Journal des débats 1988-juin-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Harris: This government’s commitment to affordable housing can be measured by the fact that the average price for a house sold in the Metro area last month was nearly $233,000, an increase of close to four per cent from the previous month. This latest increase further reduces the already marginal effectiveness of the government’s vaunted Ontario home ownership savings plan.

Perhaps some day this government will explain to the 96 per cent of potential first-time buyers who cannot afford to buy a $200,000 home how it has helped make home ownership more affordable by increasing the land transfer tax and by pursuing inflationary policies which help to drive up mortgage rates. Perhaps the government will explain how adding up to $2,900 in retail sales tax increases to the cost of a new house is helping to keep home ownership in reach of the middle class. This is simply another of the many instances in which this government’s policies conflict with its rhetoric.

The government should spend less time trying to overhaul the rather tattered image and reputation of its Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and more time overhauling its tax policies as they affect the price of housing.

A HISTORY OF VESPRA TOWNSHIP

Mr. Owen: I would like to take this opportunity to present an impressive new book to the parliamentary library, A History of Vespra Township. The book contains a vivid history of Vespra township, as well as histories of many of the other communities which border it in my riding of Simcoe Centre.

The supervisory editors of this fine publication have called it one of the most engrossing local histories ever put together in Canada, and I am quick to agree.

Perhaps what is most fascinating about A History of Vespra Township is that it is peppered with recollections of its residents, past and present. These reminiscences provide a refreshing, sometimes hilarious and always interesting look at this rural area of Ontario.

The book is also filled with pictures, giving an exciting glimpse into the province’s past. The people of Vespra township are to be commended on this book. It is they, through their farsightedness, who have preserved the past in such an entertaining and enlightening way. Many of Vespra’s residents had a hand in the production of this volume by writing sections, providing photographs or sharing their recollections of the past.

A History of Vespra Township is a treasure-house of Canadiana, covering the period between the early 1820s up to 1950. One of the goals in preparing this publication was to bring pioneer history to life. I can assure the members A History of Vespra Township does just that.

It is with great pleasure that I present this book to be placed in the parliamentary library, and I encourage all members to have a look at it.

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Reville: I rise on a point which I think will trouble all members of the Legislature. It has to do with the labour dispute at CFTO.

Members will be aware that the government of Ontario, through several of its ministries, has advertising time on CFTO. I think it is important for the ministers involved to pull those ads until this union-busting has stopped. I know the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation continues to advertise lottery sales. The Ministry of Health has its acquired immune deficiency syndrome campaign running on CFTO. As well, other ministries of this government are participating, perhaps including the Ministry of the Attorney General in terms of some of the public information it puts out. The sexual assault ads would be another example.

I am sure it is possible to suspend those ads, under the terms of the contracts the government, through its ministries, has with this network. I think it is totally inappropriate for this government to be seen to be in any way condoning or conniving in this outrageous union-busting.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Jackson: Tomorrow, during private members’ time, I will move a resolution that calls for a legislative committee to investigate all aspects of the problems of sexual assault in Ontario. The committee would hear testimony from victims of sexual assault to get their views on the way the system does or does not work.

One area in which women must be allowed to speak out is the gross difference between the treatment of criminals and the treatment of victims. Members will agree that both criminals and victims require counselling, but who pays for what? The Ministry of Correctional Services employs 96 social workers at an average of $500 a week and 60 psychologists and similar professionals at $50,000 per year in order to counsel those convicted of crimes.

For sexual assault victims, however, only crisis counselling -- that is, counselling immediately following the attack -- is free. I have already documented financial difficulties facing the centres which provide this initial service. These women must pay for all future counselling themselves.

My motion would let MPPs hear how victims feel about this inequity and how they feel about the fact that their assailants contribute nothing to their medical and counselling needs. Perhaps committee members will decide to look into the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act and consider ways of forcing criminals to pay their fair share of the damage they have done.

I ask all members to support this resolution in a nonpartisan spirit of co-operation.

