Journal des débats 1988-avril-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, yesterday you assisted us with a ruling on statements outside the Legislature, but it still remains true that on April 11 the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) announced in advance of the minister’s statements in the Legislature that a piece of land in his riding would be used not for affordable housing but for a commercial development mix. Imagine our surprise then to find the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosĕk) announcing on April 13 that, in fact, that particular parcel of land was going to be part of a brand new Housing First policy in Ontario.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) got a little more specific than that. He said in Scarborough a nine-acre site at Ellesmere Avenue and McCowan Road was part of the new joint venture for Housing First for affordable housing in Scarborough. Imagine my surprise then this morning when I read in the official paper of record, the Toronto Star, a statement from the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. He said 3.6 hectares, nine acres of land at Ellesmere Avenue and McCowan Road, were inadvertently lumped in with several other sites to be sold by the province for future affordable housing.

“‘There are no plans for government sponsored affordable housing anywhere in Scarborough,’ Faubert said.” Perhaps like Jack Abbott on The Young and the Restless, he is revealing truths that he should not be revealing in this House.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: Yesterday, in response to a suggestion from our House leader that the House sit on Sundays in May so that members of this assembly can see for themselves just what type of disruptions it causes in our lives, as it would in the lives of our constituents, the government House leader went on at great length that such an experiment is not necessary as he already works on Sundays.

The government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), missed the point. He can choose to work on Sunday or he can choose not to work on Sunday at his own leisure, unlike retail workers, who are forced to work. As well, if this House sat on Sundays -- mandatory, mind you; everyone must be present -- then the government House leader could see for himself that it would not just be the members who would be affected, but Legislative Assembly staff as well who would also have their Sundays and family lives disrupted.

However, as the government House leader so proudly boasted yesterday that he works on Sunday, I suggest all his constituents and all the people of this province who oppose the govern-ment’s policy call him this Sunday --

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

UKRAINIAN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUDBURY

Mr. Campbell: I have the pleasure of informing the members of the House that the Dnipro Choir, the Vselka Dancers and the Black Sea Kosaks of the Ukrainian National Federation of Sudbury will perform this July at Expo 88 in Brisbane, Australia.

These superbly talented Sudburians are experienced world performers. The Dnipro Choir has impressed audiences in Ottawa, Expo 86 in Vancouver, the United States, Argentina and Venezuela with its traditional folk songs and light operettas.

All of the members of the Vselka Dancers are choir members. This group is widely known for an energetic and intense stage presence.

Exciting acrobatic steps and eight-part harmony are the trademarks of the innovative Black Sea Kosaks, who have dazzled audiences wherever they have performed.

It is a signal honour bestowed on the Ukrainian National Federation that this performing ensemble is one of only six Canadian groups representing North America at Expo 88.

The Sudburians will be exceptional ambassadors representing all Canadians with pride, skill and charm.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: We have done some examination of the Osbourne report that was tabled yesterday. It confirms that it was not only a useless contribution to the auto insurance debate, but it is extremely inaccurate and misleading. In fact, the research document on which the rejection of public auto insurance was made is a piece of trash. Basic figures and facts which are readily available to anyone are wrong or omitted. Pages 118 and 119 of volume 2 say compulsory, no-fault automobile insurance benefits are similar between Manitoba and Ontario and then they provide comparative figures. I have them here.

It says that medical expenses are $20,000 maximum in Manitoba and $25,000 in Ontario. In fact, anyone who looks at any documents knows it is $100,000 in Manitoba. They say funeral expenses are $1,500 in Manitoba and $1,000 here. In fact, they are $2,500 in Manitoba.

They say loss of income in Manitoba is $150 per week or 70 per cent of gross wages. The fact is that it is a $300 maximum. For Ontario, they say 80 per cent of gross wages, period, nothing else. Of course, everybody here knows the maximum is $140, but they forgot to mention that.

This indicates the worth of that Osborne report and we know what should be done with it.

FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Mrs. Marland: I would like to give the House a list of unfulfilled Liberal promises and commitments.

During the 1987 election campaign, the Liberals made a number of commitments for environmental programs. To date, most of these commitments have been unfulfilled.

With summer rapidly approaching, we look once again to water quality in Lake Ontario. The Liberals promised to double spending to clean up beaches. They promised $150 million; $75 million in new money over five years.

They promised to double spending on the municipal recycling support program to $40 million; $20 million in new money over five years.

Liberals promised to double spending on the security fund to $20 million annually; $10 million in new money.

They promised a $150-million environmental defence loan fund. In addition, the minister should act immediately on the hollow promise made in 1985 to establish a $30-million perpetual care fund based on the US Superfund.

To meet all the 1987 Liberal environmental campaign promises, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will have to give the green light to increase the Ministry of the Environment’s budget by $184 million this year, a 50 per cent increase in the ministry budget.

I am anxiously awaiting to see the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) open the doors of the great Loomis truck across the street at 7 Queen’s Park Crescent and deliver, in an environmentally safe manner, the money his Premier has committed to the environment -- commitments this government has ignored.

1340

JOHN RICHMOND

Mr. Ballinger: I would like to take this opportunity publicly to recognize a special guest I have sitting in the members’ east gallery. My riding of Durham-York is very fortunate to have John Richmond, a well-known and respected Canadian artist living in the gentle hills of Uxbridge township.

John Richmond was born in Toronto and attended public school there. He was chosen one of 12 students to serve as honorary director of the Canadian National Exhibition in grade 8 when he was only 11. At the Ontario College of Art, John won the Eaton scholarship in his third year and visited England where he studied with Eric Kennington, whose portraits in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom and Wartime Heroes in Life magazine won him fame.

While still an undergraduate, John’s paintings were accepted for exhibition with the Canadian Society of Painters in Water Colour. Throughout the 1970s readers of Toronto Calendar magazine looked at John’s amusing and informative maps which illustrated his column “Discover Ontario.”

During the 1980s, John’s work has appeared in City and Country Home, on CKVR-TV, at Latcham gallery in Stouffville, at Robert McLaughlin gallery in Durham College in Oshawa, the Cobourg Art Gallery, the Grimsby Public Art Gallery and Knob Hill Farms in Oshawa.

His most recent mural is at the Uxbridge Public Library. He is now painting a series of large landscapes which are on loan in both my Queen’s Park office and my constituency office.

Throughout the past 25 years, John has also become known as an innovative Canadian humorist and cartoonist. I am honoured that I have had John Richmond create all of the graphics for my first householder calendar.

OSHAWA KIWANIS HOCKEY CLUB

Mr. Breaugh: It is that time again when Oshawa hockey teams are representing Ontario at the Air Canada Cup tournament this week in Thunder Bay. I know all members want to join me in congratulating the Oshawa Kiwanis midget hockey club and coach Gil Hughes, who are in Thunder Bay competing at this moment and are going to win it for Ontario, no questions asked.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As the father of a son who played against the Oshawa team, I wish them well.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I request unanimous consent of the House to make a statement about a death.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

DAVID PUGSLEY

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: With great regret, I advise members of the House of the death of David Pugsley in an automobile accident in the Middle East. Mr. Pugsley worked for the Ontario International Corp., one of the agencies of my ministry.

Mr. Pugsley served as a senior civil servant for eight years following a 25-year tenure in both the private sector and the colleges of applied arts and technology. He joined the civil service in 1980 as vice-president of the Ontario Educational Services Corp., an agency established by the Ministry of Education to promote the export of Ontario’s education resources.

In 1984 he became a member of Ontario International when the two agencies were merged. His responsibilities in Ontario International included representing the provincial government in the Middle East, where he won many friends for Ontario in his untiring efforts to promote the province and its resources in that highly competitive marketplace.

At the time of his death he was working on secondment to a major Canadian consulting firm, Educansult Ltd., on a project to develop a community college system in the United Arab Emirates. His secondment was a result of a request for his expertise by Educansult to work on the establishment of the new system which he had helped negotiate as an officer of Ontario International.

Mr. Pugsley served the province with great distinction. He contributed much to the increasing awareness of Ontario and of Canada in the Middle East. The province has lost a fine, loyal and dedicated civil servant.

On behalf of the House, I would like to extend to his family our profound sympathy.

Mr. Brandt: On the same matter, I would like to join with the minister and the government of Ontario in extending sympathy to the family of David Pugsley. I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Pugsley at the time that I served in the same capacity as the now minister. There is no question that he was a very dedicated and committed civil servant of this province and worked very hard to extend the interests of the province into various parts of the world, more particularly into the Middle East where his unfortunate death occurred as a result of that car accident.

The efforts of Mr. Pugsley were an extension, I might add, of some of the initiatives that were taken by Dr. Bette Stephenson when she served as Minister of Education relative to initiatives in education, particularly in the Middle East. The follow-up to that was some of the efforts put forward by Mr. Pugsley. I want to share the minister’s sentiments in offering my sympathies to the family, friends and working colleagues of David Pugsley as well.

Mr. B. Rae: Our hearts go out to the Pugsley family. I know all of us in this House will share in that loss and sense of sadness which comes from his accident in the Middle East. We very much appreciate the work he did on behalf of Ontario. All of us, I am sure, will want to join together in sending our very best wishes to Mr. Pugsley’s family.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If I might, it may be a little bit unusual for a second statement to be made from this side of the House on the untimely death of David Pugsley, but I do want to rise and offer my condolences as well.

It may be that I knew David Pugsley better than anyone on this side of the House. About a year and a half ago, the former Minister of Education, Dr. Bette Stephenson, and I led a government mission to the Middle East, which had been arranged by David Pugsley in his capacity within the Ontario International Corp. I came to know him as an incredibly dedicated civil servant, a man with tremendous energy and a man who was committed to the idea that Ontario could be furthered around the world in an educational context. We are all saddened by his passing. His wife, Paddy, is also a tremendous woman whom I know. I want to send out my personal condolences and the condolences of the government to her and all his good friends within the government and around the province and indeed throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker: As is the usual custom, when Hansard is officially printed, I will make certain that a copy goes to the Pugsley family so that your words of sympathy are received by them.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: On some occasions, we have former members visiting us, and today we have the former member for Carleton, Robert Mitchell, in the lower west gallery. You might like to welcome him.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTRUCTION FOR TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT / CONSTRUCTION DE FACILITÉS POUR LE SOMMET ÉCONOMIQUE DE TORONTO

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As honourable members know, the political leaders of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and the United States are holding their annual economic summit meeting in Toronto in June. In preparation for that meeting, construction work, primarily to ensure the security of these national leaders, is to be undertaken at the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre and certain adjacent areas just before the meeting.

This work is what is known under the Labour Relations Act as ICI construction. The ICI stands for industrial, commercial and institutional. ICI construction involves such buildings as factories, offices and hospitals. As many members will know, there are 25 separate ICI contracts between contractors and trade unions in Ontario.

The Labour Relations Act requires that these contracts be negotiated every two years. Those that are currently in force are due to expire on April 30. These contracts are negotiated for the province as a whole and apply province-wide. In other words, the contracts that cover ICI carpentry or ICI plumbing in Thunder Bay are the same ones that cover ICI work in Hamilton, Ottawa or any other part of the province.

Collective bargaining is going on in all trades. My ministry’s industrial relations specialists are working with the parties in conjunction with those collective bargaining negotiations. It is my hope and expectation that the process will be concluded successfully.

