Journal des débats 1988-avril-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the members of the Legislature, I would like to make a few short remarks concerning Ontario athletes in the Olympic Games and the World Figure Skating Championships. I understand that a member from each of the other two parties would also like to say a word.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I would like to express the pride that I am sure all of us feel in the achievements of Ontario athletes who competed in the Olympic Games in Calgary and at the World Figure Skating Championships in Budapest. The Olympians from Ontario accounted for six of the 18 Canadian top eight finishes.

Let me read their names: Christine Hough, Waterloo, eighth place pairs figure skating partner; Horst Bulau, Thunder Bay, seventh place, 90-metre ski jump; Michelle McKendry, Orangeville, seventh place, women’s combined Alpine skiing; Denise Benning, Windsor, sixth place, pairs figure skating partner; and Laurie Graham, Inglewood, fifth place, women’s downhill skiing.

Who will ever forget the exciting silver medal performances by Brian Orser of Penetanguishene and Ottawa’s Elizabeth Manley, who, I might add, was born in my home town of Belleville.

In Budapest, the performance by our Ontario figure skaters was equally impressive.

I congratulate all of our Ontario competitors who gave their best, because by giving their best they showed themselves to be champions. I am sure they will inspire young people in our province to get involved in sports stay involved and become the next generation of champions.

The excellent reputation of Ontario’s athletes around the world keeps growing and I am pleased to report that my ministry is helping to encourage Ontario’s increasing international leadership in winter sports. Just a few days ago, I announced that my ministry will provide $140,000 to the World Nordic Committee in the city of Thunder Bay to help in its bid to host the 1993 World Nordic Games. When Thunder Bay wins that bid, my ministry will provide nearly $4 million towards the cost of hosting the games.

Our athletes are great ambassadors whether they compete inside or outside Ontario, and hosting major sporting events is another excellent way to show the world just how incredible Ontario really is.

Mr. Farnan: As the critic for recreation on behalf of the official opposition, it gives me great pleasure to join the minister and the government in commending all our Canadian athletes, particularly those athletes from Ontario, for their fine performances in the recent winter Olympics and world championships. Furthermore, I think we would commend all those organizers and volunteers, also from Ontario, who contributed to making the Calgary Olympic Winter Games such a success.

Like most members, I have always been thrilled to see our Canadian and Ontario athletes performing in world-class competition. As I watched the medal ceremonies, with our athletes on the podium and the Canadian flag being raised, it sent a shiver down my spine.

Being something of a Walter Mitty, I know from personal experience the tremendous psychological and emotional experience it is to have that medal draped around my neck, to feel the tear run down my cheek and to be so overwhelmed that I am barely conscious of the accolades of appreciation that pour over me in my moment of triumph.

I have simultaneously achieved a shutout and scored a winning goal in the gold medal hockey game. I have astounded the experts by jumping out of the crowd to replace an injured member of our downhill slalom team and gone on to win multiple gold medals. I have, on the same day, performed the remarkable feat of winning the singles figure skating event and the bobsled pairs, and I am not even sure if there was a second member of the bobsled team. I have achieved all these remarkable feats from the comfort of my armchair.

To have to move within minutes from the winners’ podium to bathing my children is a very difficult adjustment to make, but with these athletes the difference is from imagining to the reality. They are an inspiration to us in hard work and in dedication. They are truly an example to our youth and therefore are to be commended. I think the effect they will have is not only in giving us tremendous pleasure and a tremendous sense of achievement on behalf of Ontario and Canada, but they are indeed planting the seeds for the future of Canadian victories and Canadian participation at the world level for years to come.

Mr. McLean: I would like to associate myself with the previous two speakers in congratulating those who took part in the 15th Olympic Winter Games. Calgary, Alberta, is certainly on the map of the world after that city hosted the 15th Olympic Winter Games in February and welcomed amateur sports people from 56 nations. The citizens of Calgary can justly be proud of the show they put on for us and for the way they represented Canada to the rest of the world.

On behalf of my party, I would like to extend warm congratulations to all of the amateur athletes who put their personal lives on hold for a number of years in order to prepare for the winter games. Whether they won or lost, they are all of the highest calibre because, just by making their country’s Olympic team, they have shown they are very dedicated and special people.

We all witnessed the exploits of these champions who demonstrated world-class excellence in their sport and conduct consistent with the ideas of amateur sport. My congratulations go out to women’s figure skating silver medallist Elizabeth Manley and Toronto’s Tony Reis, who led a team of Portuguese-Canadian bobsledders for Portugal.

My congratulations also go out to a couple of constituents of mine, men’s figure skating silver medallist Brian Orser and cross-country skier Angela Schmidt-Foster. As far as I am concerned, all of the amateur athletes who competed in Calgary turned in gold medal performances. In Budapest, the performances by our Ontario figure skaters were equally impressive.

Mr. Farnan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of -- I do not know what sort of a point it is, but I do believe there has been a medal that has not been recognized and it was my oversight. That is Bob Hunter Jr., of Cambridge, whose pigeon placed third in the pigeon race at the winter Olympics, and I think he should be justly recognized.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: The Peterson government has taken every opportunity in recent years to brag about the policy of home care rather than institutional care for seniors and disabled adults in this province. The theory is fine, but the reality can be devastating. People cannot get home care services they need and most places are turning clients away. Some areas of Hamilton, for example, have not been able to get homemakers’ services since Christmas. Waterloo has 85 people on its waiting list.

1340

Despite government promises, it has held its funding increases to three per cent and four per cent, and the result has been that average homemakers in Ontario make $5.50 an hour, with no guarantee of hours and no benefits. Compare that to Quebec, where homemakers are government employees and make $10.81 an hour and receive benefits.

It is not surprising that half the homemaker agencies in Ontario have a turnover rate of more than 50 per cent and that 13 per cent of them have a turnover rate of more than 100 per cent. In Hamilton, it is 33 per cent. In Huron county, 23 homemakers resigned in a single month.

In August 1986, the homemaker organizations warned the government that they could not provide enough services while the government held its funding down. The government set up an interministerial committee to study the question. A draft report was issued six months ago, but there has been no word from the government since.

The question is, is the government really interested in providing first-class, vital homemaker services to seniors and disabled adults? The reality is it is creating a vulnerable service, a revolving door where the poor service the poor.

LONDON NORTH BY-ELECTION

Mr. Cureatz: I stand today on behalf of the many people in this province who were cheered by the results of the London North by-election. The results in London North send a clear message to this government, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and to the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), who is too busy trying to manipulate, once again, that back bench of the Liberal administration over there.

That message is that the government was elected to office to lead not by some whim or the results of the latest poll it has commissioned, something with which I was familiar in a past life, but to lead by listening to the concerns of the people of this great province, listening to their dreams and aspirations and then planning policies to meet those concerns and those dreams.

The message was sent by the voters of London North because in a few short months the Liberal government has forgotten why it was given its mandate.

Let me remind the government to listen to the message it has been given by the voters of London North on behalf of all Ontarians, a message that says no to out-of-control expenditures, I say to the Treasurer; a message that says no to increased taxes; a message that says no to an education policy that leaves school boards scrambling for both resources and space, and perhaps most important, a very loud no to the government’s plan to abrogate its responsibility in regulating Sunday shopping hours. I give credit to my New Democratic Party colleagues who will be bringing forward a resolution in that regard.

During the election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised the people of Ontario that the government would continue administering the Retail Business Holidays Act. The Premier promised that he would support the continuation of a common pause day. I tell the Premier that last Thursday the people of London North sent him a clear message and that message is to keep the promises he made and do his job.

ANNIVERSARY OF LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Ballinger: As the member for Durham-York, I would like to bring to the members’ attention that exactly 95 years ago yesterday there was a great celebration on the occasion of the opening of these Parliament Buildings on April 4, 1893. According to Eric Arthur, author of From Front Street to Queen’s Park, people from all across Ontario flocked to enjoy the pageantry of the occasion and to see exactly what six years and considerable tax dollars had built.

At the conclusion of the opening ceremonies, the House then settled down to matters of business, but after all the excitement of the day, the members whiled away the afternoon by considering such matters as the control of drainage in swampy municipalities and the dehorning of cattle.

The original cost of the construction of these Parliament Buildings rose from $500,000 to over $1.3 million, and depressed citizens and members of the Legislature took sides when it was found that the successful bidder, a Toronto firm, was set aside in favour of an Englishman from Buffalo, New York. It is claimed that the difference in price was caused by a procrastinating client as well as escalating prices for labour and material. It does seem that 95 years really has not changed the political process or the construction industry in Ontario.

The newspaper headline of the day read, “Legislators in Fairyland,” and ironically, on the same page was an advertisement for Burdock’s Blood Bitters, “a positive cure for constipation, headaches, bad blood, foul humours, rheumatism and jaundice, at one cent a dose.”

I hope the members of the Legislative Assembly take the time to read Mr. Arthur’s book.

MARTIN LUTHER KING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Today marks the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, the great civil rights leader in the United States. On seeing again that great speech, “I have a dream,” I was moved on the weekend and felt that it was important to speak here in the House.

That dream has had mixed results in the United States of America. where poverty and second-class citizenship still hang around the black population of that country while, at the same time, they now have had mayors of major cities elected and now have the first bona fide candidate for the presidency of the United States brought forward in the name of Jesse Jackson.

Here in Ontario Mr. King was a role model for people such as Wilson Head, in his generation, and I think still inspires people of these times. But discrimination is still prevalent in this province. Just yesterday one of my staff looking for a nanny was told by an agency that she could have a nanny for $12 an hour; if she would take somebody coloured, she could have one for $6 an hour in Ontario.

I might ask this government on this anniversary, where is its employment equity legislation? Why has it not brought forward that basic affirmative action that the Reverend King asked for so often? Until it does that, his dreams will not be a reality for this generation of black Ontarians or future generations.

CANADIAN JUNIOR CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise with a great deal of pride today. The Canadian Junior Curling Championship has just been completed in Vancouver, British Columbia, last week. I am most proud to advise this Legislature that the rink representing our province was from Morrisburg, Ontario.

Four very fine young men, students at Seaway District High School in Iroquois, did this province very proudly indeed. After winning the right to represent this province in London, Ontario, early in March by winning seven straight games, they represented us very credibly in Vancouver during the week of March 28 to April 2. Although they did not win the Canadian Junior Curling Championship, they were the best junior rink in Ontario and represented us admirably.

On behalf of this Legislature, may I congratulate the following: skip, Daryl Morrell; third, Scott Lane; second, Gord Johnston, and lead, Chris Lane, along with their very dedicated coach, Sid Morrell. Gentlemen, we are most proud of you. Congratulations on representing this province very well in Vancouver.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Miss Roberts: As members of the House may be aware, on Thursday, March 31, 1988, it is alleged that two individuals from the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, while exercising the privilege of working in the community on a loosened Lieutenant Governor’s warrant, forcibly took a 14-year-old girl from London and, after sexually assaulting her, left her for dead.

The community is repulsed by this incident and all steps should be taken to ensure that greater safeguards are taken to protect the community. I am informed by the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital that an internal review of this situation is in progress. In the balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and protecting the public at large, we must be ever ready to review the process which may put members of our community at peril.

I call upon the government to review the process allowing certain privileges to persons on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants and also the disproportionate number of Lieutenant Governor’s warrants that are released into Elgin county.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On behalf of the much abused property taxpayers of the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto, I want to again put the lie to the Liberal commitment to educational reform in Ontario. This year, taxpayers in Toronto will be paying $37 million more of the education costs than they were last year. The government of Ontario is paying only $46 million of a total $790 million cost of education in Metropolitan Toronto today.

Why is it that this Liberal reform government is expecting senior citizens and property owners around this city, who are already having trouble making ends meet, to pay more of the cost of education, instead of all the people according to their ability to pay under a progressive tax system in Ontario?

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LEARNING SKILLS

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am pleased to inform members of the House today that six school boards have been given approval in principle to proceed with the development of new school-based learning initiatives. The projects will focus on how children learn. They will develop and extend effective teaching strategies. They will design effective techniques to assess student achievement and identify better ways of reporting student achievement to parents.

Lead school boards for the five English-language projects are the Peel Board of Education, the Middlesex County Board of Education, the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education and the Lake Superior Board of Education. The lead for the French-language project is the Timmins District Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

Each of the six projects will receive up to $750,000 over the next three years, once formal agreement with the boards is in place. This new initiative was announced last August and school boards were invited to submit proposals. Fifty-one proposals were submitted for selection.

These projects will pursue ways of strengthening innovative small-scale programs currently in use in different parts of the province and provide information about them to teachers and school boards across Ontario.

The projects are co-operative ventures bringing together the selected school boards with their partners in education, such as faculties of education, members of the community, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, teachers’ federations and community colleges. Selection criteria were formulated by an advisory committee which includes representatives from the teachers’ federations, consultants’ associations, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, superintendents, trustee and parent organizations, colleges of applied arts, faculties of education, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the private sector.

The committee will review the progress of the projects on receiving the annual reports that will be provided by the boards. The six projects will be monitored and supported by my ministry’s regional office personnel in conjunction with representatives from the Centre for Early Childhood and Elementary Education.

Through the emphasis on sharing strategies to promote excellence in learning skills, new communication networks will be established and educators, children and their parents will benefit.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As Minister of Citizenship and minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a key aspect of my mandate is to promote equity and access for all Ontarians.

Our Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination on various listed grounds, is one of the most important means we have to promote and enforce equality. I am very pleased, therefore, to announce the proclamation on April 18 of three important Human Rights Code amendments dealing with access, specifically sections 10, 16 and 23. These changes were originally introduced as part of the package of amendments contained in Bill 7.

The amendments will ensure that the special needs of persons resulting from handicap or other prohibited grounds of discrimination will be reasonably accommodated by employers, landlords and others who provide goods and services to the public. The proclamation of these sections represents a significant step forward in our efforts to promote equal access, particularly for members of the disabled community.

Under previous provisions of the code, it was not considered discriminatory to fail to provide access to a building or facility which lacked the necessary physical features to allow such access. For example, a mobility-impaired person denied entry to a building solely because of the absence of a wheelchair ramp could not bring a complaint of discrimination on the ground of handicap to the human rights commission.

Under the sections that we will be proclaiming later in the month, such a denial of access will be illegal. The special needs of the person must be accommodated unless to do so would impose an undue hardship on the provider. Courts and boards of inquiry will determine what constitutes undue hardship, having regard to the factors of cost, outside sources of funding and health and safety requirements.

Once in force, these sections will help grant to the disabled persons access to goods and services fundamental to independence and dignity, goods and services which many of us now take for granted.

The proclamation will take place on April 18, 1988. It will celebrate the third anniversary of the coming into force of section 15 of our Canadian charter, which declares that every individual is equal before and under the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical handicap.

We have considered fully the question of regulations to sections 10, 16 and 23. We believe the boards of inquiry and courts will provide the most practical determination consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions in Canada.

The coming into force of the access provision addresses many concerns raised by disabled persons and other community activists and advocates, some of whom are present here today. You were involved in the discussions leading up to the introduction of these amendments and you have worked tirelessly to see them brought into force. I thank you all for your very important contribution.

I join with my colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to reaffirm today this government’s pledge and the pledge of our ministries to assure the right of reasonable access and accommodation for all Ontarians.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am pleased today to table the report of the Ontario Task Force on Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The task force was chaired by Maria Minna and Wally Majesky and was commissioned by this government in May 1986. Its mandate was to undertake an extensive review of the rehabilitation services provided by the Workers’ Compensation Board and to report its findings to the minister.

The recommendations contained in this report are currently under active review by both the Ministry of Labour and the board. In general, the task force recommends advancing the concept of early intervention and a client-centred approach to the rehabilitation of injured workers. The government underlined its commitment to this process in last fall’s speech from the throne.

As a step towards this goal, the WCB recently announced a three-tiered proposal for ensuring that high quality medical rehabilitation is made available as close as possible to the workers’ own communities. The board is also phasing in its integrated service units, which are designed to promote faster and more efficient delivery of the basic claims service. The board is also reforming its administrative procedures and has created self-contained regional offices to serve injured workers in their communities.

The underlying objective, which is shared by the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Labour, as well as the WCB, is a workers’ compensation system which is, above all, sensitive, humane, rational and efficient. While much more needs to be done to achieve this goal, I believe the board is now moving firmly in this direction.

RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Mr. Allen: I would like to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission with regard to the proclamation to come on the 18th of this month of the right to reasonable accommodation by the disabled community under Bill 7.

One sits back and wonders why it took this government so long to do this. It has been long in the promise. Our party was active in campaigning for its proclamation originally when the bill was itself presented to this Legislature. Still, the ministry and the government withheld their support.

There is no evidence in this document what the long struggle was all about that made it necessary to delay and delay that announcement. We raised it in estimates and we raised it in the House with some of the ministers responsible. All one can say is that when they finally happen, one is glad these things happen, but it seems to have taken a long time. One would not want to think the government was awaiting the opportunity for a suitable ceremonial occasion, such as the third anniversary of the equal rights section of the charter, to provide some accommodation for our disabled community.

I simply hope that under the boards of inquiry undue hardship will be looked at pretty rigorously, that those agencies, public services and private providers will not have an easy time of it in skipping out on what constitutes undue hardship and that the disabled community, which has lobbied for a long time for integrated transportation services, for example, will not be put off longer by those agencies.

1400

We consider this kind of an instrument in the marketplace in the hands of the disabled community is worth virtually anything else that this government could do for it by providing it single and special services of one kind or another. They will be able to make their demands and get them satisfied, and that satisfies us.

LEARNING SKILLS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the Minister of Education’s (Mr. Ward) latest pilot-project, picayune announcement by saying that although it is welcome, I wonder why he does not use the time of this House to explain why he is increasing the tax burden on people in Toronto and Ottawa for the educational costs of this province; why he is not talking about why he has failed to assist communities such as Metro Toronto and Hamilton to adjust to the needs of Bill 30 that we have imposed on those communities; why he is not talking here about what he is going to do about the estimated $1.7 billion of capital need that the school systems have brought forward to him; why he is not talking today about the election promises he and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have broken around the lowering of class size; and why, instead of wasting our time with a $750,000 announcement today, he has not narrowed the gap between the legislative grants for the elementary panel and the secondary panel.

Those are things of substance in terms of education that he could have been talking about today.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. B. Rae: In response to the comment of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), I think it can only be described as astonishing that a government would be releasing in April a report the rest of the world had in August; that it would take the government this long to put together the final copy of a report that has been in the public domain, that has been discussed, that has been talked about, that has been seen and that has been reported in the media; and that it says this is somehow a new document.

Then the minister says that all the report really is about, in his words, is that it “recommends advancing the concept of early intervention and a client-centred approach to the rehabilitation of injured workers.”

This report was the most devastating, compelling indictment of the Workers’ Compensation Board and its failure to deal with the problem of rehabilitation that we have seen in our generation. It was a report sponsored by the government of Ontario. They denied its existence. They treated the report like some kind of bastard son whom they did want to see or take responsibility for. Then the minister has the gall to come into this House and say that somehow it is merely an administrative report.

Listen to the words of the report: “The experience of the task force in the past year was long, painful and emotionally wrenching. The tales of injustice, neglect and rejection recounted by the injured workers throughout the province were so harrowing as to leave the task force members disgusted and frustrated.”

It is a pity that some of that human reality of the situation of injured workers did not find its way into the words, the heart and the statements of the Minister of Labour. We still have bureaucratic gobbledegook from the Minister of Labour and no response to what the report is saying.