ALLISON HIGSON

Mr. Callahan: It is with some pleasure and great pride that I rise today to salute a citizen of the city of Brampton, a very excellent athlete. I delayed making this statement on her behalf because this young lady seems to win competition after competition. If one makes a statement today, she will probably win another one tomorrow.

I speak of Allison Higson. This 15-year-old young lady is a pupil at J. A. Turner Secondary School in Brampton. She swims the breast-stroke and, just recently, she broke a world record in the 200-metre breast-stroke. I had the occasion to present her with a number of awards for excellence that she achieved in the Commonwealth Games approximately a year and a half ago.

I rise because this young lady, being 15 years of age, does us proud, not only as residents of the city of Brampton but also as Canadians and Ontarians. I have no doubt whatsoever that she will represent us with great pride and dignity in the Seoul games.

1340

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am pleased that the present Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and the past Minister of Education are both here in the House today for that splendid anniversary of the announcement of A Proposal for Action: Ontario’s Heritage Language Program, announced by the then minister, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), a year ago.

Submissions were all to be in by October. They were all compiled in this report that I have, which was leaked to me. It was written in November of last year and was given to the minister in December. Besides a few petitions and form letters from people, there were not that many responses to be brought together.

Yet here we are with a large response in favour of a mandated program of heritage languages, as was proposed in the yellow paper, being supported out there in the community -- with a few caveats, but generally the community is in favour -- and a year later we still have no indication from the new minister or from the old minister as to when this government thinks it would be appropriate to improve the heritage-language programs in Ontario in such a way that we might make some major steps towards really having an antiracist and more rational and understanding kind of multicultural program in those schools.

But it is a wonderful day, is it not?

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: Yesterday, in the Toronto Sun, we were shocked and saddened to read that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has rejected the recommendations of the recent underfunding report by the Ontario Federation of Students.

The 250,000-member OFS; its outgoing chair, Sheena Weir; its chair-elect, Shelley Potter, and its excellent and professional research staff should be commended on this insightful and well-written look at the disgraceful manner in which this Liberal government has been funding our post-secondary institutions.

The English title of the report is Cut to the Bone. While I think it is appropriate, I would refer members to its French version, Un système en ruine, a system in ruins. That just about says it all.

Applications to universities were up by seven per cent in 1987 and 12 per cent in 1988. I point out that many of these applications are from women, members of visible minorities and groups that have faced systemic discrimination for many years.

Operating grants have not kept pace with these increases. In fact, for the past decade, they have not even kept pace with inflation.

The Premier makes much of the Premier’s Council and its goals of turning Canada into an internationally competitive, world-class society. He cannot do that unless universities and colleges are adequately funded. Right now, despite his grandiose statements, his financial commitment to post-secondary education shows, as the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) says so often, “The emperor has no clothes.”

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to raise the question of the involvement of the Legislature in electronic strikebreaking.

The Speaker will no doubt be aware that the management at the television station in Toronto, CFTO, has locked out its employees in the bargaining unit and is refusing to bargain with them. The Speaker will perhaps not be aware that facilities here have been used by CFTO in order to do some editing and to send that material on to the station during the course of this lockout by the management at CFTO.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask you to have a look at what use is being made of facilities here by the station. Under our television guidelines, I note that the audio-videotapes which are produced by the Legislative Assembly may be shown by television stations and/or cablecasters live or by means of recordings.

There is a separate question which I am referring to you, and that is the question of the use of facilities here for editing purposes; that is to say, the use of facilities here in a manner that would affect the dispute which is ongoing between the management at CFTO and the trade union involved.

Obviously, this is even more important by virtue of the fact that what is happening here is a lockout, not a strike, and that management is at this point still refusing to bargain with the employees in the bargaining unit.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the matter that has been brought to my attention by the Leader of the Opposition and I will certainly do as he requests.

Mr. B. Rae: Boy, that’s a first.