Having said that, until all the new ICI contract negotiations are completed, there exists a possibility of work stoppages on ICI sites once the current agreements expire on April 30. In that context, later today I will be presenting for first reading a bill to provide that if there are work stoppages in the ICI sector, the work at the convention-centre site related specifically to the economic summit will be able to continue.

1350

Plus tard aujourd’hui, je présenterai, en première lecture, un projet de loi garantissant qu’en cas de débrayage dans le secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel, les travaux effectués au Centre des congrès pour le sommet économique ne seront pas interrompus.

Ministry officials have been engaged in extensive consultations with employers’ associations and trade unions on the importance of the work for the Toronto economic summit being done on time. The bill provides that work at the summit site will be done by each trade under the terms of its current ICI contract if a new agreement is not ratified before the work is scheduled to begin.

The bill will take effect upon proclamation and will lapse on June 30. It will apply only to the convention centre complex, including L’Hotel, the Canadian National office tower and the parking lot comprising a whole block bounded by Front, Wellington, John and Simcoe Streets.

Today’s bill meets a number of objectives. First, it permits that the work necessary for Toronto to host the economic summit will go ahead; second, it ensures that the wages, fringe benefits and working conditions of employees will be continued; and, third, it provides that any new agreements negotiated by the trade unions will apply as soon as they are ratified.

At the same time, this legislation will not in any way impact on the scheduled collective bargaining process in the ICI sector and what I hope will be a successful conclusion of those negotiations.

In conclusion, I want to say that the legislation I am proposing today is technical and facilitative of work that is necessary in order to permit the economic summit to go ahead as planned.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Mental health disabilities and alcohol and drug abuse are among the most destructive problems facing our society. We know that one person in eight will suffer from substance abuse or mental illness at some point in their lives, but almost all of us have felt the effects of mental illness and substance abuse because they affect not only the individual, but also family, friends and co-workers.

Since 1985, this government has initiated a number of programs to address the needs of those suffering from these diseases. Special attention has been directed to northern Ontario. The huge expanse, the great distance between communities and the isolation of very small communities present us with challenges we do not face in planning programs for southern Ontario.

Last August, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced that an additional $7.3 million in annual operating lands would be allocated for community-based mental health and alcohol and drug dependency programs for this region. Last February, I announced in Thunder Bay that $900,000 of this amount had been approved for 31 existing community-based programs in northern Ontario.

Today, I am pleased to announce that a further $5.4 million of this amount has been approved for another 15 mental health and 14 alcohol and drug programs to cover every region of northern Ontario: five in Kenora-Rainy River, four in Manitoulin-Sudbury, four in Cochrane, one in Timiskaming, four in Algoma, five in Nipissing and four in Thunder Bay. Included in the amount are two programs for Muskoka-Parry Sound as well.

Nineteen of these programs, which will offer services such as individual, family and group counselling, are brand-new; 10 are expansions of existing programs. They will provide top-quality service to all sectors of northern society: the native and non-native population and the young and the elderly. Many of the programs will be fully bilingual.

Today’s announcement brings government spending for northern mental health and alcohol and drug abuse programs from $14.3 million a year to about $20 million a year. The remaining funds committed by the Premier will be used for future program enhancement this year.

This government will continue to demonstrate its commitment to maintaining, promoting and restoring good mental health and physical health to all the people of northern Ontario. This program expansion represents a significant step towards our overall goal: a comprehensive network of mental health and alcohol and drug dependency programs to make quality health available to all in the north.

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Today I am pleased to announce to the House some enhancements to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program which will further protect new home purchasers in the province. These measures have been developed by the new home warranty program, and I believe these improvements will add strength to our warranty coverage.

Before I outline the details, I want to draw members’ attention to the Speaker’s gallery and to introduce the vice-chairman of the board of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, Peter Burns. I want to note that the chairman, Ernie Assaly, is unable to be here today because of illness.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, there have been many problems in the home construction industry in the past few years, relating to such critical areas as delayed closings, substitutions, poor-quality workmanship, after-sales service and incomplete construction.

Program officials have consulted with representatives from government, the Toronto and Ontario home builders’ associations and the Ontario arm of the Consumers’ Association of Canada in order to develop measures that address these concerns without driving up the already high cost of housing.

These regulations go into effect at the end of June.

On delayed closings, builders are given two opportunities to extend the closing date. In the first instance, consumers must be given 65 days, notice prior to the original closing date. A further 15-day extension may be granted, provided the purchaser is notified at least 35 days in advance of the second closing date. Builders who do not give such notice will be liable for compensation of up to $5,000. This will include expenses for moving, storage and living expenses. Delays caused by a strike or uncontrollable natural disaster will be exempted.

Regarding substitutions, purchasers will be able to cancel their contract if there are major changes, such as a different exterior finish, plan or elevation than that originally contracted for. For less critical changes, such as carpets or kitchen cabinets, which the purchaser selects in the agreement of purchase and sale, buyers will be given time to consider alternatives.

If the builder does not comply with the consumer’s wishes, the consumer can make a claim or lodge a complaint with the warranty plan.

For minor substitutions on items which purchasers do not select, such as lighting fixtures, substitutions can be only of equal or better value.

Also of benefit is the fact that these changes will compel the builder to communicate with the buyer. In the past, failure to do this has been a major source of many of the problems faced by builders and consumers alike.

Stronger consumer protection is now available for the other three problems I noted earlier: namely, poor-quality workmanship, after-sales service and incomplete construction.

Program staff are now giving a broader interpretation to quality-related terms in the warranty, such as “workmanlike manner” and “fit for habitation.” As a result, consumers are more likely to get the quality they are paying for.

In addition, cash settlements are being offered to purchasers whose builders have not satisfactorily rectified these and other after-sales problems. As a result of earlier changes to warranty coverage, purchasers of incomplete houses are receiving payments of the greater of $5,000 or two per cent of the value of the home. Consumers can thus arrange for the completion of their homes on their own.

These changes are intended to address persistent problems which have been underscored by the boom in new home construction. It is my belief that these measures are achievable and workable and should not limit the capacity of builders to obtain financing for future development or have the undesirable effect of adding to the cost of housing. At the same time, I want to assure the Legislature that my ministry will take whatever further steps may be necessary to provide consumers with a fair deal in the largest purchase that most of us will ever make.

In this connection, I will soon be receiving the report of the legislative review project, which could very well make some further recommendations to enhance the power of the registrar’s office of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

These actions form part of this government’s overall efforts to improve the quality of residential construction here in Ontario.

RESPONSES

CONSTRUCTION FOR TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. Mackenzie: We welcome the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) with regard to construction of facilities for the Toronto economic summit conference. As the minister knows, the original concern centred on something adjacent to the domed stadium, and that appears to be covered in the specific parameters of the site which is in the bill. With that, I think there will not be any problems with the workers involved.

1400

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: Responding to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) today in the Legislature, my colleagues in the northern caucus of the New Democratic Party will be pleased to some extent to hear announced the programs which they have been demanding of this government and the previous government for many years. During the Health estimates in 1986, I was startled to discover that in all of northern Ontario there were but 34 supported beds for people coming out of psychiatric facilities. That struck me as a shocking and appalling situation.

The government talks about meeting the unusual challenges of the north. Let me say that the government has not ever met this challenge anywhere in Ontario, let alone in the north. I am glad the north is finally getting some attention.

Until the government makes a commitment to comprehensive planned and delivered community mental health services, such as would be provided for under my Bill 50, the Community Mental Health Services Act, the delivery of services anywhere in this province will be subject to the political whim of various governments. That is no way to serve people.

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to respond to the minister’s announcement on the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. Members who have in the past had to deal with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada know that although there is often a good effort to try to correct problems in the building of a new home, there remain some fundamental flaws in the system which is used, not the least of which is the fact that no ministry of the government of Ontario is responsible directly for seeing that the deal is actually kept.

That is, in fact, pretty much an in-house activity, and we depend upon the builders’ association, through HUDAC to implement that. That has been a major source of problems: that when something is wrong one cannot find an enforcement agency within the government. That seems to me to be a strange, but major, fault to it.

I think many of us welcome that at least the minister has acknowledged there is a problem. That is often a major step forward. But consumers who may well be first-time home buyers, who go through the practical ramifications of getting rid of rental accommodation or perhaps selling the home they now live in and moving to a new home, will find that the only requirement in here is a basic requirement on the part of the builder to provide them with notice. I am not so sure that piece of paper is going to really provide them with adequate shelter. The minister will know that has been an ongoing difficulty, that when builders cannot close a deal on time, cannot provide the home, people are very often homeless for a short period of time.

I am pleased there are efforts made here to see that new homes are fit for habitation, but I would say that is probably a minimal standard at best, and there have been some rather serious problems with that. The basic structural problems with it are the ones which should have been addressed today. I would put them as succinctly as I can in this manner: there is a distinct absence of consumers sewing this kind of legislation. I would recommend that as one of the next steps to take.

I think the sad realization that an offer to purchase, a sales agreement for a new home, continues to be a firm contract with some structure within the law only when the builder says so is a rankle that frustrates many young Ontario families and others who are purchasing new homes.

I am pleased the minister has acknowledged that there have been problems there. I urge him to take the next logical step, which is to actually give consumers some protection in Ontario law when they buy a house.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) in the House this afternoon. I must congratulate the minister for delivering much-needed community-based mental health programs in northern Ontario. They are certainly needed and welcomed. We wait to hear the particulars with respect to such programs.

On a personal note, I might add that I presume this means Parry Sound is in northern Ontario for the purposes of the Ministry of Health. That will be welcome news indeed to many of my constituents. However, I might remind the minister and members of the Legislature, as well as the people of Ontario, that the minister’s predecessor in 1985 cut back the number of psychiatric beds in northern Ontario.

He cut back the level of funding for those psychiatric beds from 100 per cent to two thirds and he also cut back commitments with respect to providing these much needed community-based mental health clinics. For example, one Dr. Covington of the Timmins area has left Ontario because of the reneging on the commitment to Dr. Covington to provide those much-needed mental health community-based clinics.

We would also like to remind the minister about the mental health study some two years ago which recommended the redevelopment of the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital, among others. We are waiting for a return to that commitment as well.

CONSTRUCTION FOR TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. Harris: We support the thrust of the initiative that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has talked about today, and, providing the bill is somewhat sensible, we will support the bill. We understand the problem that may exist with the economic summit and we are supportive of Ontario doing everything it can to help the showcase.

But we sometimes wonder where his priorities are. There are a number of other problems around this province that the Minister of Labour has not seen fit to put the emphasis and priority on. We understand this one. The federal government told him he had to do it, so he did something. Two years before, the New Democratic Party told the Premier (Mr. Peterson) he had to do something, so he did something.

What we are seeing now is very little initiative on the part of the minister on his own. Let me give him one example: the Wheel-Trans work-to-rule situation. It strikes me that does not seem to be a priority with this government. If he put one tenth of the effort into that, perhaps handicapped people would not have to wait three hours. Now they have to be at a location three hours in advance. If they have a doctor’s appointment at three, they have to call Wheel-Trans at, say 11:30, and sit there and wait until 2:30. Three hours’ notice is required.

I would like to suggest to the Minster of Labour that there are a lot of other priorities around this province that he might start to want to put his head to.