Change the act. Make rehabilitation just as important as paying people a pension, and make sure that when people are injured they get a fair chance at getting a job.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. B. Rae: That is the message of Majesky-Minna and that is the message that has been rejected by the government of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

LEARNING SKILLS

Mr. Jackson: Our party wishes to comment on the Minister of Education’s (Mr. Ward) announcement today in the House. For the last three months educators, students and taxpayers have been waiting for something substantive to emerge from his ministry. What do we get from the minister? We get an announcement today, and it is highlighted by several key points which I might share with the House.

The minister’s long-awaited announcement states this new initiative was announced last August. He actually has the nerve to come into this House and tell us about a project that he has already announced. He is going to start the spring session -- with a litany of problems in education across this province -- he is going to start with this announcement.

He indicates that the programs currently in use in different parts of the province are already operational. What is new? When the minister and I were to going to Hamilton and district schools as boys, he will recall that these kinds of programs were ongoing. I thought that is what school boards were expected to do; yet the minister comes into this House and announces that this is some sort of major commitment on the part of his government.

Surely to God the minister can come up with six more projects to assist, to correspond with the excellent programs that are going on in Ontario schools. The minister is the advocate for 1.9 million young people in this province, and if this is all he is going to start off the session with, he is in for a lot of trouble.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Mr. Sterling: I would like briefly to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) on the proclamation of these very important sections in the Human Rights Code. We will not be snarky about the timing of the announcement because we do not think that is important. We want to thank the people who have been involved in the drive towards these sections and to congratulate the government on proclaiming them now.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Harris: I too want to comment on the very late release of the report of the Ontario Task Force on the Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers’ Compensation Board. I am intrigued, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has stated, with some of the statements in the light of what has been said and what has been reported on this over the last nine months.

This is all the minister has to say now, nine months later, after they have reported. The minister hid the report for that period of time to try to come out with a response, and now he says it is under active review by both the Ministry of Labour and the board. He has had nine months to go through this glaring indictment of what is happening.

I am also intrigued with the words on page 3, where the minister says, “The underlying objective which is shared by the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Labour, as well as by the WCB, is a workers’ compensation system which is, above all, sensitive, humane, rational and efficient.”

With respect, there is not a legislator, other than the minister perhaps, there is not an injured worker, there is not an employer and there is no one who is in the slightest way an objective observer of what is going on in the WCB system who would say that it is in any way sensitive, humane, rational or efficient. Saying these words, trying to put them in writing and trying to pretend that this is what is occurring in the whole system is truly a sham.

Surely that is the objective, and we all acknowledge that; but to give a statement on a report and not acknowledge that the report goes through each of these four items and points out how it is not sensitive, how it is not humane, how it is not rational and surely how it is not efficient; and that is the essence of what the minister’s statement should be on this report and what he is tabling in the Legislature today?

Let us have the facts out there as opposed to some supposed rationale as to what the minister has done in the last nine months.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier about Sunday shopping and Sunday working.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), together with the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), attended a rally in Toronto a short time ago, at which I was present and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was present. I heard with my own ears the Minister of Labour say the following, “I do not care if every single store in this province is open on Sunday.” I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether that is now the official position of the government of the province with respect to Sunday shopping.

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure of the context the honourable member is quoting. Let me say, in response to my honourable friend’s question, the official position of this government is that we respect the local option to make a decision with respect to Sunday shopping. As I have said to my honourable friend before, if Sault Ste. Marie or Point Edward wants to be open, that should be, in our view, their choice. If Niagara Falls wants to be open, why should it not be able to? If Toronto or Kingston wants to close, why should they not be able to?

After all, this province is bigger than most countries in the world. I think there is a sufficient diversity here. I have sufficient faith in the local leadership to make decisions appropriate to that community. That is the position. I think it respects freedom of choice and local sensitivities and is a very sensitive and democratic way to approach the question.

Mr. B. Rae: We have the views expressed to the Premier, not only by over two thirds of the voters in the only constituency that has had an opportunity to discuss this question since he flip-flopped and changed his mind from the commitment he made on August 5, 1987, with respect to this question, we have the decision that has been taken by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which has said it does not want to have the local option. They do not want to exercise it. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said he was surprised by their reaction, which shows how out of touch the Attorney General is with respect to public opinion.

How does the Premier respond when he receives letters such as the one that my party has received from Janice Rothwell in Hamilton, who tells us: “I am presently going to night school in order to complete my education.” She is a part-time worker in the retail trade. “It is difficult to get the evenings off work for school. If I refuse to work on Sundays, I will be forced to give up night school. Tell me, what bill will prevent that blackmail?”

She then goes on to say: “The need for stores to open on Sundays is supposedly because of a lack of time throughout the week. Well then, why does this not mean that there must also be a need for city hall, banks, insurance companies, gas companies, hydro, telephone offices, lawyers and all business and services to remain open seven days a week?”

Mr. Speaker: What was your question?

Mr. B. Rae: Can the Premier tell us why the right of Janice Rothwell to be with her family on a Sunday should not be a basic right contained in the law of this province and why she has to go on her knees to Hamilton city council instead of being able to count on the provincial government to speak up for her?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind to my friend opposite, but I think he is being a little overly dramatic about this. There are police officers and hospital people who work on Sundays now. I think roughly a third of the retail force now works on some Sundays or others. Other people do that.

I am persuaded that systems can be worked out where there will be a lot of flexibility and individual choice in the situation. I have not seen the letter from Miss Rothwell, but the member can tell her I do not believe it is going to be the problem the member or she believes it will be.

Mr. B. Rae: The fact of the matter is that there are workers who are with their families on Sunday who will not be able to be there, thanks to the Premier’s government having changed its mind and broken its specific promise. Sure, the Premier has a big majority -- we all recognize that -- but just what does it take to get him to recognize that he is making a mistake?

He has the views that have been expressed by the workers themselves, by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and, quite decisively and clearly, in a by-election in his own backyard with respect to his position. Just what does it take for him to recognize that he is making a mistake, that there is nothing wrong in recognizing that he is making a mistake and that we can find a better solution by sitting down, all three parties, to find a better solution than the one he intends to impose on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the way my honourable friend feels about this issue, but it is not shared by all. His colleague immediately to his right, as I pointed out some time ago, has expressed the view that it may create job employment for some people, that the New Democratic Party should want to reassess its position, which it has not done in 15 or so years. In fact, it may be time to reassess it.

That was the member’s view at the time. Perhaps his honourable friend has changed his view. But I do not think it leads to those dramatic consequences that my honourable friend points out.

Let me just give my honourable friend a quotation, because I think it sums up very well what we are dealing with here. It is a quotation from the House. It says:

“I do not think, Mr. Speaker, anything could be more flexible than that to meet the great requirements of the varying conditions in this province. It is strictly democratic. The matter is placed in the hands of the people themselves and the absolute control of their elected council. There is nothing wide open about this act. It does nothing to induce any community to change its pattern of life. It enables the people to settle their own affairs in their own way.”

Mr. Speaker, that was Premier Leslie Frost on March 23, 1950. I think it says it all and says it very effectively. We respect local democracy.

Mr. B. Rae: After 44 years of Tory government, that is what the Premier is telling us, that that is what we have, a government, a majority government, that is not prepared to listen to the will of the people. That is precisely what the Premier is giving us today.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is to whom?

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to the rent review legislation which I think everybody who is living with it recognizes as a complete and utter disaster.

What is the minister’s response to this fact? As of March 4, 1988, the latest figures from the commission show that there were 3,417 applications resolved as of the end of February, that the average increase in maximum rent for pre-1976 buildings was 13.4 per cent and that the average increase for post-1976 buildings is 13.6 per cent, which gives an average of 13.5 per cent.

The minister is on record in this House as telling us on November 17, “To the best of our experience in the past, the vast majority of tenants in Ontario will receive rent increases of 4.7 per cent or less in 1988.”

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. B. Rae: Does the minister not realize that people are now paying three times as much as she told them they would be paying and that the system of rent review, which she has created and is responsible for in this House, is a system that simply is not working?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The vast majority of tenants in this province do not come under rent review in any given year.

Mr. Wildman: Why?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Because they do not apply for rent review. The vast majority of tenants in this province will receive rents around the guideline, and that is the way that rent review protects a large number of the tenants in the province.

For those tenants who are subject to rent review because an application has come up because of the place in which they happen to live, the increases they face go through a due process. Some of those results are higher than I would like. I have been talking with the tenants who are affected by those results, and I take those very seriously. That is the reason we are monitoring the effects of the legislation very closely, in order to get a very clear sense of the direction in which it is going.

Mr. B. Rae: We know precisely in which direction it is going, and that is through the roof. That is what tenants know. What the minister is telling the House is that the only tenants who are getting shafted are the ones whose landlords apply to the rent review commission. What kind of statement is that by the minister? The only tenants who are being shafted are the ones who are being affected by the law which was drafted by the party of which she is now a member.

The Royal LePage market survey of Canadian real estate in 1988 states:

“Royal LePage research has demonstrated that owners of residential buildings tend to trade among themselves because they understand the complexities of both the market and rent review legislation. Bill 51 will intensify this trading, says the team, because it has created an atmosphere in which a new owner is permitted to recover a variety of specified costs, including the cost of financing.”

The minister was warned by us and by tenants --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: -- as to the effect of Bill 51. Will the minister not now admit that Bill 51 is encouraging flipping, trading among landlords, and that is what is shafting the tenants of this province when it comes to rent review legislation?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review legislation that we have is a package. It offers protection for tenants in a variety of ways. Through the Residential Rental Standards Board, it offers protection for tenants in association with the standards of their buildings. It also offers protection for tenants who are concerned with the question of conversion to suite hotels. There is a variety of facets of the legislation; it offers protection for tenants in a variety of ways.

1420

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa would like to ask a final supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: How does the minister explain the process to tenants of a building on Ambleside Drive in Ottawa, owned by Osgoode Developments? The landlord asked for 30 per cent, the rent review board gave him 37 per cent and the landlord is now looking for a further seven per cent. How does one arrive at a 44 per cent increase when the minister stands in the House and says it will be 4.7 per cent?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have met with the tenants of Ambleside and I have listened to their concerns, which I share. I understand the concern and I know that the effect of a significant rent increase on people of fixed incomes is a very serious one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Rent review is successful in providing protection for tenants across the province, but it can never be the only response by this government to the concerns of tenants. That is the reason we know we must increase the options of tenants in this province and increase our access to various forms of housing which suit their income needs. That is the reason this government has provided more housing that is affordable for people of a variety of incomes, and will continue to do so.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. I hesitate to raise a question that relates to a certain activity that went on in a certain riding recently.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: All right. Since I am being provoked, I will simply identify the riding by saying that it is adjacent to the Premier’s and point out to him that in a recent discussion with the people of that riding it was made very clear that the people of that particular area do not want the legislation he intends to bring in related to Sunday shopping. They do not want, and they have said no in a very clear and unequivocal manner, the municipal option that the Premier touts as being the answer to everyone’s problems. They have also said very clearly that they want a common day of rest.

I would just simply like to appeal to the Premier on the basis of what the people of this province have indicated they want and ask him, first, why he is not listening, and will he bring in legislation that will protect Sundays for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to the honourable member that I appreciate his interpretation of the events of Thursday last. I congratulate him and Mrs. Cunningham on their victory in that regard. He has every right to draw his own interpretation of that. Others may have different views of the situation. I am not sure; perhaps we have to take the message more effectively about the nature of the local option, because certainly if the people of London do not want to shop on Sundays no one is forcing them to have it and they will make that decision at the appropriate time.

My honourable friend must surely understand the local option when in his own constituency, the community of Point Edward is open, yet Sarnia is not. As a member of a party that has on and off supported local option, would he not agree that this is reasonable in the circumstances and would he not want to stand in this House and say just because they have a local option does not mean that London or any other community will necessarily be open?

Mr. Brandt: I would like to remind the Premier that there are a number of very competent, able and, I think, credible spokesmen who do not share his view with respect to what happened in London North.

If I might, I would like to quote a former colleague of his, the former member of London North, who in commenting on the results of that election said: “The community is feeling very strongly about certain issues and they are saying they want to be heard on certain issues like Sunday shopping. The Liberals are just going to have to start listening a little more attentively.”

My question to the Premier is, I think, a very simple one. I relate this to him on behalf of a former colleague who sat not more than 10 seats away from the Premier and who says why doesn’t he start listening to what the people of Ontario are saying?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me thank my honourable colleague for that interesting piece of research. Indeed, I am interested in the news and the views of a former colleague of mine. The member may be interested in the views of a former colleague of his, who I will quote: “The Progressive Conservatives are prepared to stand up and be counted, to say we must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Who said that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Larry Grossman on January 9, 1986.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate the quote the Premier has shared with me, and I will see that Mr. Grossman at Richardson Greenshields is given that quote. I am sure he can use it in his new occupation.

I would like to say to the Premier that probably never in the history of this province have so many groups come together with the intent of giving a message to the Premier of this province as clearly as they have. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, many organized labour groups, church groups and a number of spokesmen have come before the Premier, and petitions by the thousands have come in, indicating that the Premier is fundamentally changing the way of life of this province by bringing in the kind of legislation he proposes.

When will the Premier simply listen to what the people are saying, not only in London North but in London Centre and throughout this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do listen to the people and indeed on any initiative that a government undertakes there are people on both sides of the issue, and I respect that, but democratically elected members ultimately have to make decisions. My honourable friend, as a former minister of the crown, will recognize there are very few things that he did then that were not fraught with some controversy, and I am sure he understands that. Presumably he is not asking me just to follow where the loudest objections come from in government, because he is aware that many people have objections to lots of things done by this government or any former or other government.

As I said, I have to respect the views of former colleagues of his -- he quoted mine, and I quoted his -- Leslie Frost, one of his spiritual leaders; but let me quote a current colleague:

“The current legislation is quite obviously not meeting the needs and requirements of the people. What I would like to see is some broad new guidelines out of Queen’s Park based on local wishes. I think local municipalities should and must have a good deal of say on this matter because they are where the action is.”

That was the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). I appreciate the advice I am getting from everybody.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier’s campaign slogan obviously is changing from “We did what we said we were going to do” to “We did what we bloody well want to do.” That is the kind of attitude his government has. Let us take a look, if we might--

Mr. Speaker: The question is to whom?

Mr. Brandt: The question is to the Premier. I am not finished with him yet.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Brandt: The question is in regard to another matter. Since the Premier is so fond of quoting other individuals, I thought I would share with him today what was said by an individual whom I am sure he has an intimate knowledge of, namely, himself.

In May 1986, in relation to Bill 11, he stated: “The legislation” -- Bill 11 -- “was introduced as a short-term measure to combat the real crisis in terms of affordable housing in Ontario and will be replaced with a new housing policy after two years.”

At the time the Premier spoke about the vacancy problem and the affordability crisis in this province, the Metro vacancy rate was 0.3 per cent. It is now 0.1 per cent and getting worse on a daily basis. The crisis is growing. I would like to ask the Premier, since it was in fact two years ago that he made this commitment to the people of Ontario, where is the new housing policy that he has promised and where are we going to see some advances from this government with respect to one of the most serious problems this province has faced in its entire history?

1430

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not disagree with my friend that it is a serious problem and, in some respects, it is a function of the great growth the Metro region in particular is enjoying at the present time. Shall I say in some ways it is an offshoot of some of the success that is being enjoyed here economically.

My honourable friend will be aware that we have at the moment in this province the most robust economy in the industrialized world. That brings many people into the Toronto area in particular, and other areas, and puts enormous pressure on the system. He is right and I do not for a minute minimize the problems that we face.

The minister has put her mind to this matter, as have many others in the cabinet. In the next budget, which will be coming forward in the not-too-distant future, I think the member will be seeing approaches and strategies to deal with this problem. I cannot for a minute stand in front of him and promise a cure to all the problems or the pressures that are happening in the housing market, but I think he will see some real progress in addition to what has happened already.

Mr. Cousens: The Premier made the assertion two years ago that there would be some action taken by the province to at least come up with a policy. Since that time, the housing crisis has worsened and in Metropolitan Toronto, as our leader has just said, it is now one person in a thousand who can find some kind of accommodation.

The former Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) in the meantime came out with his assured housing program and what he has done is assure a bigger housing crisis in this province.

Let the Premier answer this question if he would. What does he feel is an acceptable vacancy rate in Toronto and around the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to answer that question. Obviously, one wants to see a situation where there is a sufficient mix of housing that people have an opportunity to get affordable housing. The member knows, coming from the community of Markham, which is a very high development area at the moment, and I know the cost of building today and he knows the pressures that puts on people. I can tell him we have dramatically increased the number of rent-geared-to-income situations. Building has been going on. Apartment rental unit starts are up.

I cannot stand in front of him and say that is enough or sufficient. I am sure he would not either. I do think we have made a major thrust forward and commitments have been given on the 102,000 units. I think he will see interesting new approaches to this matter as well that will take some pressure off the system.

I do not want to mislead my honourable friend. We are in a high-growth area. It is a problem that everybody has to be involved in, including his community of Markham and the other municipalities. We have to address it from a wide number of points of view. Hopefully, we can collectively make some impact, although we will not solve the entire problem.

Mr. Cousens: It is on the record now that the Premier has no goal as to what he is really aiming for in the vacancy rate in Ontario. What we really have at this point is no housing policy from this government in spite of the promise by the Premier close to two years ago. The word is now that the government is going to come out with a new rendition of Bill 11, the Condominium Act, the Rental Housing Protection Act.

At this point, landlords do not really know what to do. They cannot plan for the future. Tenants are getting eviction notices. Ontario needs direction on its housing policy today. Why will the Premier not announce today his plans for condo conversion and what his overall housing strategy will be for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I have discussed with my friend, I think a number of strategies have been undertaken and a number of programs have gone forward. There are major new budgetary commitments in that regard and they will continue to address the problems. We are going to have to enlist the help of people like him to persuade his own community to get involved in affordable housing programs, to make sure the municipalities assist us -- because, obviously, we cannot do this alone -- and to make sure that all communities are shouldering their fair share of the responsibility.

We hope to work with them because, as the members knows, we are giving municipalities a lot of new powers these days. I am sure we will all assist in building a co-operative, harmonious atmosphere to attack this problem together.

NONPROFIT HOUSING PROJECT

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The Premier has just said that the government needs the help of the honourable members in this House to convince local municipalities to facilitate the building of affordable housing.

The minister will be aware that the Humbervale United Church in the city of Etobicoke has made an application to build a seniors’ nonprofit housing project. I have provided the minister with letters written on legislative stationery by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), using his legislative stationery and his position to oppose that housing project because it comes close to the area in which he happens to have his own personal home.

My first question to the minister is this: has the minister received any submissions, be they verbal or written, from the member for Dovercourt opposing this particular housing project, which would be close to his own home, which happens to be located not in Dovercourt but in Etobicoke?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Thank you very much for the question. One of the things we know is that the work the nonprofit sector has done in partnership with the federal government and the provincial government together in increasing the supply of affordable housing is one of the very most important parts of the kind of housing program that we envision.

We have been working actively with community groups to increase the supply of affordable housing and will continue to do so. I myself, as Minister of Housing, cannot support any attempt to block that in any way. We will continue to work with nonprofit groups to build housing all over the province and actively support their efforts.

Mr. Philip: The minister has not answered the question of whether or not she has received any submissions, either verbal or otherwise, from the member for Dovercourt in opposition to this particular development. The minister has received the information that I have sent her, in which, on his letterhead, the member for Dovercourt says that he is speaking in opposition, not just as a citizen but as a member of the Legislature.