Mr. Speaker: Quite usual.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Later today, I intend to introduce a bill to revise the Personal Property Security Act. The Personal Property Security Act is a key piece of legislation that provides a comprehensive set of rules to govern the rights of both the lender and borrower when personal property is used as collateral in a transaction.

The proposed amendments are intended to improve the system whereby secured lenders can protect themselves by recording notice of their security interests. For example, when a purchaser buys a vehicle and uses it as collateral, the lender is, in fact, taking a security interest in the car to ensure maximum legal protection for repayment of the loan. Prospective lenders and purchasers can also protect themselves by carrying out searches in the system.

The proposed bill also includes provisions to enhance consumer protection by providing solutions to common problems faced by buyers and debtors.

Registrations relating to consumer goods will have to be discharged within 30 days after all obligations under a security agreement have been performed or forgiven. Additional consumer protection amendments would ensure that consumer buyers can rely on motor vehicle identification number searches.

The major change in the bill I will be introducing is the repeal of the Corporation Securities Registration Act. The intent of the repeal and other complementary amendments is to integrate and clarify the law relating to security interests in personal property. No longer will we need a separate system for registering corporation securities that are pledged as collateral.

The proposed legislation also includes the repeal of the Bills of Sale Act. Such a repeal would prevent the situation where a bankruptcy threatens to leave buyers high and dry. Members will recall the recent case where boat buyers were prevented from taking possession of their boats after they had paid for them in full and stored them in the boat builder’s yard. When the boat builder declared bankruptcy, a technicality in the law allowed the boats to be deemed to be part of the builder’s property. The repeal of the Bills of Sale Act will eliminate such unfortunate situations.

Since it became law in 1976, the Personal Property Security Act has been monitored by an advisory committee to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. During the past 12 years, the committee has conducted an extensive examination of similar acts in other provinces and countries, heard representations from interested persons and comments from members of the bar and examined existing jurisprudence under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act. Over the years, my ministry has participated in the advisory committee’s deliberations.

At this point, I wish to thank Fred Catzman for the professionalism he brought to his task, both as chairman of the committee which drafted the original personal property legislation and as leader of the advisory committee on the new bill. I want to draw the members’ attention to the gallery, as Mr. Catzman is with us today. I would ask him to stand.

The research and work of the committee produced more than 200 suggested amendments. The bill as it stands is closely based on the excellent work of the committee.

Later today, I will also be introducing a related bill, the Repair and Storage Liens Act. This proposed legislation has been jointly developed by my ministry and the Ministry of the Attorney General and will result in the repeal of the Unclaimed Articles Act, the Warehousemen’s Lien Act and the Mechanics’ Lien Act.

In many cases the present law is unclear and vague and creates problems for repairers, customers and those who store their goods. In addition, no adequate procedures exist to resolve disputes concerning the repair and storage of articles. In an effort to resolve these problems, a discussion paper on the Repair and Storage Liens Act was circulated by the Ministry of the Attorney General in 1985. Today’s bill reflects constructive suggestions offered by the industry.

In particular, the proposed legislation provides for the creation of a nonpossessory lien which will enable repairers and storers to release an article but still retain a lien against it. Notably, this occurs in cases where articles are repaired on an owner’s premises. These nonpossessory lien claims will be registered in the personal-property-security-registration system.

In closing, I believe creditors and other commercial users of the personal-property-security system will benefit from the streamlining of the legislation and consumers will benefit from new measures to facilitate consumer loan registration.

1350

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to report on the forest-fire situation in Ontario. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) has shared some of his observations with me and I would like to report as follows.

I would like to bring members up to date on the forest-fire situation in Ontario. Right now, there are 80 fires burning throughout the province. So far this year there have been 841 fires and they have consumed more than 65,000 hectares, some 151,000 acres.

The conditions in the north continue to be serious. Much of our northern forests are tinder-dry and temperatures are above normal.

My ministry’s fire crews are doing everything possible to protect life and property. They are receiving valuable assistance from support groups, including 24 native crews trained in firefighting. In areas where communities are threatened, the situation is being carefully monitored.