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Mr. Cousens: I would like to rise and acknowledge the presence of Mr. Burns and hope that Mr. Assaly improves in health very quickly. I recognize that, under Ed Locke and his predecessors and the people at the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, there has been a great deal of support for the industry and for the buyers in Ontario through the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

I am just surprised that this portfolio continues, under the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, to report to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations when, in fact, the Ministry of Housing should be far more involved in this issue. It is a housing issue.

I would like the minister to know that I am still waiting for some kind of answer to the people in Scarborough. There are about 23 buyers who have had for three years and are still having trouble getting into their homes because the land was never registered in the first place. What the minister is suggesting now does not begin to solve many of those age-old questions.

The Ontario New Home Warranty Program is over 10 years old and it is time to revise the whole program. Maybe what the minister is beginning to recognize now is that the warranty program should take effect immediately when a person signs an offer. Now the minister is trying to come in and help the new home buyers from the time they sign that offer rather than when they take possession. Why does the minister not come in right at the beginning and offer some form of mediation and extra support for those new home buyers?

I do not see the solution here in what the minister is suggesting for delayed closings. How long are those delayed closings going to be? He does not suggest that. He does not suggest a real solution on what is going to happen with substitution of articles and things in a home. Why does the minister not begin to do something about the real problem? Ninety-five per cent or more are good builders. What about the bad builders? Can the minister not get rid of them in Ontario? If he did that, then he would be doing something to protect the buyers.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, we had the announcement of the report of Judge Osborne’s report on auto insurance in Ontario. Today, a major report was released by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) on the collective bargaining problems that have existed in the college system, and yet there was no statement by the minister in the House today, which I think this report really warrants in that it does seem to point the way to some solutions in that area. I am surprised that was not done.

Mr. Speaker: It did not sound like a point of order to me. It sounded as if the member possibly could ask a question on that matter.

1410

MINISTER’S RESPONSE TO QUESTION

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order under standing order 29(a): Yesterday in this House my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and --

Mr. Villeneuve: Glengarry.

Mr. Harris: Still the same?

Mr. Breaugh: My good friend.

Mr. Harris: My good friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry had a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon). It was at the end of question period. The Treasurer, at that time, replied: “It is unfortunate that the question comes at a time when question period is just completed because it is an extremely important one. Perhaps I might suggest the honourable member place the question again....” He goes on about how long the answer is and says he has the information.

I bring this up now, at the end of ministerial statements, because the Treasurer implied yesterday that he did not have time to respond. I would like to suggest that was not the case. He was not cut off. The question was placed at the right time. He had plenty of time to respond.

He went on and said it was going to be a lengthy answer and he was surprised we had not brought it up. I expected that what he meant was he did not have any time during question period. Standing order 29(a) then says, “The minister may take an oral question as notice to be answered orally at a later sitting but where any reserved answer requires a lengthy statement,” it “shall be given under ‘Statements by the Ministry and Responses.’”

So I was a little surprised that he did not want to answer yesterday in question period, perhaps because it was too lengthy, and he did not make a statement today. I wonder, under 29(a), what vehicle we have to force the Treasurer to respond to a question that was properly put to him in the right manner and at the right time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing makes a very interesting point. He or his colleague from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry may pursue the matter very shortly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Premier. The Premier, I am sure, will be aware of the statement that was issued on Friday by the interfaith committee of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping.

Among other things, the interfaith committee said: “As you know, the coalition sought a meeting with the Premier to discuss his proposed legislation before it was introduced. We had hoped that a government ‘without walls or barriers’” -- a phrase that I know will be familiar to you, Mr. Speaker-”would at least consult with us to explore alternatives.

“However, requests for a meeting have been ignored.

“We are disappointed. We are angry. Premier Peterson has broken his election promise that he would retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

My question for the Premier is this: why has he refused to meet with either the coalition or the interfaith committee, either before or after the announcement last Thursday? How does he respond to the statement of this group, which I am sure the Premier recognizes represents literally millions of citizens of this province when they say: “We are disappointed. We are angry”?

Mr. Pope: Ian would not allow it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not have anything to add to other views that the government has expressed on this particular issue. I know my honourable friend does not want to get on with the debate and that is fine, but I can tell him that we have met with many, many people. I believe my staff has met with the committee, and I think we are quite comfortable with its views.

It does not happen to agree with the government. That happens from time to time, but our view is clear. We have consulted widely on the matter, and I think more and more thoughtful people who now understand the legislation, as opposed to some of the hysteria engendered by my friends opposite, are very comfortable with this democratic approach that the government is taking.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Leadership that is working.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the Premier saying that the Reverend Hudson Hilsden, Canon A. R. Cuyler Canon Rooke, Dr. Suzanne Scorsone, Dr. Bonnie Greene, Reverend David Jones, Dr. Tryphonopoulos, Reverend David Pfrimmer, Reverend Lawrence Likness, Dr. Raymond Hodgson and Rabbi Joseph Kelman are hysterical when they ask him for a meeting? Is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) suggesting that these individuals who are asking for a meeting are being --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Why has the Premier refused to meet with a prestigious group of Ontarians representing literally millions of Ontarians, men and women of different faiths around this province? Why has he refused to meet with these people when they specifically asked for a meeting?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not suggesting at all that they are hysterical. I suggest that my honourable friend opposite is hysterical. If we could settle down to a normal debate on this situation, I think if my honourable friend had any kind of reasonable and open mind he would be persuaded that his fears are completely unfounded, and I think that my honourable friend will want to convey that.

I can tell him that the views of the group are well known. They do not know what the solutions are. They are prepared to sit down and craft legislation, and perhaps that is the way the member feels we should operate, but I believe that after extensive consultation in our party and with outsiders we have crafted a bill that is sensitive to the realities of a new Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: The interfaith committee produced a document which is going to be read in churches and places of worship across the province. It has consistently asked for a meeting with the Premier of this province and it has been refused. I think that we are entitled to ask the Premier again, for a third time, why, in his canvassing of this issue, has he declined a meeting with religious leaders across this province who feel profoundly on this issue, on behalf of women, on behalf of those whom they have described as the most vulnerable and on behalf of the families of this province?

Before introducing legislation which they feel substantially changes the way this province is going to work, why would the Premier refuse even to meet with them and to explain his views and to listen to their views as he produces a policy that will bring the people --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to meet with anyone any time, as you know well. We get requests all the time. I am even happy meeting with the member. My honourable friend is accusing me of being undemocratic. If there is anyone who is undemocratic, it is my friend opposite who will not let this proceed.

If I met with them, the first thing he would do is stand up and yap and howl about having private meetings with certain groups. What we want to do is have a public debate and let it go to a committee. I am sure my honourable friend would want to have that kind of discussion here. So I say to my honourable friend, I think that, reasonable as sometimes he is, after he reads the bill, which he has not done at this point in time, he will probably have a different view than he has at the present time.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a new question. The Premier’s definition of “democracy” is to say one thing during an election and to turn around and do exactly the opposite after the election.

Mr. Speaker: New question?

Mr. B. Rae: That is his definition of “democracy.”

Mr. Speaker: New question and to whom?

Mr. B. Rae: Everybody in this province knows it.

Mr. Speaker: New question to whom?

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. B. Rae: I have a new question for the Premier. The report yesterday was released by Professor Hare with respect to Ontario Hydro. The report stated many things and Dr. Hare also said some important things in the course of his press conference. The Premier will no doubt be aware that one of the fundamental points that Dr. Hare makes is that the major problem with respect to Candu, with respect to Pickering, Darlington and Bruce, is the fact that we have a technology which is proving troublesome with respect to the pressure tubes.

The Premier will be aware of the cost of every time the pressure tubes are replaced. We are looking at $400 million per reactor when you build in the cost of substitute power. I would like to ask the Premier what is the government’s response to the profound statement by Dr. Hare, “I feel very uneasy about reliance on one design”? Dr. Hare is saying it is a mistake for Ontario to be putting all its eggs in one basket when it comes to Ontario Hydro, in terms of the financial future of this province.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us, given his experience going back in this House quite a long way with respect to the future of Ontario Hydro, what is the government’s response to this question.

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I should tell the honourable member that the government started to respond a long time ago with respect to changes at Ontario Hydro.

He will notice, and I am sure he has been following this closely, the new thrusts of Ontario Hydro with respect to conservation, with respect to cogeneration, with respect to hydraulic development. I am sure my honourable friend, being fairminded, as he is, would understand and recognize that.

Now we have a report from Dr. Hare. I can tell my honourable friend that the government has not yet deliberated on the matter. We obviously take it seriously and, in due course, will report back to my friend with respect to any responses by the government.

Mr. B. Rae: Dr. Hare stated that, in fact, it was getting so bad with respect to Ontario’s reliance on the one design and on nuclear alone that it would be more appropriate to call Ontario Hydro “Ontario Nuclear” than to call it Ontario Hydro. That was his statement.

I would like specifically to ask the Premier how he responds to the statement by Dr. Hare that overall research expenditures on Candu problems appear low in relation to the huge investment by Ontario Hydro and the latter’s large annual sales, over $2.5 billion, from nuclear energy. He is clearly saying that Hydro is not doing the job it should be doing with respect to research on this particular problem with respect to the Candu reactor. What is his response to that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Traditionally the research responsibility was that of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., and the member will be aware that AECL, a federal agency, has substantially cut back on its contribution. Indeed, not too long ago, as I recall the facts -- and it stands subject to be corrected --Ontario Hydro picked up an additional $25 million to $35 million in research, particularly on those matters.

Now, my honourable friend has raised the issue of the tubes; and he is right, there is a retubing going on. That was planned for, as I understand it, in the financing of those particular Candu units. My friend would argue that was done ahead of time, and in fact it was, but it is contemplated to be a normal retubing out of the life of that reactor.

So I think my honourable friend would want to read that report again in an evenhanded, fair-minded way. Not to say that there are not problems, but I think my friend would be the first to stand up and admit that Dr. Hare would be the last one who would stand up and try to create hysteria about the safety of our nuclear plants. In fact, he very much takes the opposite view.

Mr. B. Rae: Let us see what else Dr. Hare has to say. The Premier can characterize it in whatever language he wants. Let us use the language that Dr. Hare uses and see how the Premier responds to it:

“Unfortunately, little has yet been done to give effect to this plan,” referring to the 1986 nuclear emergency plan, “in spite of a cabinet decision to arrange for its financing by Ontario Hydro. The professional staff involved still numbers only two. A sense of urgency is lacking. If a severe accident occurs, it will find the utility prepared and the province unready -- unless prompt action is taken.”

Those are Dr. Hare’s words. Can the Premier tell us the government’s response to that very critical indictment of this province’s failure to respond to the nuclear emergency plan?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is a different question than my honourable friend raised in his original question, but I am very happy to respond to it. We take the report seriously. I can tell him that the ministers are deliberating on it and I am sure we will see a response in the very near future.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and it relates to the question of the provincial subsidization for municipal transit systems.