I ask the minister, does she approve of that kind of use for vested personal interest by the member for Dovercourt? Will she stand in the House right here today and say that she dissociates herself from that kind of action by the member for Dovercourt? Will she do that right now?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I thank the member for sending me a copy of the correspondence which he sent me today.

As Minister of Housing, I am committed to increasing the supply of housing in this province that is useful for people of low income. That is the reason we have been working so actively with nonprofit groups. We will continue to do so. As Minister of Housing, I cannot support any initiative that would in any way stand in the way of appropriate development of nonprofit housing all over this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions. New question, the member for Burlington South.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Two weeks ago on Dateline Ontario, the minister responded to a question by Mark Kennedy about his government’s commitment to return school funding in this province to the 60 per cent funding rate. At that time he pledged, and I quote, that he was “moving towards decreasing the costs borne by local taxpayers.”

When his government took office, the provincial share of education cost was roughly at 48 per cent. As he can see by this graph, that rate has been constantly dropping ever since this government took office. How can he say he is moving towards the 48 per cent figure when, in fact, it has been dropping every year?

Hon. Mr. Ward: In responding to the member’s question, I remind him that the general legislative grant regulations were released to school boards across this province at a time when inflation in this province is running somewhere in the neighbourhood of four per cent. Grants to school boards increased some 7.2 per cent for the coming fiscal year.

1440

At the same time, those GLG regulations contained a number of new initiatives, including $16.8 million in new money for textbooks and money to put in place teachers necessary to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in grades 1 and 2. As the member is aware, over the course of the past several months this government has come forward with many, many new initiatives. Indeed, I believe the 7.2 per cent increase in grants to school boards in this province reflects our commitment.

Mr. Jackson: With that response, the minister has not either made the grade or made the grid. He is still not on the grid to get him back to 60 per cent. The fact of the matter is that he is forcing more and more of the costs of education on to local taxpayers and local property taxpayers.

In his own backyard, in his own community where his own children are being educated, we are seeing increases in property taxes which go into double digits as a result of his pronouncements. The Hamilton Spectator of March 8 talks about the new budget for the Hamilton Board of Education, and I quote, Their budget “represents an 11.8 per cent increase in spending and an 11.3 per cent jump in taxes based on an average $5,000 assessment.”

The minister keeps talking about his promise but he keeps moving further and further away from it, at a cost to taxpayers --

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Jackson: My question is, when is the minister going to act so that municipal ratepayers are not stuck with the fact that he has broken another Liberal promise?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Quite frankly, I expected the member’s supplementary to ask when this government would balance the budget, but in reply I just want to say to my friend that indeed the 7.2 per cent average increase that flowed to boards across this province does vary from community to community. Shifts in enrolment and changes in commercial and industrial assessment from community to community will have an impact.

It surprises me that the member uses Hamilton as an example, because as a result of the new equalization factors, I believe the city of Hamilton was, in fact, a beneficiary and its 7.2 per cent increase may go beyond that.

The member knows full well that school boards do have the opportunity through local enhancements to set their own mill rate to establish priorities above and beyond approved expenditures. I know that when the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) was a trustee, there were instances when those expenditures would be out of control, such as during his days on the board of education, but I do not believe that is the case today.

Indeed, it is a shared responsibility, and I think the level of commitment that is extended through the general legislative grants this year reflects our commitment.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL

Mr. Dietsch: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister might be aware that many concerns about the leasing of the units at the Ontario Food Terminal were discussed directly with the Ontario Food Terminal this past week.

At a recent hearing of the standing committee on government agencies, it was noted that the leases were granted in perpetuity -- 30 years, renewable for further 30-year increments -- at the time of the food terminal’s creation in 1954. This is another nightmare, I might add, from the 42 years of previous reign.

The board has little influence over the selection of tenants and it has no control over the influence of subleasing or the assignments of leases. This creates the opportunity for leaseholders --

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Dietsch: -- to sell their leases at a handsome profit. The board has emphasized --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Dietsch: -- that it is bound by the provisions of the 1954 leases.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Dietsch: I am getting to the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dietsch: What is the minister’s response to the potential leaseholders who are unable to secure leases at the food terminal without paying exorbitant fees to assume the leasehold status?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member in whose riding the food terminal is located, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), raised this, in the last session I believe it was. I am also aware that the operations of the food terminal have been under review by the standing committee and, since it was brought to my attention, I have raised the matter with the Ontario Food Terminal board.

I think the member is aware that the Ontario Food Terminal Act gives the board the full authority and power to run the food terminal. But I will say that after contacting the board, it has decided that restrictions should be placed on the subletting of wholesale units at the terminal to address the concerns regarding the leaseholder demands for these very stiff fees. The board has also decided that a limit should be placed on the number of units held by one wholesaler to prevent further concentration of business.

I also gave approval for additional units to be established at the food terminal so that there would not be that same demand for obtaining leases at these very stiff prices. I think maybe the board has the matter under control.

Mr. Dietsch: I appreciate very much the minister’s answer in relationship to the new construction. I do feel, however, it is a matter of sincere urgency and I would ask the minister what he will do to speed up that construction.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The board is well aware of my concerns. I am sure that in discussing this matter it will come to the conclusion that there need to be additional units built at the food terminal, and I will certainly be making further contact with the board, urging it to move ahead with the building of these additional units.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. The minister will no doubt recall that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), in his budget statement of May 20, 1987, made an allocation of a paltry sum -- as I recall, it was some $30 million out of a total budget of $30 billion -- to enhance the economic opportunities of northern Ontario. He called it the northern Ontario heritage fund to allow for diversification.

Will the Minister of Northern Development tell us how much money has been spent out of the $30 million -- it has been about 11 months since the announcement -- and on what projects?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je remercie le député de lac Nipigon pour sa question. Premièrement, je dois lui dire que je n’ai dépensé aucun argent des 30 millions parce que le fonds n’est pas encore en place. Mais, par contre, je dois lui rappeler que durant les sept derniers mois, nous avons utilisé le Fonds du développement du Nord de l’Ontario pour remplir certains projets que nous avions en marche. Alors, le Nord n’a pas souffert.

Mais une chose que je dois lui dire, c’est que d’ici quelques semaines, avec l’aide du Trésor, du Conseil de gestion et de mon ministère, nous sommes en train de mettre une loi en place pour ce fonds. Je dois rappeler à l’honorable député qu’un projet de loi comme ça, ça ne se fait pas du jour au lendemain. Premièrement, j’avais dit aux personnes du Nord que je consulterais les conseils économiques, ce que j’ai fait pendant deux mois, pour trouver...

Interjections.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Le député d’Algoma (M. Wildman) devrait s’abstenir de rire, puisque tout à l'heure il sera bien content d’avoir cet argent pour des projets dans son comté.

Alors, je vais continuer la réponse au député de lac Nipigon. Je dois lui répondre que ce projet sera en marche d'ici quelque temps. Je suis certain que lui-même, son parti et les gens du Nord seront satisfaits de la présentation que nous allons faire en Chambre d’ici quelques semaines.

Mr. Pouliot: The future can last a long time, especially when it comes to the declarations of the Minister of Northern Development. Let me ask a supplementary.

Le ministre nous a dit tout à l'heure que rien n'avait été dépensé. Il y a onze mois, moi, je l’ai cru. Il y a six mois, quand il a ajouté d’autres bureaucrates pour essayer de se faire comprendre, de faire dépenser ces miettes, encore une fois je l’ai cru. Son problème, et le problème des gens du Nord, est un problème de crédibilité.

Dozens of projects have crossed his desk from labour and the business community. He has no credibility. When is he going to start doing his job and finally give us the tools to enhance our economic future up north?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Ma réponse à la question du député de lac Nipigon, c’est que je n’ai pas peur de me comparer avec lui sur le degré de crédibilité, puisque lui-même, il est bien content d’écrire des lettres à des ministres, il est bien content d’avoir de l’argent à dépenser dans son comté. C’est une chose que je ne lui reproche pas. Je reçois au moins quatre lettres par semaine de lui. En retour, je lui donne des octrois, et à tout bout de champ il veut savoir à quel endroit ira l’argent. Je le lui dis: 100 millions ici, 200 millions là, 20 millions là, 20 000$ là. Alors, qu’il demande donc au maire de Marathon et au maire de la ville de Manitouwadge combien d’argent ils ont eu de mon ministère cette année. Ils lui donneront peut-être la réponse à ces questions bêtes.

1450

Je dois lui rappeler que le Fonds du patrimoine sera la, mais il y a un autre fonds qu’il oublie, c’est le Fonds du développement du Nord. On y a 100 millions qu’on continuera à dépenser pendant les cinq prochaines années; ça, il oublie ça. Il oublie, en plus, que nous avons des fonds dans la Northern Ontario Development Corp. qu’on dépense dans son comté; il oublie ça. On a le fonds pour les personnes âgées; il oublie ça. Il oublie tous les fonds. Il se concentre sur ce fonds qui, tout à l'heure, sera très satisfaisant pour le Nord.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I know the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) is, and perhaps most members of the House are, somewhat surprised and disappointed that she did not make a statement in the House earlier today regarding the questions about the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. I would like to ask the minister about the abduction from a bus stop in London last week of a 14-year-old girl apparently by two inmates of the psychiatric hospital. This vicious and outrageous crime almost resulted in the death of an innocent teenager. We cannot run the risk of any more vulnerable people being endangered.

Is the minister prepared to institute immediately a temporary, partial freeze on day passes for psychiatric patients held on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants until a public inquiry is instituted and completed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me express, not only to the member opposite who asked the question, but also to the member for Elgin, who has discussed this with me, and to all members of the House, my own deep concern about the recent events, this very upsetting incident, not only as Minister of Health, but also as a parent and a citizen of this province.

I want to assure the House that my priority, and I believe the priority of every member of our society, is that public safety must always be our main concern. The Ministry of Health has been in touch with the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital as well as the chairman of the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review, Mr. Justice Callon. It is my understanding that both are reviewing the particulars of this case.

Mr. Runciman: That is great. Deep concern is the trademark of this government, not action. We see it in a variety of ministries. The system obviously failed in this case, resulting in grave danger to the public. For all we know, another abduction could happen at any time, committed by people on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants. In my community of Brockville, we have a man responsible for six deaths in Hamilton walking the street. How confident can people be? I am amazed that the minister does not see the need for action now. Without a temporary freeze until all the facts are in, what assurance can she give that a similar abduction will not occur this week to another young girl?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have noted to the member, review is under way and will be completed as soon as possible. It is important for him and for the people of this province to understand that the system in place is one mandated under the federal Criminal Code. Lieutenant Governor’s warrants are appointed by a panel consisting of a judge, lawyers and psychiatrists as well as lay members of the board representing the public. They are an independent body which makes these decisions and recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor. The hospital involved then implements the provisions of those warrants.

As I have stated to the member, and I do share his concern, we are reviewing the particulars of this case. It is my fervent hope that in the future, as these decisions are made, the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society will result in public safety.

CHANGE OF NAME

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It was recently brought to my attention that under the new Change of Name Act there are two very serious concerns.

The first concern is on behalf of women in this province, who apparently may have their birth records altered upon marriage, if they assume the name of their spouse. I understand that the new birth certificate will show the married name with no reference to the maiden name.

Will the minister consider allowing the maiden name to appear on the birth certificate document along with the married name when that request is made by the applicant?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable member for his question. I should say at the outset that the member would want it to be known that this process only takes place on the election of the newly married spouse to take the surname of her new spouse. That election having been made, in the past -- the honourable member is correct -- the birth certificate, the little card one gets, rather than the birth registration, would be returned with the new name.

I think the honourable member has made a good suggestion. We have been discussing that as well, that we would be prepared in the interim to change the birth certificates we are sending out so that where that election is made, the individual would receive not only the new surname, but also her original maiden name in most cases.

I should say as well, just very briefly on this issue, that there has been concern that even that does not go far enough. We have been simply administering the legislation within the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations; it originally stood in the name of the Attorney General. I say to the honourable member, who, I know, has expressed his concerns to me, that we are prepared to have a new round of consultation and see whether even this dual name move is appropriate and whether it goes far enough.

Mr. Mahoney: Thank you. I appreciate the minister’s answer. The second area of concern is the ability of a divorced spouse to apply for a name change for a child under 18 years of age without the consent of the other parent. There is some question as to whether notification is even required and what remedies might be available to the parent being so notified.

Will the minister ensure that, at the very least, anyone with a legitimate interest in that child receives notice of the intent to change the name of the child in advance of that decision being made?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the honourable member asks a question which is actually, in terms of the Change of Name Act, being asked more frequently. I should outline to the honourable member and to the House the present situation.

At the outset, the agreement of any child over the age of 12, as I understand it, must be obtained, but in this situation the spouse who is not the custodial spouse must receive notification. Notification must be acknowledged in the application.

If the noncustodial spouse objects to the change of name application, it has been the policy of the deputy registrar, she advises me, to allow a 60-day period so that the noncustodial spouse can begin to take any court action that he or she deems to be appropriate.

I should just point out, now that this act has been in place for some period of time, that those who are going through divorce proceedings perhaps would wish to make sure that this is dealt with at the time custody is being discussed.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions on auto insurance.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if we could have order. I would not want the honourable member to have to raise his voice.

Mr. Swart: I would not want to have to say either that this issue is not funny to a lot of the motorists in this province. I am sure the minister will recall that Gordon Chellew of the Insurers’ Advisory Organization said about three weeks ago that they want “car insurance rates increased by more than 20 per cent immediately.”

The minister would also know that just recently Statistics Canada reported that the net profits of the casualty and property insurers last year were the highest ever, 16 per cent higher than last year and three times as high as they were just in 1985.

1500

Simply, will the minister assure this House today that he will not permit any interim increase, any general increase in auto insurance rates prior to his rate review board completing a full hearing on any requests?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? Maybe there is no need.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary -- and I think all the motorists of this province will realize how ominous his answer is as far as their rates are concerned -- does the minister not really think that when the casualty and property insurers made $1,164,000,000 profit last year, a 15 per cent return on equity -- incidentally, that was 75 per cent higher than the average business in this province -- he could give a promise to this House and the motorists that he will prevent any further increases until an in-depth examination is made?

Hon. Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Would the minister tell this House the status of the federal-provincial negotiations regarding the Canada child care act?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, we tentatively negotiated an agreement in early December 1987. As a result of that, increases with respect to direct grants were passed on to our nonprofit centres. I had indicated to the federal minister at that time that I wanted to do the same thing for commercial centres on April 1, but I would not be able to do so unless I got an assurance from him and from his government that the money would flow as of April 1.

As a result of that, I sent a letter to the federal minister late in December and asked for a confirmation in writing on that. I have not yet received it. My staff has been in touch with his office and his staff, literally weekly since then. My understanding is that the federal minister plans to bring legislation before the federal House some time in June -- at least that is his intent -- but I cannot get a guarantee much beyond that. That is as far as I can go. We have clearly indicated what we want.

Mrs. Marland: The problem is that if the minister’s staff is in touch with the federal ministry weekly, at the same sequence people are leaving the private sectors to work in the nonprofit sectors because the funding has been flowing through to them since January 1.

I would like to ask the minister if he has any plans, while we wait another two or three months for this Canadian child care act, to provide interim measures of funding for the commercial child care centres so that 50 per cent of Ontario’s child care places are not being jeopardized by the unfair advantages which now go to the nonprofit sector.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would share with the honourable member that, as a result of the initiatives we have taken over the last year or so, the share of the profit sector is now 40 per cent, down a considerable amount.

Yes, I have been in consultation with the profit sector and with its association. I have indicated clearly what I intend to do and also clearly to them the restrictions I am under. I have been obviously discussing this among my own staff and my colleagues and will continue to do so, but I am not able at this time to give the member a clear yes or no that I will be able to do anything very quickly.

LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Wayne Gretzky has shown himself to be a real winner.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Hear, hear. He comes from my riding.

Mr. Tatham: Good. We have a program in this province fighting soil erosion, looking after soil conservation. Soil is a magic potion, and if we do not look after the land, the land will look after us. If we abuse it, we lose it.

This program the government has, the land stewardship program, is doing an excellent job. The problem is that I understand there are more people who want to use it but there is not enough funding. Can the minister please tell us what the situation is so that all members who want to use it can use it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I thank the honourable gentleman for comparing me with Wayne Gretzky.

Mr. Ferraro: You are both good stick-handlers.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, if, in your busy schedule, you are able to follow government programs and policies, you will know that the land stewardship program is probably the most innovative program that has been devised anywhere in a long time. The purpose of that program was to stimulate interest in good land stewardship. It was not for the financial duress of many farmers, which we have been trying to address. Soil degredation, much of it caused by soil erosion, is probably one of the greatest problems we have in the agricultural community of Ontario today.

We introduced the land stewardship program. It has been oversubscribed, particularly in southwestern Ontario. There has been tremendous interest in this program, but we felt the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association and the local committees could best administer the program. They have to look at all these applications, and it may well be that they are going to have for this year to downsize the projects which farmers are trying to carry on in order to preserve the soil.

We are tremendously impressed with the response that we have received to this program. If we find it is going to meet the needs, the chances are I will be visiting the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) at some time to see what we can do.

Mr. Tatham: If our friends across the line sign the free trade agreement, what impact will that have upon a land stewardship program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: There is no question that we have all of our programs under review because of the impending free trade agreement. There is no question the Americans are going to use their trade laws and they are going to countervail our products if they feel our products are going to injure their markets, but I do not believe they will look upon the land stewardship program as one that is countervailable, mainly because it is not a targeted program. It is open to all farmers.

As well, it is taking land out of production, and that is something we have to do in Canada. They have to do it in the United States and they have to do it in the European Community. We have a world surplus of food and all of these food-producing nations have to bring their production under control. I doubt very much if the Americans would look upon the land stewardship program as one that they would countervail in order to establish injury to their market.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer. In view of the length of time, I will make it very short. In view of the fact that the Treasurer has been dropping hints across the province in the last month or so that there would be an increase in the retail sales tax, can the Treasurer assure us here today that this is nothing more than a nasty rumour and that he would have nothing to do with increasing the most regressive of all possible taxes?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I cannot give the honourable member any assurance other than that the Treasury is examining a wide variety of alternatives involving cost control, improving the productivity of the present tax base and seeing where, on a basis of fairness and equity, we might possibly expand that base in the event that it is our judgement that we need more revenue. The basic phrase, I am sure you would agree, is “fairness and equity.”

PETITIONS

EDUCATION

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from a group in Peterborough that favours amalgamating the two boards. It reads as follows:

“Whereas we, the undernamed, believing the present dual system of school boards, public and separate, to be out of date with modern thinking, liable to promote dissension between religious factions and is expensive and wasteful, we petition you to amend legislation concerning education to create one consolidated school system under which all schoolchildren attending state-funded schools get equal benefit of education paid for by equal taxation throughout the province, with provision being made for religious instruction within such schools as and where required.’’

1510

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind all members that the House is in session. Would you please refrain from having private conversations?

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition from 43 signers in the great riding of Markham who have expressed disapproval of wide-open Sunday shopping.

“We, the undersigned, urge the province to reverse the decision to turn the issue of Sunday shopping to the municipalities.

“It is also necessary to protect the right of freedom of religion to believers, including the right to gather with their community of faith on its common day of worship. Such a law should provide protection for all believers, including those who worship on Saturday and Friday. The right to a day of rest each week and to freedom of religion are guaranteed under international law which Canada is pledged to uphold.

