need for more workers in retail. As more workers in retail get there, then there will be more people who have the opportunity and the choice to work or not to work and when to work and not to work. I think we have to take a look at that.

We often speak about doom and gloom. We often speak of negatives in this Legislature, which is a shame, because I think that what we need to do is try to be positive, talk about the people whom we're sent here to represent in a positive nature. We're talking about here, for example, the potential for some people to have some employment, young people whose costs today would be perhaps different than what my costs were as a youth, but still real costs. Perhaps there are some people who come from some unfortunate backgrounds who have to buy their own clothes for school or their own books or have to help out in the family.

I talk to a lot of people in my riding because I think it's important that we do this as often as we can. One week ago, I met with people from the Stouffville food bank and the Uxbridge food bank. They talked to me. It's sad that we should even have food banks. They don't want to be in business. We want to put them out of business. These people told me, "We're getting seniors coming into the food banks and we're getting young people coming into the food banks." There are youth in our communities who don't have enough food to eat. There are obviously some problems there.

I'm not saying this is the answer to all of our problems, but if we don't listen to people, we're not going to get this sort of feedback, and I think it's important that we do that.

When I've talked to the people in my riding, you're right, there's a lot of people who agreed with me that we should move to close down all retail business on a Sunday. Even in the past, I think back to some years ago when you'd go into a large drugstore and they'd have sections roped off. They said: "It's only partially open. It's not really open, it's only kind of open."

I think what we need to do is be honest with ourselves, be honest with the people who elected us to represent them. People haven't seen a huge negative impact because of this and we have to be pragmatic. In taking a look at this, I think we've got to be realistic about it. We're elected here to make decisions. Some decisions we may not even agree with sometimes, but we've got to be pragmatic, we've got to be realistic and we've got to listen to the people who sent us here to represent them.

Mr Speaker, if you had asked me two years ago which way I would have voted on this, I would have told you: "There's no problem. I sure as heck am not going to stand here in my place in this Legislature and vote in favour of opening up stores on Sunday." But after having this happen -- we've been here for a year now since this legislation was first introduced -- I think I've got a much more open mind and I can see that the damage that I thought could come from it hasn't been nearly as negative, the impact, and I think in this case, I've changed my mind.

I think that we have to be willing to say that we're going to change our minds. When it's the right decision, it's time to change your mind. You've got to be able to do that and stand your ground and then take it. The next election, when I go out knocking on doors, people are going to ask me and I'm going to have to tell them that yes, I did have my mind made up for a lot of years, but I changed it, and I talked to a lot of people in my riding, a lot of constituents, for that change.

With that, Mr Speaker, I'd just like to finish.

The Speaker: Is the member for Durham-York adjourning the debate?

Mr O'Connor: Yes, Mr Speaker, I adjourn the debate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I will indicate the business of the House for the week of June 7.

On Monday, June 7, we'll consider the government notice of motion number 2 which requires the Legislature to sit evenings for the final two weeks of this sitting. Following that, we will resume the adjourned third reading debate on the pay equity legislation, Bill 102 and, following the completion of that item if there's time still remaining, we'll continue to the adjourned second reading debate on the capital investment plan, Bill 17.

On Tuesday, June 8, we will resume the adjourned second reading debate of Bill 38, the Retail Business Holidays Act amendments.

On Wednesday, June 9, during private members' -- and I just take specific note that private members' is happening on Wednesday morning next week -- we'll consider ballot item number 13, private member's Bill 21 standing in the name of Mr Wessenger, and ballot item number 14, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Callahan.

On Wednesday afternoon, we will continue the adjourned second reading debate on Bill 17, the capital investment plan.

As well, a reminder to members that by a previous order of this House, following the end of business on Wednesday June 9, we will stand adjourned until Monday June 14.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1801.