As the minister is aware, the Toronto Transit Commission at the moment receives a 50 per cent subsidy from Ontario relative to the operation of its subway service. Should Metropolitan Toronto make a determination opting for the municipal option as it relates to Sunday shopping, is his ministry prepared to extend and to expand the subsidy to cover the additional hours of operation that would occur if that eventuality were to take place -- namely, the extension of that service?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It is very much a hypothetical question from the leader of the third party. The same rules would apply to the system of the TTC. It is not just the subway; we subsidize, of course, the entire operating cost of both the surface and subway vehicles, and we would treat Metropolitan Toronto the same way we would the city of Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: That is very comforting to hear, since the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was put in much the same category by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), as being a group that was raising some hysteria about this question. I suppose that was intended to imply that when they object to the kind of legislation being proposed by the government, they obviously have to be less than sensitive, less than thoughtful and perhaps somewhat bordering on hysteria. I do not share those particular views. Since the municipalities are in fact going to be responsible for certain areas of public transportation, I think it would serve the ministry well to send out a signal as to what portions of that expanded service the minister is prepared to fund if in fact municipalities opt for the Sunday option that would be available to them with his legislation.

On this particular schedule of train operations, it is interesting to note --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Is that media training?

Mr. Brandt: No, I needed a large chart for me. I will send you a copy.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Five out of 10 doctors recommend --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, it has been a 90-second warm-up.

Mr. Brandt: I just want to point out that the Milton, Georgetown, Bradford, Richmond Hill and Stouffville GO trains --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This camera.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: To the camera.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Hold it higher, higher.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: -- that all those particular GO trains in fact do not provide Sunday service at the moment. Is the minister prepared to commit to the people of Ontario, and particularly those who would be affected by Sunday openings in this province, were they to take place, and this is not a hypothetical question --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member has me at a disadvantage. I could not understand whether he was questioning our subsidies to GO Transit or the TTC.

Mr. Brandt: Both.

Mr. Cordiano: That was an eye test.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: If it is an eye test, I failed because I could read only the top line of his show-and-tell contribution to question period.

It is very much a hypothetical question. The bill has not been approved by this Legislature. It has not been introduced, I am told. I have been away for a day or two. I think the record of this government -- and with the help of the Treasury we are committed to providing an efficient, safe transportation system, whether by transit or by highway, to the people of Ontario.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: They applaud an answer which has nothing to do with the question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is always tough to applaud the question. Even they were having trouble. I mean Cam did his best but he couldn’t applaud that question.

Mr. Callahan: The question had nothing to do with the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I am not questioning the safety or the efficiency of the transportation system. I am asking a very direct question, the answer to which is of interest and importance to the association of municipalities and to people who are going to require a program and a system of transportation if in fact the Sunday option is exercised by these municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Brandt: There are additional costs that are going to be associated with Sundays, such as day care services and police. Transportation is one of them. Has the government even considered the additional cost of providing these particular services?

1430

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the bill be allowed to be introduced so that issues related to it, as the member points out, can be properly discussed. Certainly, we have initiated discussions with various operators and transit authorities throughout the province.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Brandt: I have a question of the Treasurer. By way of question, let me read into the record a motion I hope our party will not have to put forward.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would have thought you would introduce the bill and then talk about it. Is that crazy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and many other members would allow the member for Sarnia to place his second question.

Mr. Brandt: I hope I will not have to put forward the motion I am about to read, which relates to the budget, when we have an opportunity to respond, which I assume will be this coming Monday. The motion reads:

“This House regrets the regressive and inflationary increases in the retail sales tax and the inadequacy of the tax credit to offset the regressive nature of this tax.”

The Treasurer knows and has stated publicly in the past that an increase in either the amount or the base of the retail sales tax is regressive and inflationary. Can he assure us today that we will not be seeing such a regressive and inflationary policy in the budget he is about to release tomorrow?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The motion sounds vaguely familiar to me. I do not know whether it was 1973, maybe 1962. I sincerely hope the honourable member will not be so misguided as to put forward that motion as well.

Mr. Harris: We certainly hope the Treasurer will not give us cause to read back other quotes next week. Let me --

Mr. Speaker: Ask a supplementary?

Mr. Harris: -- by way of supplementary, suggest two things to the Treasurer. First, it was 1973. The Treasurer is pretty close. One of the other parts of that motion he seconded in 1973, as he was going on to a host of sins, and I will quote one of the things he condemned, “the imposition of tax increases of any kind which counteract the initiatives taken by the federal government through the reduction of taxes.”

Bearing in mind his views on anybody who would be so despicable as even to contemplate that action, now that he is in a position to do so will the Treasurer guarantee that his budget will not tax back some of the benefits of federal tax reform now available to 80 per cent of the households of this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am thinking of going to Florida. I cannot make such a guarantee other than to tell the honourable member that circumstances alter cases and that I am doing some research in that direction.

Mr. Harris: By way of final supplementary, the Treasurer indicates that situations can alter due to circumstances. We know what he felt when he took over. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said, “The Progressive Conservatives left the Ontario economy in good shape.” When he was asked about other things, when reminded the Tories were defeated in June, three months after the fiscal period ended, the Premier then gave the Tories credit for their strong economic performance. Obviously, nothing changed up to 1985. If circumstances have changed, they have changed in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

If the Treasurer will not give the guarantee on counteracting the federal tax initiative, that he will not take that money back: recognizing, as he has said many times, the inflationary aspect of a sales tax increase, will he guarantee to school boards, to hospitals and to municipalities that if they face an increase in costs because of his budget and any sales tax increases, there will be a reflection in provincial transfers back to those agencies to compensate the many millions of dollars?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member is correct when he talks about the strength of Ontario’s economy. It is one of the strongest in North America -- as a matter of fact, one of the strongest in the western world. We have created jobs faster than in any other period in our history, and our economy remains buoyant.

I think any government that tries to take credit for that, or even to shoulder all the blame when the economy is not so good, is simply making a mistake. Governments can assist in providing an atmosphere for economic growth and business confidence. That is the intention of this government; it has been and I hope it will be in the future.

When the member asks for guarantees, I can guarantee him a budget that meets the requirements of the time in a fair and equitable way, based on fiscal responsibility.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier is no doubt aware of the contract dispute at Wheel-Trans, where the workers are asking only for parity with the Toronto Transit Commission drivers. They currently earn $11 an hour, while the TTC workers will get $16.02 an hour as of this July. The company, the Para-Way division of All-Way Transportation Corp., seems to be trying to keep the wages down for the next year until the TTC takes over.

The local union, Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, has demanded that they open the books, which may be the key in this particular situation. What measures, including having the company open its books, will the Premier take to ensure that the thousands of elderly and disabled who need the Wheel-Trans service will not be used as pawns by the company in this particular dispute?

Mr. Faubert: Try “by the union”.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The government has taken the position --

Mr. Breaugh: What’s that, Frank? Put it in the Star.

Mr. Mackenzie: Put it in the record.

Mr. Wildman: Say it again.

Mr. Faubert: That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: The province has a direct interest, as the Premier knows, in these negotiations. Affected will be thousands of disabled. Furthermore, the Ministry of Transportation picks up 14 per cent of the cost of the TTC, which contracts the Wheel-Trans service from All-Way.

Two years ago the government gave the doctors a hefty increase at the same time that it legislated these same Wheel-Trans workers back to work and kept the $4 difference between them and their counterparts. What will the Premier do to bring fairness to the Wheel-Trans workers this time around? I am sorry, I did not hear the last part of the Premier’s comment. Will he see that as part of these negotiations the books are opened up?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot be held in account when all the member’s colleagues are shouting and yelling and he cannot hear my response.

Let me say that the government is going to hope that the parties understand the effects of what they are involved in and will act accordingly.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. Recently, the president of the Ontario Medical Association said the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy had been discussing options for health funding. The two options mentioned by Dr. Scully were an increase in Ontario health insurance plan premiums and elimination of OHIP premiums with an increase in the tax base.

My question to the minister is very simple. Which one of these options will the government be implementing in the future?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: With regard to statements by Dr. Scully or any other member of the Premier’s council, I think it is important to note what the policy positions of this government are. It is our position, and we have already taken significant steps, to remove from the OHIP rolls those most in need of assistance. It is important to note that at this time only 11 per cent of the people of this province pay premiums directly.

Mr. Eves: The Premier himself is the chairman of this committee. The Minister of Health is the vice-chairman of the health strategy committee. It is not going to be easy to ignore the recommendations of a committee when the Premier is the chairman and the minister is the vice-chairman.

The Premier said five years ago his party was going to eliminate OHIP premiums. The very committee he chairs is now considering as an option the raising of OHIP premiums. Quite frankly, I think it stretches one’s credibility a little bit. The House deserves a straight answer.

1440

Is the government going to raise OHIP premiums or is it not? If it is not, why is the committee, of which the Premier is the chairman and the minister the vice-chairman, even considering that as an option? If the minister is not going to raise OHIP premiums but is going to eliminate them, is she going to raise taxes to do so?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very proud of the concept of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy, which brings individuals together to seek solutions and to solve some of the many challenges which are facing us.

I think the record of this government is very clear. Over the last three years, there has been no increase in OHIP premiums. We have removed some 40,000 people from the OHIP rolls and we are reducing and eliminating the impact. At this time, only 11 per cent of the people in this province pay premiums directly.

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Over the last several years --

Mr. Villeneuve: He has gone.

Mr. Mahoney: The minister is not here?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see the Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, may I stand the question down until the minister returns?

Mr. Speaker: You certainly may.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Premier’s Council report, Competing in the New Global Economy, describes the economy of Ontario as being prosperous, but that this prosperity concealed a number of serious structural weaknesses. The report recommends that Ontarians shift their focus away from traditional resource-based industries and towards higher value-added activities that would allow the province to establish new trading territory within the global economy.

I agree wholeheartedly with this basic premise and applaud the council --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Ms. Hart: By way of question to the minister, I would like to ask what role he sees for small business in Ontario’s new economic direction.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members of the House know that small business is the major sector in our business economy. Most businesses are small or medium-sized. The role I see under the Premier’s Council recommendation is to position those small businesses so that in time they can grow to medium-sized businesses and the medium-sized businesses can grow to become multinational businesses.

The only way they are going to be able to do that is if we really position them so that they have the capability, the technological skills to do it; and that is what the Premier’s Council recommends, that we get that kind of infrastructure in place.

Ms. Hart: The Premier’s Council report identifies a bias on the part of federal and provincial governments towards small, service oriented businesses, and the report recommends that this bias be adjusted to favour high-growth industries.

As the minister well knows, small business is a key contributor to employment in Ontario, having provided 35.4 per cent of this province’s entire workforce. The same is certainly true in my own riding of York East.

I would, therefore, like to ask the minister if he could assure this House and the people of Ontario that support for small business will not be jeopardized by the implementation of the Premier’s Council recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can assure members of this House that that will not be the case. If one takes a look at the recommendations, one will see that there are tax exemptions in special cases for venture capital; there are tax incentives for initial offerings to small companies which are trying to raise money through the securities industry; there is a strategic procurement policy where we will provide help in research to allow small companies to bid on high-technology, public sector contracts; and there is also a technology personnel program, in which we will help small companies access engineers and technicians so that they can be competitive with companies which have resources to have their own.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. He will be aware that eight states in the United States have now launched lawsuits against a number of major insurers there for colluding to manufacture the liability crisis back in 1985. It was a crisis, as he knows, in availability and in price. We have had the same kind of price increases here, the lack of availability to many groups, and the same insurers. Given the massive profits of insurance companies here in the last two years, will the minister investigate and lay charges here if he finds the insurance companies did the same thing?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I will look into the matter. I have read that these investigations are going forward in the United States. There is no formal investigation going forward here that I am aware of, but I will look into it and see what is coming forward.