“The choice to retain Sunday as the common pause day in Ontario is a practical option reflecting the practical reality that the largest number of worshippers still gather on Sunday. By retaining Sunday and strengthening protections for Saturday and Friday worshippers, we would protect the largest number of people from denial of their right to freedom of religion. Wide-open Sunday shopping would undermine the wellbeing of the family and jeopardize for many the basic right to a day of rest and recreation.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Breaugh: I have two petitions this afternoon. The first is addressed:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

That one is signed by 162 members of my riding.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Breaugh: The second is addressed:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

That one has 38 signatures on it.

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Beer: I have two petitions to present today. The first is signed by 136 individuals from York region who are concerned about the future of Greenacres Home for the Aged. This petition states:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is the constitutional right of all senior citizens to have access to a health care facility that is appropriate to their needs;

“And whereas Greenacres Home for the Aged in Newmarket, Ontario, is one of the few health care facilities that can safely provide care for the wandering, cognitively impaired older person;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to resolve the issue regarding the future operation of Greenacres in order that admissions can begin immediately to alleviate community stress resulting from long waiting lists for long-term care facilities and decrease the number of inappropriate accommodations in acute care hospital beds of cognitively impaired elderly.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Beer: The second petition is signed by 122 individuals who are concerned about the naturopathy profession and it states:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

AVORTEMENT

Mr. Pope: I have a petition signed by over 600 residents of the communities of Timmins, Iroquois Falls, Black River and Matheson in the riding of Cochrane South, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

Attendu que le 28 janvier 1988, la Cour suprême du Canada a aboli la loi sur l’avortement parce que considérée en opposition à la Charte des droits et libertés;

«Attendu que cette décision laisse les enfants à naître du Canada sans aucune protection légale;

«Nous demandons à votre gouvernement:

«a) de rédiger une loi donnant aux enfants à naître les mêmes droits à la vie et la même protection que tout autre membre de notre société;

«b) de passer un amendement à la section 251 de la Charte des droits qui outrepasse la décision de la Cour suprême, jusqu’à ce que la nouvelle loi entre en vigueur.

«Nous croyons que votre gouvernement a à coeur le respect de la vie de tous les Canadiens et nous sommes assurés que vous agirez rapidement et sûrement pour le bien de toute notre société canadienne. »

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Ferraro: I have two petitions to present today. The first petition reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We are opposed to the Ontario government’s plan to give responsibility for Sunday shopping to the municipalities because we feel it will result in wide-open Sundays. We request that the Ontario government pass legislation to ensure the people of Ontario a common pause day.”

It has 5,348 signatures from the Guelph and Fergus area and 1,910 signatures basically from the Hamilton area, for an aggregate amount of 7,258 signatures.

The second petition I have is signed by 131 fine people belonging to the Guelph-Wellington Seniors Association and is essentially objecting to the same matter. They do not want or desire wide-open Sunday shopping.

AVORTEMENT

M. Morin: J’ai devant moi une pétition de 700 commettants de la circonscription de Carleton-Est qui se lit comme suit:

«Nous, soussignés, déclarons notre objection à ce que l’avortement puisse être obtenu sur demande ou d’une manière qui soit subventionnée par les gouvernements et réclamons des gouvernements des niveaux provincial et fédéral à prendre toutes les mesures qui s’imposent pour préserver la vie des enfants à naître.»

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pollock: I have two petitions. One reads: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Our very strong opposition to opening of retail stores for Sunday shopping.”

It is signed by the executive of the Belleville Presbyterian United Church Women.

RECREATION TRAIL

Mr. Pollock: The other petition reads:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We are in favour of the former Canadian National railway line known as the Marmora subdivision being developed as a recreation trail.”

It is signed by 639 people.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Furlong: I have two petitions. The first reads:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

It is signed by 94 residents.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Furlong: The second petition reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business.”

It is signed by 34 members of the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Whitby.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee’s report.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I would like to compliment members of all parties who worked very hard with a very short period of time and those who prepared the 62 exhibits we had for our consideration. I hope we have achieved a valuable consensus for the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) when he considers it with regard to his budget, which I expect he will bring down later this month.

The committee recommends: that moneys be spent to improve Ontario’s competitive position in maintaining our infrastructure in schools, both primary and secondary level; that capital grants and assistance to school boards, as well as grants to universities and colleges, be increased; that with the help of the federal government, we spend moneys to improve our sewer and transportation systems; that we improve our housing funding; that we improve our funding for the disabled and give more help to low-income residents.

We also recommend that this be done in a fiscally responsible manner. I can report that the majority of the committee was of the view that taxes may have to be raised. The third party issued a dissenting opinion on this point.

1520

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet on the morning of and following routine proceedings on Wednesday, April 6, 1988 and on Wednesday, April 13, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that notwithstanding standing order 71(h), requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 106, An Act to Amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation will implement the changes to the local government electoral process which I outlined to the members in my statement of December 10. The bill will establish a new recount process, place limits on contributions and expenses for local government candidates and make mandatory the disclosure and reporting of campaign contributions and expenses.

In addition, the bill will improve accessibility to the polls for all voters, especially for seniors and persons with physical disabilities and those who are physically challenged.

The legislation will also make an additional change. I am pleased to advise the members that this bill will enable municipalities, school boards and public utilities commissions to adopt a rebate system for local campaign contributions. By providing this authority, we will for the first time be treating candidates for election to local office on an equal basis with their provincial and federal counterparts.

This optional rebate system will, I believe, encourage campaign contributions from a broader cross-section of the public. By making more campaign funds available, it will also encourage a greater number of individuals to seek local office and thus further strengthen our system of local government in Ontario.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. B. Rae moved, pursuant to standing order 37(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; that being the decision of the Liberal government of Ontario to reverse its pre-election promise to prohibit wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario and the resulting anger felt by workers, store owners and their families because they will be unable to spend time together.

Mr. Speaker: Notice of the motion was received in my office in the appropriate time and therefore is in order. I will listen to the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, as well as representatives from other parties for up to five minutes each.

Mr. B. Rae: My reason for moving this motion today was to call as much attention as we are allowed in parliamentary terms to what I think amounts to a flagrant breach of promise by the Liberal Party and the Liberal government with respect to its own election mandate.

As I said earlier in the question period in this House, we all recognize the size of the Liberal majority. We all recognize that the government won itself a very substantial mandate back in September. But I want to point out to members that the mandate was based, at least in part, on the commitment by the member for London Centre, who is now the Premier (Mr. Peterson), that in fact his party and government would respect the desire of an all-party committee and the will of this House that there be a common pause day in the province and that that day be Sunday.

That was a commitment the Premier made in August 1987. That is a commitment he has broken. That is a commitment he has flagrantly abused, and we think that in itself is worthy of an emergency discussion in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that even as late as Thursday, the Premier made it very clear that he was not going to change his mind. He stated on March 31, 1988: “The decision has been made.” He told the Association of Municipalities of Ontario -- I am quoting from the Toronto Star -- “We have a province that’s bigger than most countries, and we are making our decision.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you not only the results of the by-election in London on Thursday but also the opinion as expressed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, by literally hundreds of churches and church organizations across this province, by small businesses of all kinds speaking through various associations and individually, by employees speaking through their associations and trade unions and individually and by recent assessments of public opinion showing a very substantial change, even from the opinion polls that took place as recently as six months ago.

The public does not want local option. The public does not want human rights and labour legislation to depend on every municipal council in this province. The people of this province do not want a situation where stores are, as a matter of course, open on Sunday. They want to have legislation in place which will protect them.

That is what the Premier agreed to in August. That is what the Premier said he would do before the election, and we think it nothing short of disgraceful that he would turn around and say: “That may have been the case before the election. Now that I’ve got my majority, I will do whatever I want and whatever I please.” That is a shameful proposition. It is a shameful thing for a government to do.

I know there are those in the government benches who do not think this is a major problem. I know there are those in the government benches who have spoken publicly saying, “You know, once it was streetcars and once it was movies.” I remember reading with interest the comments of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter). The Premier himself has said it is the sign of a modern country that these things can happen. All I want to say is, this is not a religious issue. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick completely confuses himself and the public if he thinks it is a religious issue. It is a question about the priority that we give to commercialism and the priority that we give to family.

I am the first to admit that this will not be the end of civilization. What I do think is that if we can choose to support and protect families, that is what we should be doing, and every time we have that choice to make, we should, if we possibly can, be passing laws and taking measures to support and protect the family and not be passing laws and taking measures that will drive people apart.

I just want to close with a letter that I received the other day from Janice Rothwell, a letter I quoted earlier. I want to end with what she simply says.

“In summing up my letter, I just want to point out that my reasons for not doing business on Sundays are not religious but family. Religion does not have to be practised on a specific day, but family is every day, and Sunday is the only day we all can count on being together. Please make your decision intellectually and with your heart and not your wallet.”

That request comes from an ordinary family member in Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. B. Rae: I think we should be supporting Janice Rothwell and her family and thousands of other families throughout the province.

1530

Mr. Harris: We are very supportive of the resolution that has been put forward for an emergency debate today. We think not only that the problem is one of urgency and of significant importance that should be debated, and debated today, but also that there are two things at stake here, two things that this government, if it pursues in this changed position from the election to now, is going to lose out on.

One is a very serious problem. That is one of credibility, credibility of all politicians. For when one party says one thing and campaigns on one thing, gets the mandate it seeks and then completely ignores that and goes the other way, it causes a credibility problem not only for that Premier, that party and the government of the day, but it causes a credibility problem for all legislators and for people of all parties. That concerns me, particularly at a time when credibility of politicians is not at an all-time high in this province, this country or North America. For that reason alone, it is a very serious problem and one I think the government should look at.

Second, there are the issue and the merits of the issue itself. As the leader of the New Democratic Party has said, this is not a religious issue. This is an issue of family, of family values, if you like. In a very fast-changing world, in a very difficult time, the meaningfulness of family, the opportunity for families to cling to whatever they can together, is diminishing and diminishing.

I agree very strongly with something the leader of the New Democratic Party said, and that is that we should be looking at a number of issues, not just this one. We should be looking at policies and saying what does this policy do to the family? I do not think anybody would say this is going to be good for the family, that this is going to strengthen the family. In fact, it will go a long way to do just the opposite.

There is a problem. The debaters can take some time today, but the problem is the existing law, which worked well for quite a period of time, to deal with the tourist designation in today’s modern age. Over a period of time people have figured out how to get around it. It is not working well and is something that has to be addressed. We acknowledge that. It worked for a while. Today it is not working well; so we have to address the problem.

What concerns us is the local option proposal put forward by the Premier. It is the media gurus and the Liberal experts who say, “If you want to change your position, if you want to go against the family, if you want to do something that, in your view, will promote your trendy, urban yuppieness, but really is going against the family and is against what you campaigned on, then you have to come up with something to hang your hat on.”

This local option did not evolve with an overriding principle of the Liberal Party that everything is going to be a local option, because we have seen just the opposite when it comes to other issues. That is where they all go, and now they are trying to sell that. They are saying, “You cannot sell it on the merits. You cannot sell it on what you campaigned on. So now you must try and sell it on the local option.”

That is not working. The local people are not buying that. We know the issue of Sunday shopping, of trying to have a common pause day, is not one that should be good for some Ontarians and not others, not one that should be good for one municipality and not others and not one that should be left to a local option, neither the municipalities themselves, the actual elected councillors, nor the people who have elected them there.

We offered to come up with a solution if the government was afraid of it. We offered to work three-party. We said we would do it one-party if they wished, to work with the groups and come up with a tourist designation that would be acceptable to retail members, to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, to chambers of commerce and what not.

We welcome the debate today. We think it is timely and we think it is important.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have in my hand the notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), and I must say that I received it with some interest last week. I believe it was on March 30.

Looking at this motion and looking at the intent of provisional standing order 37, I could argue a good case that this is not an emergency in the language of the provisional standing order. I dare say there might even be some in this House who would like me to argue that case, but I do not intend to be, as the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) would perhaps suggest, picayune --

Mr. Wildman: Don’t be cynical either.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- because as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) properly observes, this is a matter of some debate.

I just want to say very proudly to my friends in the two opposition parties that I am not at all reluctant to debate the member for Algoma and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) on this subject, if on no other grounds than on the very grounds of their own constituencies and what I know to be the case in their communities, where I see a pattern of activity over the years that is at some very considerable variance with some of the rhetoric that I hear in this chamber today and have heard.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Let us have another by-election someplace else.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Windsor-Riverside intervenes, and we know, thanks to the Premier, what it is the member for Windsor-Riverside said to the Windsor Star on November 15, 1986. Before the day is over, I will want to return to that.

Let there be no confusion in the minds of the opposition. Let there be no consternation in the hearts of the member for Nipissing and the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) as to the willingness of the government to debate this. We are more than willing to debate this subject in this chamber and elsewhere --

Mr. Mackenzie: Closed mind.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- because we are not at all worried about contesting the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) on this subject.

For that reason, I want my friends opposite, and most especially the Leader of the Opposition, to know that notwithstanding the fact this resolution is almost certainly not in strict accordance with provisional standing order 37 -- I hope all my friends opposite have read that standing order, particularly 37(b)(ii), very carefully.

Mr. Breaugh: Some of us even wrote it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The seer from Oshawa will have read it, if he has not memorized it.

I just want to say to my friends the opposition House leaders and their colleagues that while we will debate this today, happily, because of our strongly held view --

Mr. Sterling: You don’t look happy.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You haven’t looked happy for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friends opposite that we are prepared to debate this today. I particularly want my friends the opposition House leaders to understand what I have conveyed to them over the last number of weeks; that is, this government has an agenda that it intends to proceed with. My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside most especially knows that over the last number of weeks we have said that there are a number of issues relating to the municipal and school board elections for 1988 that are pressing. The most pressing of these is Bill 77.

Mr. Wildman: If it was so pressing, why has the House not been sitting?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend the member for Algoma that we intend to proceed, because that legislation, particularly the creation of a permanent voters’ list, is important and pressing. As a government, we want to go forward in an orderly fashion not only to accommodate the not inconsiderable sensitivities of my honourable friends in the opposition, but at the same time to proceed with the agenda of this government and most especially those areas as they affect municipal and school board elections in 1988.

I know my friends the members for Windsor-Riverside and Oshawa and Algoma and elsewhere will not want to delay the debate of that particular legislation and they will not want to add any additional difficulties to the municipal elections or the school board elections in 1988.

I will look forward, as a member of the government, as a member of the assembly, to debate the issues this afternoon as they affect the regulation of retail store hours.

1540

I want to say, in conclusion, that the government’s agenda is going to be proceeded with, that the local government bills, as they affect the 1988 elections, are matters of urgent and pressing concern, I know, to all members of this assembly and certainly to all communities that will be affected in the fall.

On the basis of that caveat, I say, “Let the debate begin,” because this government is delighted to have the opportunity to engage honourable members on the subject.

Mr. Speaker: As all members are well aware, there are several parts to standing order 37. We have now dealt with 37(a), 37(b) and 37(c) and we come to 37(d).

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: That being the case, I would advise any member who wishes to speak, he or she will have up to 10 minutes to speak and the debate will continue until 6 p.m. or until we run out of speakers. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has stated publicly that members of the Legislature who believe in a common day of rest are living in the past. One would have to ask the Premier, did he believe that the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) was living in the past when she signed her name to a select committee report that stated a common pause day was a principle which should be upheld by this government?

The report of the select committee, which was established by the Premier at a cost to the taxpayers of over $90,000, reflected the views of thousands of people -- citizens, corporations and members of the community -- who came before the committee. No doubt the Premier believes the leaders of these community groups are also living in the past.

He was obviously thinking of the future, however, when during the election campaign he stated that he believed in the proposals of the select committee. I would remind the members of the House that the select committee firmly maintained that provincial legislation “regulating retailing on holidays, including Sundays, should therefore be structured to support the maintenance of such a common pause day or day of rest.”

That is what the Premier was agreeing to when during the election campaign he stated he was in agreement with the thrust of the select committee’s report. What we have is more than just the issue of Sunday shopping. What we have is the issue of a Premier going to the people with one set of premises, telling them one thing and then a few months later doing exactly the opposite.

In announcing the government’s decision on providing the municipal option on Sunday shopping, the Solicitor General stated that the government had concluded the recommendations of the select committee were unworkable. But she was the one who signed that report only a few months earlier. She was the one who strongly supported the committee’s recommendation against widespread Sunday shopping. Furthermore, in comments prior to the government’s recent Sunday shopping decision, she described the municipal option as the chicken way out, the passing of responsibility on to the municipalities when the select committee’s report was fairly clear as to where it stood on that.

It stated in its recommendations, and it was the first and second recommendations that dealt with this and are therefore, one would assume, very primary and important recommendations, “the primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays should remain with the provincial government.”

That was clearly what the Solicitor General and other members of the Liberal party signed when they signed that select committee report. That was clearly what the Premier was promising during the election and now he is breaking that promise.

In his letter to someone who had written to him, the Premier gives two reasons for his sudden flip-flop and change of heart against the people of Ontario. He states: “We have concluded that municipalities should be allowed to regulate Sunday openings. Since the attitudes and conditions vary widely across the province, municipal governments, in our view, are in the best position to determine locally appropriate approaches to this issue.”

If one looks at the select committee report and the 17 recommendations, it deals with that flexibility. It recommends ways in which we can deal with the problems associated with local conditions. But instead of implementing the select committee report, the Premier has decided simply to throw it away and go the Bill Vander Zalm route.

I want to point out to members that the Vander Zalm route, the British Columbia route of giving the power to the municipalities, does not give them power at all. What the local municipal option means is that municipalities -- and this happened in British Columbia -- whose citizens, whose merchants, whose aldermen or councillors are against wide-open Sunday shopping are coerced for economic reasons into having wide-open Sundays.

We heard that in the select committee. We heard from people who had had some experience with British Columbia that when you give them the local option, all you need is for one municipality to open the doors and the others, for economic reasons, even though they do not wish to, simply have to open their doors as well. It is fairly clear. This happened in Vancouver and it will surely happen throughout all of southern Ontario.

The other argument used is that any changes in the law will address the question of the protection of retail workers who may be asked to work on Sundays. The select committee dealt with that.

We had managers, particularly managers of Canadian Tire stores, saying: “You can pass any legislation you want, but the mere coercion of the promise of promotion is enough to force an employee to work on Sunday whether he or she wishes to or not. Indeed, there are ways of getting rid of any employee whom one does not wish to have along or who is unco-operative, simply by scheduling him on a Thursday night when he has university classes or at some other time when it is very inconvenient for that person.” Those are the managers who are saying that and those are the owners who are saying that. They are saying, “We can get around any labour legislation you pass because of the nature of the retail business.”

If members look at what we are talking about, we are talking about Sunday working which will force people who are single parents, who now, because of the nature of their work, are not home with their children on Saturdays, to work on Sundays as well and therefore not be at home during the main time in which the children are at home.

We are talking about additional municipal costs, because surely the costs of policing, of transportation and of day care services will be affected, and they fall most heavily on the municipality and on the home owner.

We are also talking about an increase in food costs. The merchants in my area, grocery store owners and people who are involved in that trade, inform me that they are very likely not to increase in any substantial way the volume of food they are likely to sell. They state that their costs will therefore go up proportionately in terms of their costs of operating.

It costs more to operate seven days a week than six days a week. That has to be passed on to someone, and it will be passed on to the consumer. They have estimated 15 per cent. That may be a little high, but if one considers that some of the revenue will come as a result of putting small store operators out of business, none the less we are going to have an increase in food costs as a result of this reactionary legislation.

The argument is also used that somehow, according to the Ontario Libertarian Party and people like that, we should let the marketplace decide, that open Sunday would lead to more convenience and that the shopper then would actually have more convenience to choose.

In fact, the result in Alberta, as the select committee found out, is exactly the reverse. What has happened in Alberta as a result of wide-open Sundays is that many of the merchants, faced with increased costs by being open that extra day, are closing down more and more in the evenings at times when consumers do find it convenient to shop on their way home from work. So the consumer has less convenience, not more, by the route the government has taken.

1550

Let me conclude by dealing with something which is very important to me. I think that as a society we have a right, and we have an obligation as legislators, to decide what type of society we are aiming at creating. If the almighty dollar, if the wishes of the Bay and Simpsons and if commerce are more important than people, then we are failing the people we are representing.

In my riding, an awful lot of the people who work in the retail business are single parents. Others who operate small businesses, often both husband and wife, run the store. If they are forced to remain open on Sunday, as this legislation when it comes forward will no doubt mean, it basically means that the quality of their life is being reduced in exchange for economic objectives.

As members of the Legislature, when we put economic objectives ahead of personal objectives of the people we are representing, when we put economic objectives ahead of our citizens, when we put economic objectives ahead of the objectives of our society and our communities, we are doing ill by the people we represent and by those communities.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Brandt: I feel compelled to join in this debate today because the subject at hand is one which I feel is being dealt with in a totally inappropriate manner by the government. I feel that the government is not listening to some of the valid concerns and the considerations that are being put forward almost daily in question period, in newspaper editorials and by messages I know the government is getting directly from a number of interest groups throughout this province.

The government is well aware that there is a broad coalition in Ontario as it relates to the whole question of how we deal with seven days of commercialism or open Sundays in this province. That broad coalition is an interesting one, because the makeup of it, to the best of my knowledge, is one that has never occurred before in this province.

There are people from literally all walks of life, from organized labour to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to church groups to people from everyday walks of life, who have stood up and have spoken very clearly to the government and have said very simply, “We do not want you to pass legislation which will ultimately result in stores being open right across this province.”

I know the government will say: “That’s not what our legislation calls for. Our legislation very simply passes on the responsibility of this whole exercise to the local municipalities.” That is essentially what the government is talking about, the legislation it is going to bring forward. If it is going to bring forward legislation other than that we are talking about, then please signal us to the effect that it has some other thoughts in mind, because certainly, at this point, the only indications we have from the Premier, based on the way he has responded to our questions, is that this is very simply and very fundamentally a question of local option.

It is a local option of convenience, I have to say, in this particular case, because the government does not have, it appears, the intestinal fortitude to take this on as a provincial issue, which it always has been and which it should continue to be.

If the government made a decision in this particular case to open up Sundays and to allow for seven days of commercial activity in the province, I would disagree with that decision, but at least I would give the government some marks and some consideration for having taken the decision on itself and faced the reality -- and the wrath, I might add, of the voters of this province.

What the government has done, to quote a very fair, honest, kind individual, turning this back to the municipalities is “the chicken way out.” I agree with the spokesman who said that, because the chicken way out is exactly the path, exactly the process, being proposed by this government.

I would remind that government that when it said it was going to take a provincial responsibility and pass it on to the local municipalities, it received back a response which was really quite interesting in that the executive of the association of municipalities decided to take a vote on this issue and the vote came out with a resounding disagreement with the government’s position; the vote was 58 to three. That is a pretty substantive and very direct message that they are in disagreement with what this government has said.

Further to that, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, ROMA, had a discussion about this. I was pleased to be invited to be the breakfast speaker at one of their functions a few weeks ago when they were in Toronto. It just so happened that the night prior to my arriving as their breakfast speaker they had dealt with the issue of Sunday shopping. What they said, again, was that they do not want the government to pass on the responsibility for this issue to local municipalities. The vote in that particular case was virtually unanimous; I do not have the numbers before me.

It is interesting to note why they feel this way. They feel this way very basically and very fundamentally because they feel one municipality is going to break out of the almost unanimous position being taken by its colleagues right across the province and decide to open up on a Sunday. Then what you will have is a domino effect which will cause neighbouring municipalities which are in geographic proximity to that municipality to decide that, because of economic pressures, they too will be required to open.

That position, apparently, is reasonably well agreed to by virtually everybody in this province except for that government. I ask why the government is not listening to the very clear, very succinct and very able arguments being put forward by so many speakers who have said the government is treading down a very dangerous path.

Why are we concerned? I will tell members why we are concerned about seven days of commercialism and getting rid of what we have traditionally had in this particular province, a common day of rest and a common day of pause. During the course of one of my travels throughout this province, in the municipality of Ottawa, I happened to have a young lady come up to me indicating the concerns she had about Sunday shopping and about being forced to work on a Sunday.

Essentially, her message to me was very basic. Her employer had found a way to get around the rules as they are now and open up on Sunday. She was asked to work on a Sunday, and because she happens to be a single-parent mother and has a family at home, she disagreed with her employer and said, “It is not convenient for me to work seven days a week.” This young lady was engaged in the retail sector. “I am already working six days a week. I think it is unfair to my family.” Her employer said, “You are going to have to work on a seventh day.” She said, “I prefer not to.”

Finally, he brought about the kind of subtle pressure, I say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), that he cannot prevent in any legislation he brings forward, because this kind of pressure is too subtle and is the type that would be very difficult to define clearly in any kind of a law he would bring forward, where you are denied a promotion, where hours are cut back, where your employer all of a sudden subjects you to some of the lesser jobs in the establishment in which you are employed.

There are all kinds of ways where an employer can bring that kind of pressure on an employee and force him to work on a Sunday, in spite of all of the goodwill the government might have in attempting to bring about legislation that would bring some kind of protection into this whole issue.

I am concerned about those kinds of families. The government has not addressed and has not even given any consideration to the additional costs that are involved if we have Sunday openings in this province. Who is going to pay for the additional day care that is going to be required in the case of the very young lady from Ottawa I just used as an example? She is going to have to go to work not six days now but seven days, and she is going to have to have someone look after her family on the seventh day, which I think is totally inappropriate. I think it is inappropriate because certainly a mother should spend, we would all agree, as much time with her family as possible.

The government says: “We do not have chaos in the labour market now. We have policemen, we have firemen, we have all kinds of people who are required to work on a Sunday.” I do not disagree with that position other than that when the Premier brings forward the argument that policemen and firemen are required to work on Sundays, he fails to recognize that those very organized groups also work on a different scheduling arrangement than a retail worker or someone who would be forced to work on a Sunday. They are working, in some instances, a four-day week, so they may have three days off. It may not be the Sunday, I admit, but it may be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday; it may be another three days.

1600

In the community which I happen to have the honour of representing, we have plants that operate 24 hours a day. We also have unions that have quite appropriately argued for and have been able to receive a 12-hour day, a three-day week. They work 36 hours now in some instances. They have four days off in those cases. It is not a particular burden on those individuals to work on a Sunday when they have another four days off at some other point in time. That is not the case with the people whom we are trying to protect.

I tell members, as sincerely as I know how to relay this message to the government. It is doing the wrong thing. If we sit down as parliamentarians in an all-party committee to define very clearly designated tourist areas, we will work with the government hand in hand to determine how that can be done in an effective way, to make the laws of this province as they are now in place work more effectively.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am happy today to speak on the subject of the retail sales hours. I had the honour of working with members of all three parties on the select committee on retail store hours in the last parliament. I think together we agreed on several things, three of which I particularly want to touch on.

The first is that this is a very complex and difficult area and cannot be solved by platitudes. We have already a body of laws that have developed over many years in a changing society. We have, as well, laws that are different in different communities already reflecting the different needs of those communities.

I think all parties would be most unfair if they mislead the public by thinking there are simple solutions. To send out questionnaires which ask simple questions like, “Do you want a totally open Sunday? Do you want seven days of commercialism?” as was recently used by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), is misleading. You expect a yes-or-no answer to a question that has no yes-or-no answer. It is rather like saying, “Yes or no, answer me, have you stopped beating your wife?” and it asks for an equally meaningless response. Yet we have been subjected to much of that meaningless response now.

This is complex and must be addressed in a complex way.

The second thing I think we all agreed on is that the present law is being very much abused. We have in our communities stores that open up and rope off parts of the store; then next they open another door so that people walk in and walk out again. We all recognized these as being abuses.

We recognized abuses where people were actually making more money by breaking the law than if they obeyed the law, because the penalties were not enough.

We saw the biggest abuse of all which has hit our society more recently, and that is the abuse of the clause in this bill which makes an exception out of pharmacies, so we have Howie’s and Herbie’s opening around this province which are not really drug stores at all but miniature department stores, another abuse we recognized and realized had to be corrected.

More recently, we all lived through the Christmas season with another discovered abuse; namely, this business of the open Boxing Day because you were closed on Saturday, even though that was never the intention of the Sabbatarian exception. We saw these abuses. We recognized they must be addressed.

The other thing we recognized as a committee was that tourism must be addressed. Many of our communities depend on tourism for their well-being and even for their existence economically. Tourism is, in fact, one of the biggest money makers, the biggest industries, if you want to call it that, of Ontario, and tourism in this way must be protected as an essential part of Ontario’s wellbeing. Because of this, the select committee called upon the provincial government to draw up a definition of tourism that would blanket the total province and be useful for the local councils to define tourism within their area.

This was taken on as an effort by the provincial government, which found, in fact, that it is impossible to define tourism in this complex province in such a way that it will cover the whole province and all the different needs of the different communities and still have that definition meaningful in any way at all. Therefore, as a province, we recognized that it was not a provincial responsibility to determine what is good for individual communities in this area of being open. It must be determined on a local basis.

This is not to say, and it should not be implied, that every local option has to be to open fully. This was never intended. On the other hand, I would point out, starting with communities that I know well, that in London you might well have a completely different situation than you have in Grand Bend, a small community near me, which has a population of 800 in winter and which depends on tourism in summer for the livelihood of those people who live there year-round. London could come to a decision to stay very much the way it is now and not to have anymore openness than they presently have.

That is something they could decide, and the ruling they make would be very different from the decision of Grand Bend, which probably would decide to be open, as it presently is, Saturdays and Sundays in the summer holidays and during the tourist season and, in fact, in practice, to be completely closed down in winter because there is virtually nobody there to shop.

These are local situations. The same could be said of Parry Sound and Toronto; you cannot define them in one breath. You cannot look at Windsor and Niagara Falls, border cities, and have the same decision good for them that might, in fact, be good for Kitchener. We recognize that to both encourage and facilitate tourism, which we all know to be essential, and to do it in a way that is meaningful to the local community, we must allow the local communities to assume their share of the responsibility in defining what is good for that community.

We recommend and see that local option to some extent is not only healthy but inevitable. I would add that local option presently exists and is used. It is used in the form of this tourist exemption which presently exists in this ad. We have seen it used and, as well, in some cases, abused, by local governments in so far as they use a so-called tourist exemption to do what they simply want to do by the nature of their community.

That is, you get a place like Mitchell, which really could not be called a centre of tourism, which opted to declare the whole town a tourist centre and be open. You get St. George doing the same thing, declaring the whole town a tourist centre and being open. You get Mississauga, where they designated one fruit stand and got a bunch of letters saying, “I came from the states and enjoyed going to this fruit stand.” So they declared the fruit stand a local tourist attraction and opened.

I point out to you that, even as a local option, there is nothing particularly new in that. Right now that exists in the tourist exemption, and it was in looking at this that the select committee was trying to recommend a provincial definition. It is in addressing the great variety of our communities that we say the province cannot so define it because the province is too varied, too different. Local governments must look at this, look at what is presently a tourist exemption or look at anything that is put in its place and make the decision as to what is good for its community.

They have done this in the past with sports and entertainment, made the local decision. The local governments prophesied at that time that the province would fall to pieces, families would die and religious values would go up in smoke. We now have local option on that and take it for granted and none of these terrible things did, in fact, happen. The people in the local governments can decide whether or not, in fact, they think it is a danger to their society to have this more openness.

1610

I would give you the fact as well that the people who live in the community are closest to it, do know best what is good for the community and are also most accessible for the people in the community to influence.

North York, which at the beginning of all this was about to take advantage of the tourist exemption, or so the mayor suggested, and declare the whole of North York as a tourist area is an example of this. Mayor Lastman expressed his interest in doing this. He was going to use the present law and the present exemption under tourism to do that. The local people in that municipality got up in arms. They went to their local members, had meetings, reached the local members of that council, influenced the local members of that council and the council indeed voted that it wanted to see North York stay closed.

I point out to members that this was a case of local option where the people in that municipality were best able to reach the people who are closest and most accessible to them, which was the local council. They made their point with those people and the councillors went back to their council meeting and said, “We are not interested in more openness at this time,” and that is what has happened.

That is local option, but local option bringing forth the wishes of those people, which in the case of North York happened to be a wish to stay as they were and not to expand the openness and declare the whole of North York open.

I wish to emphasize that the local option is not and was never intended to be open Sundays. It was never meant to be or intended to be seven days of commercialism, unless perchance that local community decides that what it wants for its community is precisely that. We think they have the right to examine that.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate, particularly since I moved the resolution, but I must say that whenever I listen to the Solicitor General, as I have done today, I am overwhelmed with a sense of irony, which is not an unuseful sentiment to possess in some good measure in this business. This, after all, is the member who signed the report of the committee. I am not one to say that one should never change one’s mind or recognize that some things have changed, but this was a year ago. This was not a long time ago.

I venture to say to the Solicitor General that if she were completely straightforward with the House, she would probably want to say that she was as surprised as anybody when the Premier announced to the cabinet that this was the way it was going to be, after asking the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), “Is this the way it has to be?” The Attorney General has always favoured the local option. As soon as he was elected, he was talking to members about the local option being the answer to the problem of Sunday working and Sunday shopping.

That is the position he has taken, so one should hardly be surprised when the cabinet comes up with the decision. Knowing the influence of the Attorney General, people throw up their hands and say, “Well, this is the way it’s going to be,” and all of a sudden the Solicitor General has said, “You’re the minister; you have to go out and defend this.”

I must confess to a certain feeling of irony, as I say, at listening to the minister’s explanation of why the law needs to be changed and why the government has flip-flopped completely on its position. Her position now is: “There already is a local option. That local option is called the tourist exemption. That exemption is being abused. Therefore, we are going to go for complete local option.” I must have missed the connecting sentences in that line of thinking.

If you have problems -- as the committee did, and it heard them -- if there are indeed problems with the way in which the tourist exemption is being used, then let us by all means not simply attempt to deal, but let us deal with that problem, and let us, if we are serious about a common pause day, recognize that not every exemption is perfectly in line with the way in which the law was intended to read and that it can in certain circumstances and situations work to the systematic disadvantage of people who are being asked and forced to work in those circumstances.

If there is a problem, let us deal with it; instead of which, the government’s approach -- I notice the government House leader is smiling because he is a great supporter of this and points out how many parts of his own riding use the tourist exemption and how it is being used.

I just want to say on behalf of our party that when the minister talks about a local option in an urban society such as the one we live in, she is talking about a fiction. Let me remind the minister precisely what will happen if we move to a local option. I can speak particularly in terms of the areas being so close together in the whole Golden Horseshoe.

One municipality will decide that it wants to move to having workers work on Sunday and having shopping on Sunday. Once one municipality moves, even those councillors and local officials who were previously opposed will have to come up and say, “Look, our local business people are pressuring us so we may be able to compete.”

Burlington will want to compete with Hamilton or Hamilton will want to compete with Stoney Creek, and it will start. Burlington will want to compete with Oakville, Oakville will want to compete with Mississauga, Mississauga will want to compete with Brampton, Brampton will want to compete with the city of York, the city of York will want to compete with the city of Toronto, the city of Toronto will want to compete with the city of Scarborough, Scarborough will want to compete with Pickering, Pickering will want to compete; we have the picture. In a few short years, that is what we will have.

The government is trying to have it both ways, saying: “We do not believe in wide-open Sunday shopping. We do not believe that is what should happen,” even though the Minister of Labour has said he does not care if every store is open on Sunday.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member knows his geography; not much else.

Mr. B. Rae: I was at the meeting. I was as astonished as anyone at the performance by the Minister of Labour, which was, I might say, as inept a performance in front of a crowd talking about Sunday shopping and working as I have ever seen. But I listened carefully, and naturally I wrote it down, because I could not believe my ears when he said it. He said, “I do not care if every single store in this province is open on Sunday.” I could not believe that a minister of this government, the Minister of Labour, would be saying: “I do not care; let it all happen.”

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: You are distorting reality.

Mr. B. Rae: I say with great respect that the Minister of Health was not at that meeting, although her attendance would no doubt have been an enormous asset to the government team of Sorbara and Smith at that gathering.

Mr. Breaugh: It would have upped the total IQ.

Mr. B. Rae: The Minister of Health says that I am distorting reality. I was there. The Minister of Labour said he spoke those words. What I think is important --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just finish the sentence.

Mr. B. Rae: I was sitting right there. He spoke the sentence and I wrote it down --

Mr. Pope: I believe you.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: You saw the period?

Mr. B. Rae: -- with the sense in my own mind that I could not believe a minister of the crown would make that kind of statement about the rights of working people in Ontario in 1988. I could not believe a Minister of Labour would be arguing for taking away from people’s rights rather than adding to them.

I want to suggest to the government, as I suggested to the meeting I attended and as I suggested to the meeting of over 1,000 people that I attended in Ottawa -- I am delighted to see that the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty) is here today, because we missed him terribly at the rally in Ottawa back a month ago. It was very well attended and spoken to by the mayor of Cornwall, who attempted to win and was defeated for the Liberal nomination. I said to the mayor of Cornwall, who gave a stirring, ringing speech on behalf of those people in his constituency and his town who were opposed to Sunday shopping, “If you had won that nomination and won the election, you would be in the fourth row speaking out on behalf of the government of Mr. Peterson on behalf of the local option.” He smiled and said, “I can tell you I am very much opposed to what is taking place.” I think that is a clear expression of opinion.

As I said, at those meetings I made a very simple point. I said it and I say it again. I have made a lot of mistakes in my political career and you can all add them up and comment on all of them and send them all --

Mr. Runciman: Don’t leave any out.

Mr. B. Rae: I suggest that the member for Leeds-Grenville may have made one or two in his life as well, though I have no idea whether he would be prepared to admit that at this stage of the game.

I think the Premier has made a mistake. It is something that has jarred with the commonsense view as to what would be the wisest way to proceed. It has jarred with what most people’s commonsense reaction is. When you talk to people about Sunday shopping, they think, “Maybe it is not such a bad thing.” But then you ask them: “What about working on Sunday? What about other services on Sunday? What about day care on Sunday? What about the Toronto Transit Commission on Sunday in terms of expanding services? What about what is going to be required for us as a society to have a seven-day, shop-till-you-drop kind of society?”

When people begin to think of that and reflect on it, they do not want a 48-hour week or a 44-hour week or even a 42-hour week; we are talking more about a 40- and a 38- and a 35-hour week. When we look at cities throughout the world -- Rome, Tokyo, London, Paris and add all those cities together -- and ask, “Do you have shopping on Sunday?” the answer to that is no. London, England, which I would have thought a world-class city, to use a Liberal expression, does not have wide-open Sundays.

I say to the government opposite, it is simply making a mistake. What we are doing in this party is saying to the government, “Look, we won’t even crow too much -- maybe for one day or so, but not for ever -- if you admit you’ve made a mistake.”