Mr. Swart: I hope he would be aware of it because it would be going forward under his ministry, but I guess maybe there is no proof of that.

I wonder if the minister has seen the December 1987 statement of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in which it states premium income and claims paid for property and liability insurance in Ontario for the year 1986; that was after the horrendous increases, which incidentally are still continuing. They had income, with two classifications, of $2.45 billion, and they paid out in claims less than $1 billion. That means the public received less than 40 cents in claims on every dollar it paid.

Given that kind of prima facie evidence of a manufactured crisis here for the same purpose --

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Swart: -- will he give a commitment that he will investigate and report back to this House, and that if they did manufacture that crisis and used the same tactics they did in the United States, he will prosecute them?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member would know that a majority of the members of the House voted in favour of Bill 2 to establish an auto insurance rate review board.

Mr. Swart: This has nothing to do with that.

Hon. R. F. Dillon: I am answering his question on the basis that it has to do at least in part with automobile insurance rates, and the investigations associated with that are going to be helpful in that regard. I am certainly not undertaking an investigation of the type that is going to lead to charges until there is some evidence of a stronger nature than that which the honourable member is laying before the House.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. We received a copy of the vacant properties that are being reviewed by the ministry to support Housing First initiatives or other housing developments. It includes Aurora-Pine Ridge with 74 acres, 42 acres in Mississauga and northeast Scarborough with over 1,500 acres that her ministry is looking at in the Housing First initiatives; Oakville, 24 acres; Vaughan, five acres. There is a whole listing of thousands of acres of land. It includes Whitby with over 1,100 acres.

What arrangements has the Ministry of Housing made with the municipalities involved regarding the sale of these lands for housing and are any of these properties going to be sold for below-market value?

Hon. Ms. Hosĕk: I would like to refer that question to the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Patten: This particular list contains sites which it is the intention of the government to identify as surplus lands. At the point at which these lands become active for planning purposes, the first thing that is done is there is contact with the municipality concerned. There are discussions with the surrounding neighbourhood and interest groups that have some comments or some points of view of value to offer to the discussions, before the actual planning begins to occur. There is a whole acknowledgement of the Planning Act which, of course, is in support of the local approval process that is in the hands of the municipality.

Mr. Cousens: I am surprised that the Minister of Housing passes this subject away. It is a Housing First initiative. Having done so --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary to the Minister of Government Services?

Mr. Cousens: It is obvious this minister just does not want to answer any questions.

What protection exists against speculation on these lands? What guidelines are in place regarding the type of housing that is going to be developed? What accompaniment of funds is there going to be for roads and schools? These are a variety of concerns that are of great concern to the people who live in those municipalities. What is the minister’s position on these issues?

1450

Hon. Mr. Patten: The guidelines related to guarding against speculation -- the increase in the land value -- is really part of a very important element of the Housing First initiative. The member will know that if the lands are not suitable for affordable housing, we are able to sell that land, take the revenues from that and put that into the housing development fund which is dedicated to affordable housing.

We think that is the most responsible way for this government to deal with trying to take the resources of this province and address them to an important issue like housing.

NOISE BARRIERS

Mr. Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to stand down my question until the minister returned. I should tell you I received a note and it says: “I am here. Ask me.” It is signed “Sam.” But I think I will direct my question to the Minister of Transportation. In any event, I thank the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) for his offer.

Over the last several years the ministry has been constructing noise barrier walls on a retrofit basis along many of the major highways when they run through residential neighbourhoods. This program is greatly appreciated by the communities it helps. The Queen Elizabeth highway in Mississauga has received a great deal of attention with retrofit noise walls. The community, however, has raised strong concerns about the timing of these new walls. Specifically, if a wall goes up on the south side of the road it will deflect more noise into the backyards of the homes on the north side.

Will the minister ensure that when noise walls are built, they are built concurrently on both sides of the road to avoid this problem?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I should apologize to the member. I had a delegation from my riding and I was out of the House momentarily.

The member will be aware that the locating and construction of noise barriers is an ongoing process throughout the province. There are a number of candidate sites, in excess of 60, that are currently on our list. We are doing some work adjacent to the member’s riding and, certainly, we are very much aware of the concerns that he has been bringing to our attention for some time.

We are attempting to meet his request. I would offer that we will explore this further with ministry officials and see if we cannot speed up the sound barrier in question.

Mr. Mahoney: The member for Durham East probably would get it faster but he would be out in the east end.

I would like to specifically request that both sides of the Queen Elizabeth highway from Mississauga Road to Erin Mills Parkway be designated for joint construction even if this necessitates a minor delay in the proposed construction time. Will the minister investigate this request and report back?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would be only too happy to investigate the request of the member and report back to him at the earliest possible date.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer does not know enough facts. In 1974, the Ontario government imposed a land speculation tax and then rescinded it in 1977. In the two years prior to the imposition of that tax, house prices in Metropolitan Toronto went up 24.9 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. In the three years following the imposition of the tax, prices increased only by 9 per cent, 6.6 per cent and 5.2 per cent.

The Treasurer obviously did not know that. Otherwise, he would not have been saying in the last couple of weeks that when a speculation tax was tried before it did not work. If the Treasurer knew this was the case, I know that he was misleading the House but that he was doing it inadvertently because he did not have that information.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Laughren: Now that the Treasurer has the information, will he give serious consideration to the imposition of a land speculation tax in Ontario?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the gentleness with which the honourable member has put that information before the House but I do not agree with his conclusion. I think the fact that house prices moderated was probably not because of the land speculation tax. It was because there is a certain cyclical nature to these matters that occurs, even in spite of the best efforts of opposition members and governments to control prices.

My own view, frankly, is that we would be ill advised to move with a land speculation tax at this time. I do not believe it did work effectively last time. It disrupted the market completely for about two months. The revenue did not amount to very much and it ended with a royal commission, before which I was a witness.

Mr. Laughren: It is truly an amazing coincidence that increases were in the 25 to 30 per cent ratings before the imposition of the tax and under nine per cent after the imposition of the tax. That is what the Treasurer is saying.

I wonder if I could give the Treasurer a very short quote from Time magazine of April 18. This is about Toronto: “Houses and apartments offered for sale in the morning are snapped up by noon, at prices worthy of Manhattan or London’s West End. Investors flock into town from Hong Kong, South Africa, Britain and West Germany, leaving with pockets full of deeds.” Then there is a final quote from developer Terry Martel: “Where else can you put $40,000 down on a $160,000 investment and sell it two years later for $250,000?”

Will the Treasurer tell us why he will not bring in a land speculation tax that says loudly and clearly that land speculators are not welcome in the housing market in this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the member knows that many citizens of this jurisdiction, in the Metropolitan area, the north, Brantford, Windsor, right across the province, have had the opportunity to avail themselves of increasing costs and prices for real estate and housing properties. I do not think the idea that this is simply something that some mysterious group from Hong Kong is availing itself of, makes the kind of sense that seems to appeal to the member.

It may be that some sort of a tax or some sort of an additional control will be necessary in the future. Right now, our land transfer tax is returning a substantial amount to the Treasury of the province. I have even had complaints from honourable members of the House that the tax was too high. We are not saying that nothing will ever change in the future but, right now, the member will have to wait for the budget tomorrow when I have an opportunity to present it to the concerned citizens of the province.

TRANSPORTATION IN OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Ottawa-Carleton now has a population of more than 600,000 people. It is the second largest metropolitan area in all of Ontario. It is the fastest growing area in all of Ontario, including the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. So it is even growing faster than this particular area.

This growth has put a substantial strain on the infrastructure of our transportation system in the Ottawa-Carleton area. As a result of a recent transportation forum, including all levels of government, including the provincial level, the conclusion reached was that while the total amount of money allocated to the region for transportation needs has fluctuated since 1983, there has been no growth in funding --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Sterling: There has been no growth in funding matching the growth in population. Is the minister willing to make certain that the Treasurer in his budget tomorrow gives Ottawa-Carleton a fair shake?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Not only did we participate in the transportation forum, we initiated it and paid a major share of it. We are very aware and very conscious of the needs of a growing area, and particularly of our nation’s capital and the region. My members on this side have often brought issues to our attention.

I would like the member to be aware that we have speeded up the project we inherited, namely, the Queensway, by a substantial amount of time and money. We have made the announcement to get on with Highway 416. We work very closely -- in fact, Ottawa-Carleton receives something in the range of 20 per cent of our total provincial transit subsidies. We work very closely with the region, and I think that study shows the intent of this ministry and this government.

1500

Mr. Sterling: We appreciate the funding with regard to the forum. What we are more concerned about is funding to do some real work. I might add that if the Queensway had been completed when the Premier said it was going to be completed, it would have been completed two years ago. They are still constructing it now.

Last year the Treasurer enriched the budget for the ministry by some $290 million; $130 million was allocated for Metropolitan Toronto and $30 million was allocated for the north. Is there going to be some special allocation for eastern Ontario or is the minister going to forget about us again?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not accept for a moment that this ministry or this government has neglected eastern Ontario or Ottawa-Carleton in particular. We have done a great deal of work down there and the member is well aware of most of it or he is driving in the dark. We work very closely with all the officials of the region, and certainly with the city of Ottawa. Most of their requests are being met.

Certainly the member will know, having sat at one time in the government, that not all needs can be met, but we have shown more than a desire and a great willingness to try to meet those needs. As the member has pointed out, the Treasurer has been very generous to this ministry, and I hope it will continue.

LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I think he knows I have been trying to learn as much as possible about the agricultural side of my riding. I recently attended a meeting on his land stewardship program and I was very impressed by what I heard there. We hear a good deal about land that is being taken out of production but, as I understand it, under this program land is being brought into production. Could the minister tell us something about his land stewardship program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is an excellent question. Apart from the reform measures of this government to provide better health care, better education and better social services, all at a substantially increased cost but carried out in a very fiscally responsible manner, this government also has the determination to provide a legacy of fertile soil to the children and the children’s children of this province, so that they can adequately feed themselves as well as the less fortunate people in other parts of the world. That is the reason for the land stewardship program, realizing that we do have a very major problem in this province, that is, the loss of our land due to soil erosion.

This program has been well accepted by the farmers right across this province. It has been so overwhelming that the number of applications we have been receiving has far exceeded the allotment that we have been able to give to the various regions of --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe the supplementary could be a little more specific.

Mr. Adams: I thank the minister for that response. I confess I could not hear the last part of it. I also confess to the minister I am not a farmer but I do struggle with a garden every spring. At the meeting I mentioned, I was very intrigued by a particular technique, which it seemed to me would allow me to cultivate my garden each year without digging. It is called something like no-till seeding. It allows a farmer to plant without tilling. Apparently this can be used, for example, to improve pasture or to conserve moisture. Can the minister comment on no-till seeding for us?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the minister can do it very briefly.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This is just one of the measures we are trying to encourage farmers to use in trying to conserve the soil. A lot of our soil is getting away from us, particularly in the spring when there is no cover on the ground and the soil is being removed by the wind. We are trying to encourage farmers to leave sufficient cover on the ground so that the soil will not blow away, and that is where no-till seeding comes into play.