1620

Let us then take the opportunity to sit down and work with where the problems in the law really exist and reflect on what is the commonsense view of most people in this province, which is that they want a common pause day, a common policy for the province, and protection for people who do not want to have to work on Sundays and want to be able to stay with their families. They want to expand those rights and they do not want to diminish them.

Those are four points that are widely shared. If those are four points that are widely shared, why do we not share them and deal with them? Instead of which, the government is flying in the face of what it said it would do and committed itself to doing. It is doing something completely contrary to what it was elected to do.

Finally, there is the statement that has been made by the Premier, “We’ve been elected to do things and we’re going to do them.” There is the statement he made to representatives of AMO: “Too bad you don’t like it. We’re going to go ahead with it anyway.” I want to say this to the Premier: If he thinks he is going to have an easy ride or if he thinks the opposition is suddenly going to lie down and say, “Yes, you have 94 members and you can do what you like,” he is sadly mistaken. If the government wants to fight on this question of the local option of people working on Sunday and shopping on Sunday, then it is going to have a fight, and that fight is going to be coming directly from the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Pope: It is my pleasure to join in this debate to support the efforts of my party and my leader, who have taken the leadership on this issue, which is well recognized throughout the province. We disagree with the decision of the Liberal government of Ontario. We disagree with the rationale offered by the Premier and by the Solicitor General, nor do we think it is the true rationale for the decision this government has made with respect to a day of common pause in the province.

The Premier has said the province is bigger than most countries in Europe and therefore we are going to balkanize it. Because this provincial government does not have the power, does not have the authority, does not have the courage to govern the province, therefore we will balkanize it because it is bigger than most countries in Europe. That is a view of this province with which we profoundly disagree.

Again today, the Solicitor General has said that because the law was being abused, we are going to reward the abusers. We are going to give them what they want. Heaven help us when we see what they are going to do with the criminal justice system in this province if that is their logic: When someone abuses the law, give him what he wants, pass the amendments and cater to the abusers. This is a government that has responsibility for all laws in the province and for the administration of justice. If that is their philosophy, as expressed by the Solicitor General of Ontario, heaven help us.

Again today, the Solicitor General said: “We want to leave it up to local option. Even though local governments do not want it, we are going to give it to them because local governments can listen to the citizens of this province better than we can.” That is precisely what she has said. In other words, this government does not have the ability or the willingness to listen to the citizens of this province, and therefore it will shirk its responsibilities and hand then over to unwilling municipal governments across the province. We disagree with that rationale as well.

I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) had it right when he said we are now debating the policy dictates of the Attorney General of the province, who said, for some reasons that this government has not yet told us, “We are going to change the observance of Sunday as a day of common pause in this province.”

We have yet to hear from the Premier or members of the cabinet why the Attorney General feels this way, but we are starting to get an idea. Is it really to kick organized religion in the teeth? Is it really to jolt societal assumptions or moralizations having to do with Sunday? Is that what the Attorney General’s agenda is? Does that explain what I believe to be a philosophical linkage between the race to fund the Morgentaler clinic before any public consultation, the introduction of this legislation and the introduction and passage of Bill 7? Is that the underlying philosophy of the Attorney General expressed in this government, to jolt societal assumptions, to change the face to the new Ontario, to make it reflect the Attorney General’s philosophy?

Hon. Mr. Conway: What a charming fellow you are, Alan.

Mr. Pope: What a charming fellow.

The Geneva Park Papers of 1983 contain a rather revealing discourse by the Attorney General of Ontario before he held elected office. In case members want the quote, I am reading from page 193.

“I believe that the touchstone for liberalism in North America since the 1970s is a certain conception of equality which differs, in important ways, from that advanced by the socialists.

“At the same time, it goes much beyond the conservatives’ assertion that the appropriate concept of equality is the provision merely of opportunity. Professor Dworkin, in one of his papers on liberalism in the 1970s, asked why it is that conservatives generally contend for censorship of printed material, especially if it is perceived as erotic, but oppose gun control when it is clear that guns are, by and large, more dangerous than sex. Why is it, I ask, that socialists favour close regulation of banks, but will defend to the end the liberties of trade unions?

“The answer is that both right and left carry into the political arena their own selected judgements about the moral ends, the moral interests of society. They believe they know, to the point of dogma, what the good life or the moral life or the ultimate objectives of a free and just society are. Their libertarian and egalitarian strategies are designed to enforce their moral views.

“Many good people, law-abiding people, belong to gun clubs and want to carry guns. They should be allowed to do so. Why? Because they are good people. Most people who want to see censored films are bad people. They should not be allowed to do so. Why? Because in their moral judgement, they are bad people. In the view of the left, trade union leaders are better people than bank directors.

“On both the right and the left, liberty and equality are infected by this kind of pejorative moral judgement. Liberty and equality are not seen as ends to be sought or goals to which society moves, but rather as mere means by which to achieve the value-ridden society that represents their personal preferences.

“The conservative resolves the issues presented by the Baake case with no difficulty. He simply removes the impediments that confront a black applicant for medical school and allows him to compete in an equal opportunity contest. The odds are stacked against him and he cannot succeed. But the conservatives say those are the breaks. It is thus that liberals regard the conservative position on equality as a hollow and meaningless promise, devoid of actual content.

“At the same time, a true liberal must denounce the socialist program, which in the same way imposes a series of value preferences, frequently overriding the perfectly legitimate values of those whose needs are special or whose ambitions may be regarded by the majority as eccentric.

“The effect of both conservative and socialist policy is the same. At all critical junctures, they seek to impose a value system of their own selection which either deprives the citizen of a beneficial opportunity or deprives him of his free choice.

“In my view, the liberal position is radically different. Liberals stand for the establishment of a process and not for the imposition of a point of view. For a liberal, the touchstone or nerve of equality is not mere formalism; it is fairness, the development of a process that eliminates enforcement of preferences without regard to the liberals’ own conception of what in the end represents the best for society. The liberal approach to human rights is dictated not by mere assurance that equal equality is available, but rather that it is obtained.

“The liberals are determined to develop a strategy that will enforce that particular conception of equality, devoid of preferential content, dictated by majority or special opinion so that the needs of those who are disadvantaged or unpopular are enforced. The liberal view calls for the establishment of process, not the imposition of a point of view.”

Again, that is the Attorney General of this province in 1983 in Geneva Park at the Liberal policy conference.

1630

Here he is again, on November 25, 1986:

“The second feeling I sense honourable members have is that the bill” -- Bill 7 – “should be opposed for moral reasons. I am conscious that many honourable members, like myself, belong to an organized religion or, if they do not, have developed an ethical code that is important for them in the organization of their own life, as a religious code is to me and to others: But I do not believe this bill, properly understood, has anything to do with those moral values.

“I regard it as a matter of some importance to make this point because, increasingly in the last two decades, we live in a pluralistic society in which there are among us...all kinds of newcomers from different countries who subscribe to different religions, who have different moral views and sometimes have none. But we say that as long as they obey the law, their morality, the ethical code they select to govern their relations among them and with their god or their maker, is a personal matter for them.

“Everybody understands that in order to make this system work, we must regard moral questions as personal matters, not governmental matters, because as soon as a moral question becomes a governmental matter, then we have a tyranny over which there is no control.”

That is the philosophy and point of view of the Attorney General of this province. We think he has misunderstood the importance of the day of common pause in this province. We believe that there is a moral value to family life, to a day for personal reflection, to not having to work seven days a week in the Ontario of today. These are moral values we think the majority of society supports and we believe the majority of the members of this Legislature support. It is different from moralizing, and the Attorney General has never been able to distinguish between those two points. Therefore, we think this legislation and the policy of the government is misguided and we urge them to reconsider.

Mr. Kanter: I have listened to the remarks of the preceding speakers with great interest. They suggest that allowing local municipalities to regulate Sunday shopping will somehow lead to dramatic and detrimental changes in Ontario.

I have tried to look at the evidence. I have tried to look at how local option has been put into place in Ontario and other jurisdictions in recent years. I think the members of the opposition are quite wrong in the impact that local option will have in this province. I think the local option approach is not only consistent with our history, but also recognizes the increasing diversity in Ontario’s population, and it clearly reflects a nationwide trend. This does not mean that this government believes that all communities should or will adopt Sunday shopping.

As the Leader of the Opposition observed -- and I am sorry he is not here now -- the regulation of Sunday activity is not a new problem in Ontario; it has been with us for over a century. One hundred years ago, the burning question was whether streetcars should run on Sunday. In 1886, somebody was arrested for using his horse and buggy as a taxi to transport people to and from church. Some people in this chamber may remember when swings and playground equipment were locked up on Sundays or when stores put up curtains to prevent window shopping on Sundays.

In 1950, the pressing issue was whether professional sports should be allowed on Sunday afternoons. The provincial government of that day introduced the bill giving municipalities the option of allowing professional sports to be played between 1:30 and 6 p.m. The Premier today referred to statements the then Premier Leslie Frost made on this issue about placing it in the hands of the local people.

Opponents predicted the most dire consequences if the bill was passed. The fabric of society would be ripped apart, our children would be corrupted and there would be more people in mental institutions. I do not believe that I am contributing to the corruption of my family if I take my son to a Blue Jays game on a Sunday afternoon.

After the Sunday sports debate came Sunday movies, again a matter of local option. Some prominent opponents said that allowing Sunday movies would hasten the spread of communism. It would make Toronto indistinguishable from Moscow. Mr. Speaker, I have been to Moscow on a tourist visit and let me tell you I much prefer Toronto.

While controversy about Sunday legislation is not new, our province has changed very dramatically since the debates of the 1950s. The arguments of our opponents are not original. They just want to return to an Ontario that does not exist any more. We are no longer a predominantly Anglo-Saxon society. More of us live in urban areas; most women now work outside the home; more communities now depend on tourism. These changes raise a question: Are uniform Sunday closing laws meeting the varying needs of Ontario’s communities?

This question is not unique to Ontario. Our friends would suggest that this is some crisis that we are facing in Ontario, but it is being faced in virtually every other province in Canada. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Newfoundland all have legislation with some form of local option and Quebec, the other large province with a large population, is studying this approach.

I have tried to suggest several reasons why I think the local option is the best approach to this difficult issue. Let me try and deal with several of the arguments that have been raised this afternoon against the local option.

Some would say that we do not need to take any action, although I was glad to hear the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) concede that the current act is not operating very well. I think that members are appreciating how complex and troublesome the Retail Business Holidays Act has become. While the act says that no retail business may operate on Sunday, there is a long and growing list of exemptions to the act.

I find it interesting -- indeed I find it a little strange and perhaps a little inconsistent -- that the official opposition, the party that is now arguing that we should not have Sunday shopping, itself supported a motion -- indeed all parties in the House supported a motion -- to add more exemptions, to say that bookstores and art galleries should be open on Sunday.

A large drug store near my home sells food, clothing and stationery on Sunday. Right next door to the drug store, stores that sell the very same items must stay closed. A week or so ago, I was out with my family, my wife, six-year-old son and 15-month-old daughter, walking along Bloor Street. My son decided he would like to get a little exercise copybook, like the one he was using in school, to do some little exercises in. He wanted to go to a certain store because it had the right kind of exercise book, the same one that he used in class. The store was open and it had a sign in the window saying: “Dear Solicitor General, why should we not be allowed to be open? We are selling the same goods that the drug store just down the street is selling.” The current law is a mess.

It is very hard to argue against the principle of local option but I have heard the arguments that, in practice, there will be problems: this domino effect is going to occur. But if we look at the evidence and go beyond the rhetoric, municipal regulation of store hours has worked well in Ontario for many years. Municipalities have long had the power to regulate store hours from Monday morning to Saturday midnight. A few municipalities allow stores to open 24 hours a day but many others restrict openings to one or two nights a week.

Municipalities have had the power to regulate store hours at night and they have done so effectively. We do not have wide-open night shopping in Ontario. The experience in Alberta and British Columbia, where the local option on Sunday shopping is in effect, is similar: Many municipalities do not adopt Sunday shopping. Sometimes I think we attribute too much power to ourselves here in the legislative chamber. Governments do not themselves dictate when businesses open. The market plays a major role.

In the city of Toronto, most stores can be legally open 24 hours a day. How many stores are open those hours? Not that many. It is a business decision. I expect that, whatever laws we pass here today, stores will open when they feel that they have sufficient business to be open. Just because a municipality says a store can be open on Sunday does not mean that stores will be open on Sunday.

I think the third issue that has been raised today is the most important one, that is, what will really happen if some municipalities do exercise a local option to allow some stores in some areas to remain open? For most Ontario families, there will be little change because the reality, unlike the bucolic picture painted by our friends across the way, is that we already have a significant amount of activity on Sunday in Ontario.

1640

About 34 per cent of our workforce already works some Sundays. That is more than 1.5 million workers and, yes, some of those workers work in services that we would all define as essential -- police and accident -- but many of them do not. We have people in the fast-food industry, people in the recreation industry, theatre, sports, bookstores, the media -- I do not know if they would consider themselves nonessential. But the opposition has not said very much about people who are already working on Sundays. It seems that it would be a terrible thing to expand Sunday shopping in the slightest, but they really have not said very much about those who are working on Sundays now. I do not think the opposition is being particularly principled or particularly consistent in its position on this issue.

In some communities people will appreciate the greater flexibility offered by the local option. For shift workers, double-income or single-parent families, spreading shopping over the entire weekend could give them more time with family members. Some people find that shopping is in itself a family activity. There is absolutely no evidence that family life has suffered in Alberta or British Columbia or in the 25 communities in Ontario with a population of about five million people which have already chosen Sunday shopping through the tourist exemption.

I submit that the local option on Sunday opening is the best option for Ontario, the best answer to a difficult problem. It is an honest and straightforward approach. It responds to the increasing diversity of our communities and gives residents in them greater choice. It permits gradual rather than drastic change. Much like the bill that 38 years ago let municipalities decide on Sunday sports, the local option on Sunday shopping means that this decision will be made by the people who best understand the values of their community.

The Premier today quoted Premier Frost. I want to quote the Premier on February 8. Local option “takes into account the diverse nature of this province. It allows municipalities to make decisions with respect to the unique natures of their own municipalities. It does not imply for a minute that the whole place would be wide open. That decision will be made by people who best understand the community values, varying from community to community.”

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to take part in this debate and I think we should make it clear immediately what we are debating. We are debating the issue of open Sundays. Oh, those people over on that side can go to almost any length to try to prove this is just local option. My leader gave the reasons why it is not local option. Once one goes, they will go like dominoes and they will all have it.

Just recently the Association of Municipalities of Ontario said that. They represent the municipalities that are going to be saddled with this and they say that this means open Sundays across Ontario. I want to say to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) that regardless of his arguments, I believe AMO before I believe his government because it has a vested interest in passing the buck. What AMO says I believe, and that is why we are debating this issue.

But we are debating more than that here. We are really debating the qualities of a government. I say to members on the other side that their government is displaying four pretty undesirable characteristics in proceeding with any bill to open Sundays, or do the same thing, they say, by referring the decision to the municipalities. I want to say that they are characteristics I deplore; in fact, I despise them. I think the people of this province do the same thing and I think that was shown in the London North by-election.

First of all, the government is breaking election promises and contradicting its prior statements. As has already been mentioned, we had the all-party committee which reported last May unanimously in opposition to wide-open Sundays. What the government has done now is a complete reversal; in fact, what the government has done is doublecross that committee. The surprising thing is that the Solicitor General, for the first time I have seen it, has doublecrossed herself because she was on that committee, and the public looks at it in that regard.

We had the statement of the Premier during the last election, on August 4. I have it in front of me: “Premier David Peterson said yesterday he has no plans to make major changes to Ontario’s controversial Sunday closing law.” Then he goes on to say, “‘My own view is you try as best you can to reflect the value of society on an issue like that.’” That was his argument against open Sundays.

The Premier of this province has not only done one total flip-flop; he has done two. In the 1985 provincial election, he was in favour of open Sundays. In the 1987 election, he was against open Sundays and now, six months later, he is in favour of them again. I suggest that is a pretty serious situation in the minds of the public, to make that kind of flip-flop twice, and that was reflected in the results of the election.

Even the statement of the Solicitor General has to be a classic. She is not in the House at the present time, but back during the last week of November last year, according to the Toronto Star, she said that to turn this back to the municipalities would be “the chicken way out.” One week later she does exactly that, does again a total flip-flop.

If you add to that the breaking of promises on education financing; if you add to that the breaking of promises on public housing; if you add to that the breaking of commitments on beer and wine in the grocery stores -- and I am glad the government did on that one -- I just want to say that the Peterson government is trying to outdo the Mulroney government in destroying its credibility.

The second point I want to make is that this government demonstrates a high degree of arrogance in going against public wishes. This is not a complicated matter about which you can say, “Well, the public out there doesn’t understand it.” It is not some matter of great human rights the public may be against. This was nothing but political expediency, because the polls at the time this government made its announcement showed that the majority of the public was in favour of it

Of course, those polls have changed now. If you can put any credibility in what the Premier says, that his “own view is you try as best you can to reflect the value of society on an issue like that,” he would do another flip-flop. It is not hard for him to do it. The time has come when he should do it again.

I have here the results of a poll. I am not sure whether the poll is private, but the government has the results. It states: “A majority of Ontarians are now opposed to stores being allowed to stay open on Sundays, a reversal of the pattern found last August and a reversal of the pattern found last November.” We got this change for political expediency. It had nothing to do with principles. If they are that committed to political expediency, they should make the change again.

I think any of us know from the mail we are getting that the public are opposed to what the government is proposing. I presented in this House last February a petition with 20,000 names on it from the Niagara Peninsula, only a section of the Niagara Peninsula, in opposition to what the government is doing. I have had hundreds of letters from people who are opposed to the open Sunday, to what the government is doing. I have not had one letter from any individual supporting open Sundays. I suggest that even the Liberal back-benchers, if they would get up and be honest in this House, would say that their mail is running far and away in opposition to open Sunday shopping.

Of course, in the by-election in London North which was just held, once again nobody can deny that Sunday shopping, what the government proposed, was a major issue. Nobody can deny that. What is their position there now? I think the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) knows, as does everybody else in this House, that that was very much a judgement on what the people thought about the government’s proposals for open Sundays. There were other issues, sure -- the issue of credibility was another issue -- but it was very much a referendum on that.

1650

There are shades of the Trudeau era in the arrogance this government is showing in going against the wishes of the people of this province. And you know, it is cheap buck-passing to give it back to the municipalities. It is nonsense to say that we cannot define tourist areas. We are dealing with legislation all the time that is not perfect. It cannot be perfect. Certainly the government can work out, if it wants to, legislation which is generally acceptable relative to tourist areas if it thinks it should. It cannot define the basic minimum wage absolutely accurately. It cannot define the minimum drinking age absolutely accurately. It cannot define policy on bitters or any of those things. It can define policy on tourist areas if it wants to. The government does not want to; it wants to pass the buck back to the local municipalities. That is the purpose of what the government is doing.

I also want to say that, unfortunately, this government is prepared to readjust the values of our society -- those may sound like harsh words, but I suggest to the House that that is true -- to give commercialism a higher priority and reduce moral and family standards. That was true with regard to the government’s proposal for beer and wine in the grocery store as well. It could be demonstrated -- oh, not to a great degree, perhaps -- that that could be harmful to our society with a greater degree of drinking. Now, the government going to open Sundays is doing the same sort of thing. The United States has done all of this. You talk about jurisdictions here. Well, go to the United States and you will recognize that down there their standards are somewhat lower than they are here, whether in regard to crime, broken families, drugs, theft or rape. All crime is higher.

Finally, I just want to say that we all know that the churches in this province are unanimously opposed to opening on Sundays. We may not think this is a religious issue, and it is not. It is really an ethical issue; it really is a family issue. But they do to a very substantial degree set the moral values in our society. I think we should pay some attention to them and I think the government should withdraw this stupid bill.

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to again have the opportunity of participating in the debate in regards to this very contentious issue. It gives me great pleasure to think that, after the recess we have had, I have had the opportunity of coming back on our first day not only to participate in question period but now to participate in the debate concerning Sunday shopping.

I would be remiss not to congratulate the leader of the official opposition and my New Democratic Party colleagues for bringing forward the resolution so that all of us may concentrate for this afternoon some of the thoughts and ideas that we have in these chambers and so that the people at home might have the opportunity to evaluate what is taking place here.

It is interesting. We got a lot of criticism from that large Liberal majority government about the part that the Conservative Party played in regard to the free trade debate resolution. I can tell you that that Liberal resolution was supported by the New Democratic Party, and yet they were tolerant, as an opposition, to appreciate some of the major philosophical concerns we had about the resolution.

I say to my colleagues in the now opposition that there will come a time when there will be a particular issue that we will not be too sympathetic with but, indeed, with the kind of support and tolerance they showed us back over the Christmas holidays, I will be one who will stand in my place and show them that kind of support when that kind of issue comes forward. I am looking at members such as the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), who can get very agitated over labour issues. There will come a time -- and members can rely on us -- when those people want to make a point with that Liberal administration, and it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to stand up and support and work along with the NDP caucus. I thank them very much for allowing us this opportunity that we may work hand in hand, because I can remember back in 1985 another particular instance where they worked hand in hand with another group, much to my dismay. But there will be other times and other places, and I look forward to that opportunity when I am sure, I say to the House leader, there will be reconsiderations after the next election, when the people of Ontario bring forward and look at these broken promises.

I remind the people at home, you think about this debate three years from now, because we are going to be reminding you about the -- well, I used to say the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, but I have been re-evaluating my stand on that. Indeed, over the last six months, I say to the House leader and the Minister of Health, I have been giving them much too much credit. That is not to say I do not appreciate the uniqueness of the individuals across there who are really running the show. I say to the back-benchers that they should go back and read my first speech on instructions to them on how to make their points heard to that front bench. No one, alas, has yet listened to me, but I am hoping.

I want someone from the back bench of the Liberal Party to stand up and tell me what really happened in the Liberal caucus about Sunday shopping. Let us really hear the story, or did the -- again, it is not the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, because I was elevating them too high. Do members know what they are now? The Four Ponypeople of the Calamity. That is what they are around here.

They cannot get their act together with regard to issues that are affecting all the people of Ontario. This is the pass-the-buck routine, and I am so disappointed. I cannot believe it, actually, from those four intelligent individuals, whom I have gotten to know over the years, like the other old-timers who have been around. I think of the Premier. I can remember when the Premier sat in the second bench over here behind Stuart Smith. He was not even thought of as leader potential, never mind as Premier of the province. I can think of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). How can I knock him after all the years he has served in these chambers? How about the House leader himself, a learned colleague of mine, elected about the same time as I was elected. Indeed, we enjoy the same areas of interest: historical context of Ontario, Canada and the United States. Indeed, I think of the Attorney General, whom I have not known long as a colleague, but I know that as a solicitor his fame has gone before him. Individually, they are fine people. It is the policies I am having trouble with.

I say to the House leader and to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), this policy in regard to Sunday shopping baffles the imagination. It is unbelievable. I had to choke down with laughter when the House leader spoke, criticizing us over here for -- I remember the word -- rhetoric. If there was one person in these chambers who has been accustomed to the word “rhetoric,” hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, sitting in these opposition benches, rambling on at great length criticizing the Conservative government of Ontario and saying it should be listening to the people, I say to the House leader that it is the opposition’s time now and he should be listening to the people, because he knows full well that, as that by-election has shown, he is off base on this one. He really is.

I want to quote an interesting comment from another very learned, interesting person of these chambers, none other than myself. Lo and behold, I was in the forefront in leading the opposition to this. On December 1, 1987, when the Solicitor General -- holy smokes; four minutes left and I am not even warmed up yet -- and as critic I had the opportunity and stood up to her and said: “Thanks, at long last. Just before Christmas, we have got a statement from you, but the statement is nonsensical because you are passing the buck. You are not taking on the responsibility .”

There is going to be chaos across the province. Right here in Hansard it says that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) was yelling, “Oh, but Ontario is unique.” Of course it is unique, but the government is going to have chaos from municipality to municipality, from Newcastle to Oshawa to Whitby, up to Port Perry, into Toronto --

An hon. member: And North Bay.

Mr. Cureatz: -- and North Bay. They are going to have a diversity that is going to be so complicated, people are not going to appreciate which area they can or cannot shop in.

Everyone has mentioned the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I could go on at great length in terms of some of the problems that my municipality sees. The city of Oshawa has complained in regard to an editorial in the Oshawa Times saying, “They are throwing it back in the Liberal lap.”

1700

The township of Scugog has addressed a letter to me indicating its displeasure about the manner in which this large Liberal majority government, this Trudeau-style government, has taken on this Sunday shopping issue. The town of Whitby has forwarded to me correspondence expressing its concerns.

What about across other interest groups? We can take a look at the letter from Citizens for Public Justice addressed to all members of the assembly concerned about the manner in which they are proposing Sunday shopping. I thank my seatmate of the Liberal Party, the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham), for refreshing my memory on a particular incident that took place here in which the Minister of Labour, the Solicitor General and none other than the member for Sarnia took part in a debate regarding Sunday shopping.

It is lucky the Minister of Labour is not here. He would get all upset with me and shake his fist because it said here, “Waving a finger and raising his voice, he said” -- it sounds like somebody I know – “‘I do not care if every store is open for every Sunday. We are not destroying our families. Our families are stronger than that.’ He went on in great anger, admonishing all who were participating in the debate.”

The government is showing signs that it cannot handle the flak. Why does it not bite the bullet a bit and say, “Look, we made a mistake.” To the Four Ponypeople over there, I say to the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway), he should get together with the Premier, the Treasurer and the Attorney General.

Bill Davis used to have the breakfasts, which I was never invited to. I admit to that. I say they are not inviting any Liberal back-bencher to those breakfasts, which is fine. I am probably shedding some light now on how this place really operates. They used to meet at the Park Plaza. Maybe they meet at the Sutton Place. Have the breakfast and say: “Fellows, we blew this one. Our back bench is in revolt. They really did not want this in the first place. The municipal politicians are going out this fall to hammer the heck out of us, because if people are going to be demanding from the municipal politicians at election time what their stand is, they are going to be knocking you people from here to the next election.” I can hardly wait to wring my hands with glee.

Those people who presently work on Sunday have been mentioned. Do members think those people really want to work on Sunday? No doubt it adds a bit of cash income, but I bet on the whole they would much rather have that day of rest and be at home with their families. I think they would much rather at least have the opportunity to be at home and not be at the whim of municipalities across Ontario.

It grieves me to no end to think that those four intelligent individuals -- I say to the former mayor of Brantford, the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann), whom I got to know over one of our last little committee meetings down in Washington -- it grieves me to think that with the kind of capability they have from the political instincts, the learned intelligence that they have gained over the years in these hallowed chambers, they cannot see the folly in their ways. I ask them, once and for all on behalf of the people in Durham East and all the people of Ontario, to re-evaluate their position. I am sure they will come up with a satisfactory conclusion, as the Conservatives did on their past --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to participate in this debate that I have enjoyed very much indeed. I have listened with great interest to the interventions of my friends the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) and elsewhere.

Mr. Laughren: No rhetoric now, no rhetoric.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Nickel Belt advises me to avoid the rhetoric, and I think that is good advice. I am happy to say that on this, as on so many other occasions, I will happily accommodate him.

I have listened very carefully to what my friends are saying. I am measuring what I am hearing against what I know to be the practice, both in terms of many of the communities I know in this province and what I know to be the long-standing practices in much of the public policy field in this province for many years. I cannot do much for the member for Durham East if he cannot stand the heat of a controversial public debate.

I am sorry the member for Welland-Thorold is leaving, since he was so free to offer opinions about what the verdict of last Thursday in London might mean with respect to the regulation of store hours. I ask him as he takes his leave whether he will come back here in three weeks’ time and share with us what he thinks the verdict in Manitoba three weeks hence might say about government-run auto insurance. I just throw out the challenge to my friend the member for Welland-Thorold, who has been so free with his advice on that subject over so many months and years, that I know, now that we have the benefit of his analytical insight on election results, he will want to come back here in three weeks’ time, if for no other benefit than to share with our friend the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) what it is the member for Welland-Thorold thinks the voters of Manitoba will do on April 26.

I am sorry if the member for Durham East finds it difficult to have to make choices, to sometimes have to make tough choices, because, quite frankly, that is the nature of the business we are in and I do not have his difficulty. I do not have a lot of the other difficulties that he and some of his other colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party, seem to have in this respect.

I live in rural, small-town eastern Ontario. Actually, I live in the city of Pembroke, but we are the heartland of the rural east. Now, this world that so many people are describing is a world that I have a difficult time finding. I hear the member for Durham East decry local option.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Go home more often.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the member for Windsor-Riverside that I will be returning to his views on this subject presently.

How can any self-respecting Tory stand up in this chamber and express upset about local option? From the beginning of the Whitney administration to the end of the Miller government, the Tory party in Ontario, with great effect and great irregularity, has held up local option as the solution for everything from the enormously controversial liquor problems of the earlier and later decades in this century to Sunday sport. So if it is true, as my friends in the opposition say, “No, no, talk not of local option,” I wonder what Bill Davis and Howard Ferguson and all of those other wonderful Tories, including Les Frost, whose wonderful advice was recited here this afternoon, would say.

The genius of the Tories in the days of liquor policy was the genius of local option. I do not know what they are saying about their own past, but I find it passing strange that the Tory party in 1988 would express upset, disinterest, objection over local option. Surely my distinguished colleague and fellow graduate of Queen’s University, the member for Durham East, knows better than all the rest of that group that local option is not only part of the mainstream of the province’s past but is also a very, very helpful mechanism to address the very considerable diversity in this province today.

To my friends in the official opposition, I have listened very carefully today and I have tried to avoid thinking that Brian Mulroney is right when he charges that the modern New Democratic Party has become front and centre of all that is reactionary and conservative in the land. I have listened to the New Democratic Party and I have listened to some say we need a pause day, and I have listened to others say, “Well, we’ve got to have some flexibility and we probably should have the tourist exemption,” and then I recall that my friend the House leader for the New Democratic Party was reported in the Windsor Star, a journal which I always take very seriously, just a year and a half ago, as having said, “I am not absolutely convinced myself that Sunday shopping is something that should be halted.”

Of course, the member for Windsor-Riverside understands that, because in his part of southwestern Ontario he knows very well that while Windsor, using the local option of the tourist exemption, decides to remain closed, 15 or 20 miles away another community in Amherstburg makes a slightly different choice. The member for Windsor-Riverside knows from personal experience what the realities are.

I say to my friends in the opposition, I want some intellectual consistency. We may have our faults in this party, and I am the first to admit that, but I say to my friends from Hamilton East to Durham East, if they are opposed to local opinion, they had better have the guts and the consistency to stand up and be counted as being opposed to local option. That has surely got to mean that they are opposed and will remain opposed to what has been, over the last 12 years, the transparent local option of the Retail Business Holidays Act, which has been the tourist exemption.

In the words of one of my predecessors, the former member for South Renfrew and Minister of Mines in the Frost administration, the late James A. Maloney, “You can’t suck and blow at one and the same time.” They have to make a choice, I say to my friends, and I can appreciate their desire to want to have it both ways.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of privilege: The government House leader is making a big to-do about consistency. I wonder if he could, in his last two minutes, tell us where the consistency is in the pre-election Liberal position and the post-election Liberal position.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The government is quite prepared to discharge its responsibilities. I can appreciate why my friend from Windsor-Riverside is nervous over there, because the record bespeaks his past commitment. The landscape is littered with the creative tension within the official opposition.

He does not want me to recite chapter and verse as to where it is, for example, the leader of the party stands in contradistinction to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). He would not, for example, want me to recite a number of the other internal and external tensions.

But I say to my friends opposite, they have to make a choice. If they are opposed to local option, they had better be opposed to local option. They are not going to have the luxury of saying, “We’re opposed to local option, for downtown Schreiber or in downtown Windsor or in uptown Chapleau -- we understand that of course uptown Chapleau is different from downtown Bowmanville -- and surely Queen’s Park would want to recognize that.” No big provincial government wants to come down four-square against the local rhythms of local communities.

I live in a community where we have had a closed Sunday, where we are going to continue to have a closed Sunday. Quite frankly, as a resident of the city of Pembroke, that is the way I want it. But 25 miles away, in the heart of the rural township of Grattan, we have a very large supermarket that has been open -- my friend the member for Hamilton East might know what I am speaking of -- and that municipality has opted, under local option-tourist exemption, call it what you will -- to keep that open.

I say to my friends opposite, who are we to say that local communities, in the best tradition of Leslie Frost, ought not to do in those respects what it is they want to do?

Mr. Farnan: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I would like to start off simply by saying that by their actions and not by their words, you will know them. By their deeds and not by their words, you will know them.

I would like to put this measure to the government, the measure of integrity. In a democratic system of government, if we expect the citizens to have any degree of confidence in our system, if there is to be a sense of honesty and integrity in government, then there must be a direct correlation between the platform during an election and the government’s actions once elected.

Can we blame the citizens of this province if they view the acts and the actions of the government and the Premier as exercises in duplicity and deceit? If during the election they hear the Premier and the government enunciate one thing on Sunday shopping, and if after the election they see the government move in a totally different direction, it is not surprising at all that by the measure of integrity in government, the people of Ontario will say this government has failed and this government is unworthy.

There is a price for any government to pay that acts in such a manner.

Let me look at the measure of strength of character. I have heard so much expounded by the various government members about toughness in taking decisions. This is simply a façade of strength of character. What we have is posturing. We have the Marlon Brando mumble of the Premier. We have a mockery in place, in fact, as the government, acting in a role similar to Pontius Pilate, washes its hands of the decision and says: “We will not make the decision. We will pass it on to the municipalities.” It is a mockery of the municipalities, because the municipalities themselves have said to the government that what it is doing is wrong.

To the back-benchers of the Liberal government: to some extent I feel regret and sorrow at the situation and the lack of ability of these members to make themselves heard. All the Liberals of the Waterloo region have gone on record as saying that they themselves are personally opposed to Sunday shopping. We all know that is what we are talking about: Sunday shopping, not the option. They are personally opposed, and Liberal back-benchers from across the province are personally opposed, yet they will sheepishly file in and support this direction, whose end result is wide-open shopping. I hope the people of Ontario will look at the lack of moral toughness in facing up to the decisions, in making known, in standing up and voting against this direction of the government.

Let us go to the measure of just listening to the people of Ontario. I would like to tell members of a forum on Sunday shopping that I hosted in Cambridge. There was a broad coalition of various groups within my community: church groups; local business improvement area associations, the downtown Business Improvement Association of Cambridge and the Golden Mile Business Improvement Association; union groups; individual businessmen and workers; the chambers of commerce. The unanimous opinion of all these groups was that they were opposed to the municipal option and its consequence of wide-open shopping on Sundays.

In my constituency of Cambridge, I have received over 400 letters from individuals opposed to the Sunday shopping option. I have received several petitions from groups and thousands of responses to a questionnaire I sent throughout the community opposing Sunday shopping.

Independent businesses in Cambridge have let me know that they are opposed: Smitty’s Fine Furniture store, Valenti’s, Keleher’s, Cambridge Honda, Cashway Building Centres, Tyssen of Galt, F. J. Brown and Son, Mil’s Motors, Kirkham’s Television and Appliances, Griffiths’ Sports Centre, Grand River Toyota, Widmar Plumbing and Heating, Cambridge Keyboards, Perrin Building Materials Ltd., Highview Motors and Ridgehill Ford. These businesses used their own money and placed full-page ads in Cambridge local papers with a clip ad which individuals could send to my office expressing their disagreement with wide-open Sunday shopping.

Every segment of the community is saying to the province, “You are wrong;” and the province, this government, this Premier, is refusing to listen. It is a fact that people will accept governments making mistakes if the government will simply admit it made a mistake and attempt to remedy the situation. What the people of Ontario need not, should not and will not accept is a government that refuses to listen to the voices of all of the various sectors of the community saying: “You are wrong. Stop before it is too late.”

In addition to all of these others, I want to come back to the church groups that have expressed opposition. I believe we are all indebted to the churches of Ontario for the service they have provided in developing the moral fibre that strengthens our society. I do not think that Christians and religious leaders need apologize for working to promote a common pause day. The traditional values that have been promoted by our churches, the values of family and worship, are integral to a healthy and strong Ontario.

1720

If the leaders of our churches are saying to the Liberal government, “For God’s sake, stop; we think what you are doing is wrong,” would the government please listen to those religious leaders in our society, as well as all the other sectors of our community? By their actions, we will know them. By their actions, we will judge them. It is simply a fact that the people of Ontario have been lied to. There has been dishonesty. The government says one thing and does something else. That is the measure of dishonesty.

There has been a cowardly approach on the part of the government. They talk about tough decisions, but this is the most cowardly approach I have witnessed since I entered this House, the government washing its hands and saying: “This is a tough decision. We do not want to carry the ball. Let’s give it to the municipalities. Let them take the heat.” The municipalities are saying no, it should be a provincial decision. Finally, there is the whole area of being insensitive to the people of Ontario, refusing to listen.

If there is any quality that I personally think represents the democratic process, it has to be politicians who are sensitive to and willing to lend their ear to the voice of the people they represent. A government that does not listen to the people it represents is not only insensitive and unhearing; it is arrogant. It is saying to the people, “We know what is best for you.” This, of course, will not be accepted by the people of Ontario.

On all of these measures, the government has failed. I urge members of the government and members of its back benches to please consider the responsibility they have to the people they represent, to the businesses, to the union workers, to the churches, to the single mothers, to the children of this province, to the traditional values that have made Ontario strong. Please support them.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am pleased to participate in the debate today. In fact, I do not think there is an issue that has come before this House in some time that has been more controversial in my riding than this single issue. I have had many years of experience in the retail business; over a quarter of a century. I also served on municipal council for several years. I know the impact on the retail businesses and also on the small municipal councils that will be faced with making this very serious decision that our House leader suggests would be in their best interests.

I feel I can speak on behalf of my constituents because I do not think I can recall receiving a single letter or phone call expressing support for this government’s initiative. I have received numerous, many hundreds, opposing this proposition of local autonomy and local option. Of 21 local municipal councils, one of the councils passed a resolution condemning the government for taking this approach. It has been endorsed by many of the municipal councils in my riding and I assume the vast majority of them will support it before the time is out.

I might mention the Association of Municipalities of Ontario meeting. “‘Sunday shopping is not a municipal option,’ they state. In a nearly unanimous vote, three dissenting, the board of directors of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario reaffirmed the municipal position on Sunday shopping.

“The board of directors resolved that the Premier and executive council of Ontario be advised that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario maintains its position that municipalities should not be charged with the responsibility of regulating retail store hours on Sundays and holidays.”