It is a method where farmers move on to the land with their seeding equipment and plant the crop over the top of the stubble that was left from the previous crop. This program will help farmers to modify their equipment so that they can carry out these soil conservation measures.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. We have been waiting for someone to correct the record today concerning the site in Scarborough, the nine acres that the minister announced would be provided for in the Housing First policy for affordable housing and where the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) announced something different this morning -- and I will quote from the Toronto Star story: “He said...9 acres of land at Ellesmere Avenue and McCowan Road were inadvertently lumped in with several sites to be sold by the province for future affordable housing. There are no plans for government-sponsored affordable housing anywhere in Scarborough.”

I suspect that one of them is telling the truth. Which one is it?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I appreciate the copy of the article that the honourable member sent across the floor. I am delighted to let him know that the facts in the article are incorrect. That particular site was part of the announcement. It was part of the lands to be released to be considered for affordable housing, with a mixed concept for development in keeping with the character of the community.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Let’s hear the supplementary, which should have an apology attached to it.

Mr. Breaugh: The Attorney General has intervened, and I would like to put on the record that I would be very happy to apologize to somebody if I could only figure out who was right and who was wrong. I would like the minister to put on the record this afternoon, in as precise a wording as he can muster, exactly what are the government intentions for that nine-acre parcel of land.

We have conflicting statements on what the government intends to do. Is the land to be used to develop affordable housing as the minister said, or is it not, as the local member said? Which of the two options are we to believe?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I will just reiterate what I said, that the article was incorrect. I refer the member to the announcement I made in the House this past week. There were five sites that were identified. We introduced also, through the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosĕk), the concept and the sensitivity by which we hope to proceed. We will be working with the municipalities on identifying the specific site details.

SPECIAL EDUCATION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. By now, I am sure the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), as well as the Minister of Community and Social Services, are aware of the recent deterioration in special education programs and assessments in special rehabilitation and treatment services being provided for the children in northeastern Ontario.

Can the minister explain to this House why he and his colleagues the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education have allowed this deterioration to take place?

1510

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The three ministries mentioned are currently in the process of putting together three teams of professionals who are going to work in the three major sections of northern Ontario and provide services, such as psychiatric services, psychology services and physiotherapy services, to the young people of northern Ontario.

There is presently a consultative process going on in those various sections, whereby the regional directors of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services are working together, as to the form and shape this would take.

Mr. Pope: That is probably as close an admission as we are going to get that over the past two years this government has presided over a deterioration of services to the children of northeastern Ontario. I want to know why, every time a school board from northeastern Ontario approaches his ministry or the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Health for special education funding under section 16 of his own memos this minister and his officials say they do not have any money for it.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member is aware of the fact that all three of the ministries he referred to have been very active in attempting to recruit into northern Ontario the kinds of professional staff who would supply these services. We have tried two or three programs. As a matter of fact, we have continued a program that the previous government had started. We followed up on that. They were not as successful as we wanted.

I point out to the honourable member, however, that despite that fact the allocation of resources from my ministry for children with special needs in northern Ontario, on a per child, per capita basis, is higher than any other part of the province.

Mr. Tatham: My question is to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) --

Mr. Speaker: I do not see the Minister of the Environment. Do you have a question for any other minister?

Mr. Tatham: I will ask it tomorrow.

PROPOSED ROAD EXTENSION

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week the Metropolitan Toronto council approved plans for the Leslie Street extension and Bayview widening which will link up Leslie Street in North York with Bloor Street, Gerrard Street and, ultimately, the Gardiner Expressway.

In view of the fact that a majority of the deputations at a public meeting on March 30 said that this proposal will destroy residential neighbourhoods, add to the pollution of the Don River and is contrary to the decentralization enshrined in the official plan for Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Bryden: -- will the minister declare that this wrong-way proposal is a matter of provincial interest under the Planning Act so that the cabinet, including the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is reported to be against it, will have an opportunity to review the impact of the proposal on our environment and on the Metro official plan, which is aimed at decentralizing development in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I understand that proposal will require an amendment to the official plan. We will certainly wait until we have further information-in that regard and will consider it at that time and have full input.

Mr. Faubert: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Twice in this House there have been comments related to a statement of mine. I would like to bring to the attention of the opposition the fact that I have written a letter to the Toronto Star, a copy of which was left in my garbage can outside my office, but I guess it was missed by their research staff.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That certainly is not a point of privilege.

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was interested today to find out that the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) does not know anything about gardening or farming. Apparently he does not know anything about his phone number either, so I want to send it over to him.

Mr. Speaker: I am at a little loss - -- order.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by 16 citizens from St. John’s United Church in Cambridge:

“We, the undersigned, disagree with Sunday shopping. Sunday is the only day of the week that is ‘uniformly’ a ‘day off’ for everyone.

“Not only is this a day for families to be together, to worship, relax, take a drive in the country or otherwise just be together, it is a day for neighbours to take a break from daily routine and say ‘Hi’ to one another. It is a day for communities to spend time together.

“If we say ‘yes’ to Sunday shopping, will we also need babysitters for our children while we work? Will we need banks to be open” --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I am listening very carefully to the member who is presenting a petition. It is difficult to hear with the movement in the chamber.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Don’t you know it by heart yet?

Mr. Pouliot: This is a different one, a new format.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there have to be private conversations, please keep them as low as possible. I know the member for Cambridge wants to continue.

Mr. Farnan: I appreciate the Speaker’s intervention and I know the government will want to listen to the voice of the people of Ontario and the people of Cambridge. I welcome this opportunity.

“Will we need banks to be open, to get money for our Sunday shopping spree? Will lawyers, dentists, teachers, etc., etc., be required to work regular Sunday hours? This just has a snowball effect, and ultimately our children’s futures are being decided here.

“We say ‘no’ to Sunday shopping. Please keep Sundays the way they are.”

I have attached my name to this petition.

I have another petition here. It is signed by 18 citizens of the Melrose United Church in Hamilton and it is entitled, “A Petition Against the Local Option for Sunday Shopping.”

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire, and

1520

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“We urge the government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by 18 citizens, and I have attached my name to it.

Finally, there is one further petition here. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, disagree with Sunday shopping. Sunday is the only day of the week that is ‘uniformly’ a ‘day off’ for everyone.

“Not only is this a day for families to be together, to worship, relax, take a drive in the country or otherwise just be together, it is a day for neighbours to take a break from daily routine, and say ‘Hi’ to one another. It’s a day for communities to spend time together.

“If we say ‘yes’ to Sunday shopping, will we also need babysitters for our children while we work? Will we need banks to be open, to get money for our Sunday shopping spree? Will lawyers, dentists, teachers, etc., etc., be required to work regular Sunday hours? This just has a snowball effect, and ultimately our children’s futures are being decided here.

“We say, ‘no’ to Sunday shopping. Please keep Sundays the way they are.”

This petition is signed by 10 citizens, and I have attached my name to it.

Mr. Pope: I have a petition which was presented to me last Friday morning in my constituency office in Timmins. I will just shorten the presentation. It was presented by Larry Gagnon, the president of the Downtown Merchants’ Association, and Barbara Jelbert, director of the Downtown Timmins Business Improvement Area. It is a petition that reads as follows:

“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 has been signed by over 5,300 residents of the city of Timmins and indicates their position on this matter.

I also have other letters of petition, which I will include with this one, from the people of Matheson and Iroquois Falls, including the Iroquois Falls Chamber of Commerce.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have yet another petition, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, petitioning the Ontario Legislature to introduce legislation which would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest extent without prejudice or harassment.

It is signed by 80 residents of Windsor, and I have attached my name to it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a new petition on the issue of Sunday working. It reads as follows:

“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 urge the Liberal government not to proceed with the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario, because despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a ‘local option’ for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres, but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more, and not less, difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and if necessary refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weigh heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers, where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because the time necessary for the investigation, mediation and, if necessary, refereeing of a refusal of a Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers seeking to exercise this so-called right of refusal; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades of recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I would hope the government will address the concerns expressed in that petition.

Mr. Speaker: Did you sign that as well?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Yes, I have signed that petition.

I have a second petition, which reads as follows:

“Petition to the government of Ontario regarding Sunday openings:

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, residing in the region of Niagara, support the intent and recommendations of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need of a common pause day for family nurture.

“We therefore call upon the Premier, David Peterson, and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and upholding Sunday as a common pause day.”

I have signed this one as well and submit it for consideration.

Mr. Jackson: I have several petitions here.

“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 call upon the government to accept the recommendation of 25 members of the Burlington Christian Reformed Church, who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario. We ask the government to abandon its attempt to make Sunday working a municipal responsibility.”

That is signed by the members of that congregation, and it has been signed by myself also.

I have two further petitions, which I will not necessarily read into the record, but they are from approximately 150 retail workers in the riding of Burlington South, and another series of petitions and handwritten letters stating objections from family members of retail workers in the riding of Burlington. I submit those as well for the government’s consideration and they have also received my signature and endorsement.

1530

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by members of Our Saviour Lutheran Church on Islington Avenue in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale:

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province, and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed that and I endorse the petition.

I have a different petition which read as follows:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families; ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’, and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’, and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I have signed this petition with all of the quotes that are contained from the select committee, just as I and the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) signed those same quotes when we signed that select committee report.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition here to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition is stating opposition to Sunday shopping. I will not take the time to read the petition; it is quite lengthy.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Oh, Margaret, you’re so good to us.

Mr. Pope: On the other hand, maybe you should if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) wants you to.

Mrs. Marland: If the Minister of Labour is asking me to do it, I will certainly do that.

What I have to say is that this bundle of petitions comes from six ridings, including my own, and I think that in itself is significant. The tidings include Mississauga South, Etobicoke West, Mississauga East, Oakville South, Mississauga West and Mississauga East. As members can see, it is a large number of petitions. They were submitted to me for presentation in this House, and I have signed my signature in agreement with the petition.

Mr. Charlton: I have two petitions that I would like to read this afternoon. The first one is from 40 members of the congregation of Olivet United Church in Hamilton, members who reside in the ridings of Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton West. The first petition reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“ 1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that legislation governing Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening bylaws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the market-place. Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

I have signed that petition, Mr. Speaker, and I have a second one:

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I have signed my name to that as well, Mr. Speaker.

1540

Mr. McLean: I have a petition here.

“We are the interfaith committee supporting the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. The religious organizations represented here are: Reverend Hudson Hilsden, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada; Canon A. R. Cuyler, Anglican Diocese of Toronto; Canon T. H. Rooke, St. Bride’s Anglican Church; Father Massey Lombardi, Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto,” and the list goes on and on of several of the clergy in Ontario who are behind this petition.

“The media and the general public have heard primarily from our coalition allies from the retail sector and from labour. While we have been active participants within the coalition, we have chosen to maintain a low profile -- until now.

“We believe that the government has misread the strength of feeling in Ontario regarding the issue of Sunday and wide-open shopping.” The public acrimony is mounting with this introduction and the public is concerned about the legislation and is very much opposed to the shopping.

The petition goes on and states the amount of 50,000 voters whom they are concerned about. They are concerned that it will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping. I have signed that petition on behalf of over 50,000 people in this province.