They made it quite clear that they do not wish to take on this responsibility. They feel that the government, instead of weaselling out, should carry the load and make the decision based on the best interests of all the province and not individual municipalities.

The House leader takes a great deal of pleasure out of the fact that some of the members in opposition are supporters of local autonomy and I, for one, am very strongly supportive of that. I say to the minister, if he wants to give them this role of making a decision based on the Sunday shopping issue, what about more control of their planning, their local municipal bylaws pertaining to planning, to land severances, to acquiring and attracting industry and commercial business ventures into their communities? The government takes that away from them; it is maintained in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

If the government does wish to give local autonomy, then it should give it where it means something and not cop out on this issue. The government has itself in a bind. It does not know how to handle it, so it turns it over to the local municipalities, and it knows they do not want it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: What’s the tourist exemption if not a local option?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The Solicitor General said that it would be the chicken way out to go that route. I believe it was towards the end of November that the Solicitor General said it would be the chicken way out to turn it over to the municipalities. Then on December 1, 1987 --

Mr. Villeneuve: She turned chicken.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: -- she turned chicken and said “it is the intention of the government to introduce in the new year legislative changes allowing individual municipalities to regulate Sunday openings.” Perhaps the chickens will come home to roost, and maybe they already started to do so just last Thursday. I hope this is only the first of many of the chickens returning.

The Liberal government mentions the fact that it is so open, that it believes in listening to people and responding to their wishes. It brags about an open government. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops sent out a memo which most of us received. They state: “We urge the government to heed the appeals of families, workers and business leaders and to reverse its policy of local option. We believe that only province-wide policy will protect the family values which we and many other concerned citizens consider to be unquestionably at stake.”

It is supported by the churches, the unions, the retail merchants, the municipalities and hundreds and thousands of our citizens, and of course, the Conservative Party of this province.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Bingo is doomed.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I guess since the debate was initiated by the New Democratic Party, we will give it credit too.

Mr. McLean: It’s our issue.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The Treasurer, at a recent rural session of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, refused to consider the request by the municipalities to discard this ill-conceived idea.

I think some of the members will remember that in the House on February 10, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is away settling beer prices, whether he would consider Sunday opening for Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores. He floundered around and made a couple of stupid statements, and then after being corrected by staff of the Premier reversed himself and said that indeed the government would not permit the sale of alcohol even in municipalities that opted for Sunday shopping.

When I questioned him the next day in the House, he said, “We think that the number of hours that the liquor stores are open now is appropriate and we do not contemplate a change.”

1730

If six days is enough time to sell liquor, and I concur that it is enough time, it is also enough time to sell most retail products, so we do not need a seven-day week for retailers.

At the recent conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that I referred to, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), the former Minister of Tourism, said -- he said something, I am sure -- in referring to the Sunday opening: “The current situation has been a hodgepodge. The tourist-area option to open is important because of the emphasis on tourism in Ontario, and if you don’t want to be open, you don’t have to be open.”

That is an idiotic statement on its own, because any retail merchant who is faced by competition that is open has to open his store or he goes out of business.

Second, if he is so concerned with open Sundays to provide business for tourism, what kind of a hodgepodge of affairs will we have where one town is open and one town completely closed? The options now are much better the way they are.

Hon. Mr. Conway: So you are opposed to the tourist exemption. That is simple; nothing wrong with that; you are opposed to the tourist exemption.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I suggest to the House leader that there is not anything wrong with the present legislation that an all-party committee could not sit down and revamp to make the very small changes necessary to make it satisfactory to the vast majority of the people of this province, with the exception of a few furriers.

In a plebiscite to ask the question, “Are you in favour of Sunday shopping?” the answer for most people would likely be that they would not mind Sunday shopping. But if you ask them the next question, “Would you like to work on Sunday?” the answer nearly always is no.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But I do. I’d rather not, but I do.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That includes you too.

I must mention, since my good friend and colleague the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) is in attendance, that there is an excellent article in the Guelph Royal Tribune stating that the member received a 7,700-name petition opposing Sunday openings. I was very pleased that he presented the petition to the House this afternoon. I know that he supports that petition and that he will do the best he can to convince his stubborn front-benchers to listen to the good views of the majority of the back-bench Liberals’ who strongly support the family tradition of Sunday as a day of rest.

I look forward to those people taking the lead to convince their white knight from London not to try to lead us into the 20th century but let us meander into it in our own way.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I rise with some degree of honour to be allowed to participate in this debate. I have had it put to me, this House has had it put to it by the opposition, that it is a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration.

I would just like to suggest that the rules of the game were enforced last Sunday under the Retail Business Holidays Act and the rules of the game will be enforced next Sunday. Quite frankly, they are not changing today or tomorrow and there is no big public urgency which demands this debate.

None the less, we are happy to participate. They think it is important. Quite frankly, the gallery is not full. No one else has deemed it to be important.

In his opening, the Leader of the Opposition alleged that the government has breached its promise by allowing wide-open Sunday shopping. He alleges that this government’s policy is driven by the interests of commercialism.

At the outset, I want to suggest three things: (1) the government has not breached its promise; (2) the government has not allowed wide-open Sunday shopping; and (3) this government’s policy, as opposed to the nonpolicies of both the opposition parties, is driven by a very important policy: that is the principle of democracy, the principle upon which we were all elected. In its particular form in this debate, that principle of democracy is the local option.

It is not a principle without predecessors. It is not a principle that we created, as our House leader has told you. It is a principle which informed the Ontario Liquor Licence Act back in 1885. It is a principle which informed the Lord’s Day Act. It is a principle which the then Premier, Leslie Frost, relied on. The Premier today, Premier Peterson, has referred us to Premier Frost’s comments. I would like to reiterate them.

Back in 1950, when local option had been alive already in Ontario for 65 years, Premier Frost said: “I do not think, Mr. Speaker, anything could be more flexible than that to meet the great requirements and the varying conditions in this province. It is strictly democratic. The matter is placed in the hands of the people themselves and in the absolute control of their elected councils. There is nothing wide-open about this act. It does nothing to induce any community to change its pattern of life. It enables the people to settle their own affairs in their own way.”

I would add, in their own community, something that we believe is a very important democratic principle. We, as a government, are not prepared to impose our will on the 850 communities in this province. Members opposite may wish to do so. I can only think of the article in the Globe and Mail on the weekend about the authoritarian nature of some elected officials. We are not like that, we do not impose our will. The people in the community choose the way they want to live.

My friends over there really have fallen into bed with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I think in the last session they accused them of being a bunch of Tory hacks, now they are in bed with them.

Mr. Wildman: Never said that.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Perhaps you did not, but your friend behind you did.

Mr. Wildman: I was talking about the mayor of Sudbury.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: In fact, let me tell you what the mayor of Kingston, the former past-president of AMO, had to say about local option. He said: “Just because it is a hot potato does not mean that the municipalities should not decide it. That is what we are elected for. We are closer to the electorate and, if we are as mature as we say we are, then we should be taking the responsibility. We are always out there asking for more political autonomy” -- these are the local municipalities – “at the local level and now here is the province giving it to us.”

Quite frankly, a man who represented AMO to the entire province is saying he is closer to the people as an elected representative than the provincial politicians. We believe that. That is the policy that informs this policy.

Some people have talked about the domino effect that this legislation will have and previous speakers have mentioned that there are already 25 municipalities which have relied upon the tourist exemption to open their areas for Sunday shopping and over five millions Ontarians have access to that Sunday shopping, and yet the other municipalities have not fallen like dominoes. They stand with their own local opinion being expressed in their local bylaws and their local rules. Point Edward is wide open. Sarnia is closed. Innisville is open. Simcoe is closed. St. George is open. Brantford is closed. Brantford, Sarnia and Simcoe have not fallen. But yes, I do say the existing law is not working and let me tell you why.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would request the speaker to remember to address all his comments to and through the Speaker.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The existing law has what is known as a tourist exemption, and the tourist exemption quite simply states that a municipality, where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry, may exempt that municipality or a regional portion of that municipality from the application of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

1740

The problem, of course, has always been in determining what is a tourist area and what is not. I have heard the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) stand up and say, “I defy any member of this House to tell me that some place in his constituency cannot be considered as a matter of law a tourist region.” Every community in this province believes it has a tourist industry to develop, that tourists do come to that community because it is particularly attractive. Who has the right, in this provincial government, I ask, to say no to them?

The problem with the definition in the law is that you get the type of system which the Globe and Mail describes as follows: “Local municipalities have the power, where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry, to allow stores in a certain location to open on Sundays. Metro Toronto has decided that Chinatown, Harbourfront and Markham Street Village may open, but that Yorkville and the Eaton Centre may not.”

That is the decision of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, but we have been informed very clearly of the inequity and unfairness of that law and the way the tourist exemption is applied. For instance, let us remember Mr. Magder, who had to go to the Supreme Court of Canada because he was selling fur coats 300 feet north of Chinatown, outside the tourist area, while another merchant in Chinatown was selling fur coats within the exempted tourist area. That is one of the obvious inequities and unfairnesses of that law in its application.

Both leaders of the opposition parties and the speakers they have marshalled have told us there is a wellspring of support for their point of view and that all the newspapers and their editorialists are crying out in opposition to our plan to extend the democratic principle of local option to the municipalities, to the local communities where it belongs. I find that hard to believe.

I looked at the quote in the Toronto Sunday Sun: “The local option approach recognizes that the same lifestyle does not apply uniformly across this province.” The Kingston Whig-Standard: “It would give us more control over our lives.” The Oshawa Times -- the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) should listen to this one – “Apparently it is quite all right to decide whether umpteen million dollars will be spent on building a new street” -- i.e., it is all right for a municipality to decide that – “but it is too difficult to decide whether stores will be open for five hours on Sunday.”

The editorials go on, but these are the people in the members’ communities whom they have chosen to ignore, the people in their communities to whom they say: “I know what’s better. I will impose my will upon them. I will not allow them to make a choice.” That is what it is all about. That is what democracy is all about and that is how it works, but some people have not yet recognized it.

Mr. Breaugh: But they will.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: The member will. I look forward to that day.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to participate in this debate on Sunday work by local option; that is exactly what it is. I listened with some interest to the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and, more recently, to the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) -- although he did not use the expression, it was used by the member for Renfrew North -- say that you cannot suck and blow at the same time; then I heard two classic examples of it from both of them in their presentations.

I find this local option interesting, the idea that you are somehow or other undemocratic if you do not want to abide by this local option. We certainly had a stirring defence from the government House leader of local option and why it should be and why this was democratic. I just remind him, though, that he is insisting on the local option for a bunch of municipalities which made it very clear they do not want it. I really wonder at the democracy he is talking about in this particular kind of proposition.

The other thing I notice in his comments is that it is not really a debate on option. I think they destroyed that argument themselves. It is a debate for Sunday shopping, and that is clearly what this government is coming down on the side of. They are just trying to disguise it with the local option argument.

I differ from this party and the Premier on the Sunday shopping or Sunday work issue simply because my constituents do know where I stand on it. They know what I have told them and what I said during the campaign. We do a lot of communicating back and forth with my constituents, and they know I am not likely to change that overnight. That is not what they know from this government, because they had a fairly clear indication that this was not the route we were going from no less than the Premier himself and certainly comments from some of the other cabinet ministers in their past roles in committees before they took on their new responsibilities.

What do we have them now saying? We have them doing an about-face. I wonder. My constituents may not like it or they may like it, but they know where I stand and they know I am good for my word. They no longer know that about the Premier and this government.

I want also to say very clearly the idea that you cannot have some kind of a domino effect -- and I do not argue that will happen in every case -- is a false one. I know what will happen in my constituency. There we have the major city of Hamilton, a number of shopping malls that reach out into the suburbs and major communities in Ancaster, Dundas and Stoney Creek. Let me tell members right now, first off, there is really not enough business to open it up for one more full day of shopping. I am not sure what they all gain out of it but I do know the way the marketplace works.

The minute one of those communities -- I will take, for the sake of argument, Stoney Creek, and we have had the experience before some of the current legislation -- decides it is going to open and make a local council decision to that effect, initially there is some more business for it because there are people who will take advantage of that Sunday shopping. But it is exactly that move which starts the ball rolling, and whether it takes a few weeks or a few months, that is about as long as it will go before the government will get the argument from the other communities that, “We did not want it, we did not initiate it but we cannot afford to see our business go out to Stoney Creek.”

That is exactly why the government will then have the other municipalities coming on side. It is what will apply, certainly in Metropolitan Toronto, I suspect, and in most of Ontario. Some individual areas may hold out but not too many of them. So the government is forcing the issue on the other municipalities in Ontario. I do not think it is an approach that behooves this government, particularly, as I said at the beginning, when this is certainly not what it told the people it was going to do and not what the public in Ontario, I am convinced, expected from it when it was elected.

Also, it seems to me that there is an awful lot of emphasis always put on what may be good for business. There are an awful lot of working people involved. The member -- I forget the riding -- in the back row opposite there may have had lots of letters saying they want the option. I too can say, I think totally -- honestly I am just wondering if I may have missed one letter because we have had a lot of correspondence -- I have had all kinds of letters opposing it and all kinds of petitions opposing it. I cannot at the moment bring my mind to one single letter I have had supporting it. I have heard some of the arguments, not in a letter to me but from some of the business people who would like to see the wide-open shopping on Sunday but I certainly have not heard it from the ordinary workers.

I know that their organizations, whether it is the Ontario Federation of Labour, the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Associations and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union or unions that are not directly involved in that field -- the Canadian Auto Workers and the Steelworkers of America -- have all, at their conventions and through the OFL, opposed this wide-open Sunday shopping. They do not see it as being in the interest of workers.

We had a recognition, even by this government, as bad as the bill may have been, that we might need some additional protection for workers in this province as well, to try to protect them if they decided they did not want to work on Sunday. As I tried to point out then, I will try to point out once again to the people in this room, in the retail trade, which will be most affected by this opening, we already have a major move to part-time. It is cheaper and easier for the major retailers to go the part-time route.

We already have a fight developing in the fact that where most of them used to get 30 hours, they have been cut down to 24 hours. In my town it is being cut down to 20 hours in many of these stores. So you get an employee who has a little bit of gumption and says, “Hey, I have not worked on a Sunday up until now. I do not now want to start working on Sundays,” and the boss says, “Yes, you had better.” They have enough gumption that they say, “No, I am not going to.” He does not have to fire them outright. When the worker finds those hours -- and that may have been all he wanted -- the 20 hours suddenly cut to 16 or 12 -- and I have had them use that tactic to get rid of people without firing them -- he has achieved exactly the same thing. It does not take long before the message is there.

1750

I think that what we have to stop and think about in this society is just how much of a caring and decent and civilized society we want. This one issue is not the be-all and end-all, but I think working towards more leisure time is probably one of the most important things that can happen in our society today. I do not particularly want to import the experiences in the US of the wide-open shopping into this country. When we force more people to work in a trade where employers can make it even cheaper by going the part-time route and the low-wage route, we do a real disservice to our people in terms of a caring, decent society.

I do not think the extension of the hours is the right way to go. I do not think it is an honest way to go. I do not think it helps and I think there is real value in the argument that we are all entitled to a pause day or a day of rest, whichever day that may be. But I think the only way you are going to run things in a country like this is by deciding on one day. The tradition is there in this country and that is the Sunday.

I have letters that I could read, like the others can. I thought the one from the church just around the corner from my constituency office, St. Paul’s United, was very telling, and 42 members of the congregation signed it. I do not have time to read it into the record but I would like to. It is a very good one. I thought a letter that I got from a Marsha Macdonald of Balmoral Avenue in my riding, a part-time retail worker, one of those I have been talking about, was very effective. I was impressed and I know my leader read some of it into the record.

One of the better letters, and I hope all members got it, from Janice Rothwell in my riding, told the story the way it should be told. I like the statement of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. I think it told very clearly how it should be. I know how my municipality voted and I know what Hamilton city council and regional council have said to me: “Take a position against this.” That is what they have asked me to do. If it is a tough issue, I do not always take a position the way they want me to but, in this issue, they happen to be right. They happen to be thinking about a more caring and decent and civilized society. That is not what we are getting by opening society wide open in this province. I do not think we are doing the right thing if we do it.

I ask this government to stop and think for a minute. I do not think this is the issue the government was elected on or will fall on, although certainly it was an issue, and the government’s position now is different than when it was elected. I am asking them to stop, have a little bit of care and not say, “Local option, if we want it, you’ve got it,” as one of my colleagues said, which is literally what this particular bill does. It may be time that they backed up a bit and said: “We are not going to push this. We are going to put it on the back burner for three or six months. We are going to take another look at it and have a little bit more debate.”

What does the government have to lose in this issue? What is so immediate and overwhelming about it that they cannot back off a little bit? It may not be what I want politically, but I suspect the government would earn one hell of a lot of credit and a lot of people’s good feelings if it was willing to back off and take a look at this issue. I think it would then be doing the right thing.

Mr. McLean: I take the opportunity to rise today to speak on this very important resolution. This could be one of the most controversial items that this government will ever have the opportunity to deal with.

I remember last September when the Premier indicated that there should not be any great concern or any great change with regard to the Sunday shopping legislation. I am also quite aware of the speeches he has been making since then. I think there are some things in life called integrity, honesty and forthrightness. I find it hard to accept the flip-flops on the government’s position on Sunday shopping. Not only that, but when I think of our children and our grandchildren, I am greatly concerned about that also.

At one time I had to work on Sundays, something I did because of the type of job I had. It was a pleasure when the day came when I did not have to do that. However, today, when we look at people who are working part-time and who have to work on Sundays, their job is on the line if they do not do it. I think of the single parent. I think of the family, when one has to work on that Sunday.

I am also aware of the stance that has been taken by the House leader with regard to what he has said about what is happening across the province, what he is concerned about across the province and what he is aware of in eastern Ontario.

Our party had a task force that travelled the province and looked in depth and had hearings across the province with regard to Sunday openings. This was some time ago, when it was really not an issue. We listened to the people. We listened to what they had to say in Orillia, we listened to what they had to say in Windsor and we listened to what they had to say right across the province. What we were getting back at that time was, “No, we are not in favour of Sunday shopping.”

I believe that two years ago, the task force of the government that brought in a report which the Solicitor General signed said the same thing. Here we are today debating an issue the Premier has said he is going to go ahead with, regardless really of what the people are telling him. I think the people told him last Thursday what they think of his idea. They changed a 17,000 plurality to a loss of approximately 3,500. I think the people of London Centre and London North spoke very clearly about what they think of this very issue and other issues pertaining to education and housing and government funding.

On December 1, 1987, the Solicitor General said that the report of the select committee on retail business hours was idealistic. That, to my way of thinking, is not what they said when they signed that original report, that they did not agree on Sunday hours for stores.

When I look at the tourist exemption that is in the present legislation, I think an all-party committee could deal with that, could change that, could perhaps broaden it, and it would suffice. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario across this province has indicated it does not agree with its being turned back to the municipalities.

I remember one time, as head of a municipality, when we had a vote on very important business within our community. There was a split vote and I, as reeve, had to break that tie. It is not nice when you are in that position. That is what is happening right across the province today.

I know of many areas where. if one municipality were open, the other municipality would be forced to open because of the competitiveness of business. Not only that, but I certainly support an all-party committee whereby we could sit down and broaden the present legislation we have. I would hope that the back-benchers would see fit.

The Acting Speaker: The time for this debate has now expired. It now being six o’clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 6.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

5 avril 1988