Miss Martel: I have two petitions which I would like to read into the record. The first is signed by residents of Scarborough, Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation concerning the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

I have endorsed this petition with my signature.

I have one further petition, a short one, which I would also like to read at this time. It is signed by 42 members of the Olivet United Church in Hamilton, Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“ l. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that legislation concerning Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening bylaws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the market-place. Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

I have also endorsed that with my signature.

Mr. Runciman: I have a petition addressed to the Premier and the general assembly:

“At this point in time, Mr. Premier, you should have realized the errors you are making with regard to Sunday shopping. For some reason you seem determined to proceed. Perhaps this is the best route to follow, but only if you will allow a free vote from all members. I am confident that if a free vote was cast, the honourable members could not and would not vote in favour of your plan to turn Sunday shopping legislation over to local municipalities and that the common pause day be kept intact when you decide to review and improve the legislation as it now stands.”

That is signed by residents of Brockville, Ontario, and Gananoque, Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

That petition is signed by 16 individuals and I have endorsed my signature to it as well.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario:

1550

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and, therefore, dumps responsibility for regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intention is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

‘‘Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by of finials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of a strong trade union representation, disputes over whether an individual’s and/or company’s actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of the workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because the time necessary for investigation, mediation and, if necessary, refereeing of a refusal of a Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers seeking to exercise this so-called right of refusal; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

This is signed by residents of the city of Toronto, and I am affixing my name thereto.

Mr. Reville: I have a petition which reads as follows:

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the first of 11 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

This is signed by four residents of the Riverdale riding, and I have appended my signature thereto.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

It is signed by 44 members of the congregation of St. Paul’s United Church, 42 Tragina Avenue North, in Hamilton, right around the corner from my constituency. They say:

“We at St. Paul’s United Church in Hamilton wish to make known to the officials and members of parliament of our provincial government that we oppose the transferring of authority to legislate on Sunday shopping to municipalities and to open Sunday shopping.

“We believe that it is important to maintain limits on the importance of commerce in our society and to protect persons from unwanted conflicts of conscience between work on one hand and religion and family on the other.

“We desire to maintain family togetherness and to keep a day set aside for people’s emotional, spiritual and physical health.

“For these reasons, we urge you, as a person with influence in decision-making, to do whatever you can to direct the legislation of the provincial government towards keeping Sunday as commerce free as possible and to maintain the authority of the provincial government in this matter.

“Enclosed are signatures and addresses of members of our congregation who wish made known their desire to keep Sundays as indicated.”

It is signed also by the interim minister, Joan I. Adams, and I have signed this petition as well and turn it over to the House.

Mr. Swart: I have a petition here signed by a number of residents from the city of Welland and delivered to my office yesterday morning.

It is addressed to “Premier David Peterson, the Lieutenant Governor and the assembly of Ontario.” It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, hereby petition against Sunday shopping. We all have the right to a common pause day. Sunday shopping is un-necessary and unethical. Sunday shopping is too important an issue to be ‘railroaded’ and ‘swept under the carpet.’ On what, Premier Peterson and Joan Smith, do you base your assumption that the people want wide-open Sunday shopping? People do not want to work on Sundays to provide this service for Sunday shoppers.

“Our government is based on the democratic way, therefore, the majority wins. That means no to Sunday shopping. Do not introduce this proposed legislation, because it is not what the majority of people want. Have some backbone and file this legislation in the garbage can! Stand up and be a true, proud Canadian.

“Introduction of this proposed legislation will create a catastrophe and strip employees and leave them naked in the rain. This is what you will be doing because there is no way you could ever protect every person from not working on Sundays without being punished and dismissed for refusing to work on Sunday. If you think your desk is full of discrimination complaints now, just wait till you introduce this bill!

“You can still have tourism without stores being open on Sundays. You can be sure there isn’t one tourist in Ontario that would travel 100 miles away to buy their week’s worth of groceries or their new furniture for their home, or even lumber for their new addition, simply because that city allows their stores to be open for the sake of tourism. This is simply a farce. We do not want to be Americanized.

“Sunday shopping will increase the price of goods and services. It will not create more jobs, as there will be more part-time jobs replacing full-time jobs. People simply do not have more money to spend. Most retail stores are open between 60 to 70 hours per week. This is ample time for any person to shop. We were not ‘born to shop.’”

As I say, it is signed by a number of residents in the Welland area. As members can tell, they feel rather strongly about this issue. I have signed this petition and will have it presented to the table. 1600

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition on the subject of Sunday working. It reads as follows:

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and protecting workers from being forced to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by four members of the Beaches-Woodbine riding, which is my riding, and I am pleased to endorse it and send it to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly.

M. Pouliot: Merci, Monsieur le Président. Pendant que les leaders parlementaires, eux, se rencontrent, quelques-uns diront que quand les chats n’y sont pas, les souris dansent.

Le vice-président: Votre pétition se lit comme suit?

Mr. Pouliot: I take a great deal of pride in presenting, on behalf of 15 very concerned citizens on the issue of Sunday working, the following petition:

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition from 16 members of the congregation of Olivet United Church in Hamilton.

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

I have signed my name to that petition.

I have a second petition signed by 17 members of the congregation of St. Andrews United Church:

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

1610

I have signed my name to this petition as well.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition from 18 residents of Hamilton who petition the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

Needless to say, I agree with this petition and I have affixed my name to it.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition which I have received from the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, whose head office is in my riding. It reads as follows:

“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 policy of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario Inc. to oppose open Sunday shopping in Ontario and,

“Whereas we also oppose the government of Ontario abdicating their responsibility by turning the decision over to the regional municipalities of Ontario and,

“Whereas we decided to poll our many senior citizens’ clubs for their opinions,

“We, therefore, beg leave to indicate to the parliament of Ontario the opinions of our members who represent many localities across the province.”

The results from 24 different localities representing 28 clubs and 546 members are overwhelmingly in opposition to Sunday shopping.

The clubs that have reported are from Wiarton, Rockport, Hornepayne, Hamilton, East Gwillimbury, Sundridge, Thunder Bay, Kleinburg Lindsay, St. George, Rexdale, Etobicoke, Kenora, Sudbury, North York and Marmora. The petition is confirmed by Joyce King, president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, and by Alex Mansfield, first vice-president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario. I am pleased to support their petition.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I present my petition can I compliment you on the job you are doing under very trying circumstances. You are carrying out your duties with aplomb, diligence and dedication and I commend you for that.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: I think the Liberal members could show you more respect by stopping their heckling.

The 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:

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: No, you are not going to; you are going to leave it to local option, in which case the workers could end up having to work on Sundays.

The Deputy Speaker: And the petition continues? Read on.

Mr. Smith: It will be good stuff, Floyd.

Mr. Laughren: No, it will not be, David.

-- ”to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities, and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation was becoming more and more impossible to enforce particularly in many large urban centres, but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules and different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and” --

Mr. Black: Are they different across the province?

Mr. Laughren: You are going to ensure that they are different all across the province and it will no longer be a local option, even though you are trying to pretend it will be. This will not be a local option. If one municipality decides it is going to have open shopping, you know full well that the next municipality will too:

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and” --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let’s have a look at the bill, Floyd.

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Labour is doing a lot of yapping, but when the minister tried to introduce the bill, he told --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will address his petition through the chair.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you. In the past you have done a fine job.

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers, where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I am pleased to have presented this petition and to attach my name thereto.

1620

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I also join in the compliment to you in the hope that this will also make you generous towards me. I am very glad the Minister of Labour is here, because this petition, which I have signed, from several people in Toronto refers to the minister a great deal.

It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, as it should be, and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

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

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal government who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because the time necessary for the investigation, mediation and, if necessary, the refereeing of a refusal of Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers seeking to exercise this so-called right of refusal; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

It is signed by these people I had mentioned and will now be signed by myself as well.

Mr. Velshi: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker: I did not hear how many petitioners signed that petition. Just for the purpose of information, I would like to know.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There were two.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition which is signed by 10 people from the city of Etobicoke. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health.

“We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

In other words, they are opposed to the view that we all should shop until we drop.

Mr. Laughren: This petition reads as follows:

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province, and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This has signatures, too many to count, including my name.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition signed by two residents of Ontario, in the city of Toronto, and it reads as follows:

“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:

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated that they do not want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with a right to refuse work that they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weigh heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because, even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I concur with the petition, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition from Our Saviour Lutheran Church, Islington Avenue, Rexdale, Ontario, on the subject of Sunday opening:

“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:

The petition is signed by nine members of the congregation of Our Saviour Lutheran Church, and I am very pleased to sign it myself, to support it and to perform my democratic duty of presenting this petition in the Legislature.

1630

I have another petition, if I may continue. This petition is signed by three residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

“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 urge the Liberal government not to proceed with the legislation it has announced but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario, because despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a ‘local option’ for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more, and not less, difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by of finials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weigh heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are ‘reasonable’ are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I support this petition and I have the pleasure of presenting it to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr. Swart: I have a petition here signed by two members --

Mr. Black: Two?

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have been interrupted. I think we should make it clear that the rules of this province provide that citizens of this province, whether it is one or two or three, have the right to present petitions to this Legislature. I see these Liberals ridiculing petitions where there are only two or three --

Interjection.

Mr. Swart: Let them stand up and say they want to take that right away.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

The member will read his petition through the Speaker.

Mr. Swart: That point is worth making, Mr. Speaker. This petition, signed by two Toronto residents, 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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated” -- overwhelmingly -- ”they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

1640

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

I endorse the contents of this petition.

Do I not get any applause? I thought I did very well.

This is a petition signed by 17 residents of the Welland area and delivered to my office on Monday morning. It expresses some very strongly held views in opposition to Sunday shopping. It is addressed:

“To Premier David Peterson, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, hereby petition against Sunday shopping. We all have the right to a common pause day.

“1. Remember, you are shirking your responsibilities as government officials when you say give Sunday shopping openings over to the municipalities.

“2. Government officials are voted into office for the public’s interest, not your own. Everybody wants off the hook! Where’s your back-bone, or don’t you have any?

“3. Remember we are people with potent voices to be heard, not ‘a herd of cattle,’ nor are we ‘doormats’ to be stepped on.

“4. Stop changing your mind. You are supposed to be making decisions for the benefit of the people, not yourselves! Cards are stacked against the public who are opposed to Sunday shopping.

“5. Sunday shopping boils down to one thing: ‘Greed.’ The only people to benefit from Sunday shopping are owners of large businesses with already bulging pocketbooks. These are people who most definitely would not be working on Sunday.

“6. How many polls posed the question of ‘Would you be willing to work Sundays for the convenience of Sunday shopping tourists”?

“7. If people are forced to work Sundays, they will find it necessary to pull their children out of school once a week to give them a common pause day.

“8. Stop using tourism as the scapegoat for wide-open Sunday shopping.

“9. You are putting the law that prevents discrimination against religion to the test. You will not be providing protection to the future retail employee.

“10. If all retail stores are forced to be open Sundays, then all government offices, such as post office employees and officials, mayor’s office and city hall and courthouse employees, should be open as well. There would be a lot of opposition from these people if the tables were turned around.

“11. All councillors should closely weigh the pros and cons of Sunday shopping. They should also examine their own families’ and their consciences before ever jumping to a quick conclusion of such a serious nature.”

It is respectfully submitted and, as I say, signed by 17 people of the city of Welland, some of whom I know and I know the sincerity with which they present this petition. I will sign it now, as I am required to do.

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition signed by 22 parishioners from Our Saviour Lutheran Church in Rexdale, Ontario. As always, they wish to petition the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and would also like, if it is permissible, to thank the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) for allowing their voice to be heard.

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

"We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition here.

“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 we want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

I want the House to know that this happens to be signed by 302 people in the city of Toronto and the immediate surrounding area. That is a short one, but we will deal with a little longer one in a moment. I have signed that petition.

Just to go to the other side of the coin, we will deal with one single petitioner from Toronto. I will acknowledge my colleague’s remark that every single person has the right to be heard. I find unfortunate some of the comments about the numbers on petitions. That is why I did the 302 first.

“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:

Mr. Black: Do you wonder what’s coming next?

Mr. Mackenzie: We have lots of initiatives.

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and-

Mr. Black: So do we.

Mr. Mackenzie: It does not sound like it.

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

1650

As I said, it is signed by one important citizen of Ontario. I am pleased to sign this particular petition and turn it over to the Clerk.

Mr. Reville: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

“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:

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and, therefore, dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation was “becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,” but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce, and

“Because the government’s stated intention is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment, because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals shall be mediated and if necessary refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

This is signed by two petitioners, and I have appended my name thereto.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition signed by 14 members of the congregation of Our Saviour Lutheran Church in Rexdale, Ontario. It 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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I am happy to sign this petition and endorse its sentiments.

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition that is from both Hamilton and Toronto. For those members who are worried about the numbers on petitions, I want to reassure them that one person from Hamilton and one person from Toronto have signed this petition. It reads as follows:

“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:

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and, therefore, dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation was “becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,” but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to, and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because the time necessary for the investigation, mediation and, if necessary, refereeing of a refusal of a Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers who seek to exercise this so-called right of refusal, and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have two petitions.

The first is from the Olivet United Church in Hamilton.

Mr. Miller: I have heard that name before this afternoon.

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is a very active congregation.

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that legislation governing Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening by-laws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the market-place.

“Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to the municipalities.”

It is signed by a goodly number of the parishioners.

1700

My second petition is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and is signed by a number of residents of Toronto and Oshawa. I forgot to sign the last one, sorry.

Mr. Velshi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: According to the standing orders, the number of signatures have to be mentioned. If I am wrong, please correct me, but the number of signatures on every petition has to be mentioned each time.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I am sure that the member for Scarborough West is going to continue the reading of his petition and will indicate the signatories thereto.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am sure the member will want to read standing order 31(b) very carefully and he will see that the verb “may” is a verb which allows some latitude, as he may or may not know.

The Acting Speaker: I request that the honourable member continue with his petition.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do members remember where I was? I do, luckily.

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

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and, therefore, dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach” -- welcome, Mr. Speaker -- ”because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres’” -- I believe it was the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) who said that – “but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within the region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce, and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier” --unthinkable that this could be the case, but that is what it says here -- ”that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to” -- he said that -- ”and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by of finials of the employment standards branch” -- God knows how long that could take -- ”will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable and the number and character of those factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and --

Mr. Epp: Sounds like you wrote that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am getting it better the second time.

“Because the time necessary for the investigation, mediation and, if necessary, refereeing of a refusal of Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers seeking to exercise this so-called right of refusal; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities” --

Mr. Black: You said “reprehensible.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: “Reprehensible” is the word they used here -- ”in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I will affix my signature and then I will hand it to patient Paul, who has been waiting to take this to the table.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition from members of Rexdale Presbyterian Church in Rexdale:

“To the Honourable 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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercialization of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

As I mentioned, it is signed by members of the Rexdale Presbyterian Church. I have also signed it.

Rexdale Presbyterian Church has just recently installed the most beautiful, ancient stained glass windows. I urge members of the Liberal Party to come and see the stained glass windows and see what the people of Rexdale Presbyterian Church have to say about Sunday shopping.

I have another petition signed by members of St. Andrews Catholic Church in Rexdale. St. Andrews Catholic Church has also installed new stained glass windows, although they are not as ancient as the ones at Rexdale Presbyterian.

The Deputy Speaker: The petition reads?

Mr. Philip: “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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

It is signed, as I said, by members of St. Andrews Catholic Church, the church with the beautiful new stained glass windows that I would urge members of the Liberal Party to come and see and talk to the people of St. Andrews.

Mr. Charlton: I have yet another petition, from 13 members of the congregation of Olivet United Church in Hamilton who reside in Hamilton Mountain riding and in the riding of Hamilton West.

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

‘We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

I have signed this petition and, as I said, it is signed by 13 members of the congregation.

I have a second petition, signed by three residents of the city of Toronto:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

1710

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

I have added my name to this petition, Mr. Speaker. I have one last petition.

“A petition to the government of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario residing in the region of Niagara, support the intent and recommendations of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature, and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada, rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need of a common pause day for family nurture.

“We, therefore, call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and upholding Sunday as our common pause day.”

This is signed by 23 residents of Niagara region and I have added my signature to that petition as well.

Mr. Allen: I would be happy to invite members opposite to come over and read some of our petitions. We have many to go and it might give them a little change of pace in the course of the afternoon.

Might I please read, none the less, first of all, a petition from a number of residents, 28 persons residing in west Toronto.

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed that petition, Mr. Speaker, and I send it to the Clerk.

I have a further petition from St. Andrews United Church in Hamilton West, 21 names who petition as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays, and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, petition from a number of residents, 28 persons religious organizations, small and large retailers, residing in west Toronto. groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

I have signed my name also to this petition and send it with the page to the desk of the Clerks of the House.

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition signed by five members of the congregation of Olivet United Church in Hamilton. It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

I have added my name to that petition.

I have a second petition, which is signed by 12 residents of, I believe, Etobicoke.

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have added my name to this petition as well.

I have one last petition that I would like to present to the House. This petition is signed by three residents of the city of Toronto and reads as follows:

“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:

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a ‘local option’ for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation was becoming ‘more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more, and not less, difficult to enforce; and

1720

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable, and

“Because the substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I have added my name to this petition as well.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition here with 14 names on it, which reads as follows:

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have also added my own name.

I may say that this is a rather interesting petition with some additional inscriptions from Our Saviour Lutheran Church. Two of Her Majesty’s younger loyal subjects, Chad and Derrick, have, with their uneven hand, added their names to the petition as well.

I will also read the following petition with nine names which come from the rural district around Lindsay, RR 1 principally. These nine names address this petition:

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people, and

I have signed this petition also and I send it with the page to the desk of the Clerk.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition which I was given by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and it is the same as he has been repeating all day regarding the St. Andrews United Church wording. It opposes Sunday shopping.

Mr. Charlton: I have yet another petition from the giant congregation at Olivet United Church in Hamilton. This is signed by six members of that congregation.

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that the legislation governing Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening bylaws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the marketplace. Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

I have added my name to that petition.

I have a second petition signed by six residents of the city of Toronto.

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own L-1730-1 follows unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as the key pillar of Ontario society’; and

1730

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness to them;

I have added my signature to this petition.

Mr. Allen: I want to thank the member for Kitchener for helping us out in this task.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Any time.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Rippon of Rippon’s Variety store down the street from my constituency office may wonder why the member for Kitchener was reading his petition, but I would say to all the constituents of the member’s constituency, I would be happy to read their petitions into the record also.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I haven’t received any.

Mr. Allen: Maybe they will write after they listen to this session, and they will send them on to the member or to me.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Your current petition reads?

Mr. Allen: May I read into the record the petition of 12 names from Toronto who petitioned.

“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:

I have affixed my name to this, and I will send this to the table of the Clerk. I also have another petition signed by two residents, one of Bain Avenue and the other of Wolverleigh Boulevard in Toronto, who petition as follows:

“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 urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario:

“Because despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities, even within a region, and for different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more, not less, difficult to enforce, and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to, and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable, and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions, and

“Because the work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable or not, and the number and character of these factors weigh heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments, and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of the workers, for it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition and I send it to the Clerk’s desk.

Mr. Charlton: I expect we will probably see the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) up on his feet next week introducing petitions opposed to Sunday shopping after his advertising campaign back here earlier.

I have yet another petition

Mr. Adams: I am opposed to Sunday shopping, but not to this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: I have yet another petition, from four members of the congregation of Olivet United Church in Hamilton.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain a few minutes ago indicated he was presenting his last petition today.

Mr. Charlton: No, the last for that round.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I am wondering if it is proper to recognize him again.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Chariton: It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that legislation governing Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening bylaws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the marketplace. Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

I am adding my name to this petition.

Mr. Black: Is that your last one?

Mr. Chariton: No. I have another petition, from 12 residents of Etobicoke. It reads as follows:

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed my name to that petition.

I have a third petition, signed by seven residents of Hamilton-Wentworth, six from the city of Hamilton and one from the city of Stoney Creek. It reads as follows:

“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 t is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’ s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

1740

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

I will add my signature to this petition.

Mr. Allen: I am happy to present a petition from 20 persons who reside in my constituency.

“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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on wowing people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

I am happy to sign my name to this petition and to send it to the table of the Clerk.

I have another petition I would like to read, which contains the names of 10 Chinese persons who live on various streets, Bloor Street, Middleton Crescent, Solby Drive, Lindsey, Ontario Street, Jane Street, Norval, Starlight Crescent, Kingston Road. They petition the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

I have affixed my name to this petition and I will send it with the page to the Clerk.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition:

“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 urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead” --

Mr. Callahan: What about the mayor? The mayor changed his mind, didn’t he? He wants that.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The mayor is your problem; he is not mine.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his petition through the Speaker.

Mr. Morin-Strom: “We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario;

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government this amounts to creating a ‘local option’ for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation was ‘becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more, and not less, difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weigh heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are ‘reasonable’ are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers, where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I support this petition and I have affixed my signature to the same.

Mr. Callahan: Do you agree with the mayor?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Of course not.

I have a second petition. I can read the petition; I have some difficulty reading the signatures, because it includes some signatures in Chinese. There are a number of members of that ethnic community in our province. It says:

1750

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I support this petition and I have signed it as well.

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition signed by 35 residents of the city of Etobicoke.

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

l have added my signature to this petition. I have a second petition from two residents of the city of Toronto.

“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 urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario;

“Because despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and therefore dumps responsibility for the regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans none the less to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intent is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with a right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether individual and/or company actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I have added my signature to this petition as well.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition containing 33 names from the Rexdale area of the west end of the city of Toronto. I would like to read this petition, which is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have affixed my name to this petition and I send it to the table of the Clerk.

I have another petition, which has four names on it, but I note on it a name that makes up for its smallness in numbers, namely that of our recent colleague Elie Martel. When Mr. Martel speaks about the state of and concern about the working people of Ontario, you know it is genuine and you know that you have somebody who is really on your side.

The Deputy Speaker: And the petition reads?

Mr. Allen: So it is with a great deal of pleasure that I read this petition. It reads as follows:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

I have signed this and I send it out with the page to the Clerk’s table.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

19 avril 1988