I should mention our efforts in the far north, where there have been 24 fires under observation. Our district managers and our fire-behaviour specialists are monitoring these fires and are in close communication with these northern communities.

Where the situation warrants action, we are ready to move in to protect people and property in communities in the far north and in outpost camps.

For example, on Sunday four families were evacuated by helicopter from a remote community on Kashechewan reserve on the western shore of James Bay. Six private cabins were destroyed in the Bad River area near Sudbury. This fire is now under control and crews managed to protect a nearby lodge.

Our firefighting resources are spread very thin because of the number of fires. We are extremely grateful to other jurisdictions for the significant support they have given us with equipment and personnel under the mutual aid resource-sharing agreement. We have been provided with 11 aircraft, including eight CL-215 water bombers, from Newfoundland, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Alberta.

The extreme weather and burning conditions have led me to declare a restricted fire zone across virtually all of northern Ontario. It will be in effect until June 13 in most northern areas. A restricted fire zone currently in place over my ministry’s northwestern region terminates on June 10, but that one is still under review.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that we need the full co-operation of the public to help us through this difficult situation. Human carelessness has caused a significant number of the fires, especially in the last few days. We need the co-operation of the public to prevent more fires.

RESPONSES

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Wildman: In response to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), we appreciate the efforts that are being made by the ministry staff and the volunteer crews to fight fires across northern Ontario. We are experiencing a serious drought, in the northwest particularly. It is a very difficult situation.

I appreciate the comments made by the minister with regard to the aircraft and other equipment sent in from other provincial jurisdictions. I hope, though, that the minister will assure the House that we will not have a repetition of the situation we had during the serious fire in the northwest a few weeks ago, when our own water bombers were under maintenance and were not available to fight the fire and we had to bring in equipment from elsewhere. Surely we can ensure that our own equipment is being used as well as the equipment from other jurisdictions.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

Mr. Swart: We have before us today three statements by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). It would appear, on a quick reading of these, that they will enhance the protection to consumers and provide for greater security for those people who have purchased products, etc. However, either to criticize these to any greater extent or certainly to applaud these bills at this time, before one has a chance really to read the legislation, would be premature. We will have a lot more to say on them on second reading.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Pollock: I want to comment briefly on the report by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on the firefighting in the north. I do not doubt for one minute that it is a major problem, especially when the forests are so tinder-dry. Anything the general public can do to prevent forest fires would certainly be appreciated.

The fact is also appreciated that under the mutual-aid situation we have 11 aircraft in the province from different provinces and territories fighting these forest fires. We always appreciate the help of those other provinces.

Let’s face it, though, Ontario is by far the largest province and has a vast timber resource, so we should have the best fire protection and best fire equipment in the country. It is my understanding too that the other provinces do not have to send their aircraft to help another province. They have the option of having 48-hours’ notice. But in the case of a forest fire, there should be no 48-hours’ notice. It should be down to maybe 48 minutes because, after all, if you let a forest fire get out of control, it is pretty hard to bring it back under control.

It is a major concern to me. I have often wondered in regard to the people who start forest fires, either deliberately or through carelessness, whether there is ever any attempt to prosecute them. After all, we are losing millions of dollars worth of valuable timber. I just want to put those comments on the record.

Mr. Harris: To the Minister of Natural Resources: I would hope that while there is the forest-fire threat and the very severe crisis in northern Ontario is on, his new policy of allowing Liberal back-benchers to requisition MNR aircraft to tour their ridings has been suspended.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Methinks the minister doth protest too much. He is a little sensitive about this. I have not had an answer to the question that I asked the minister two days ago. All I am saying is that if this is his new policy, perhaps it should be suspended during forest-fire season when the threat is so bad.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

Mr. Runciman: I have a brief response to the statements made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). I am not going to respond in any substantive fashion to the statements just put in front of us a few moments ago, but the common theme is obviously consumer protection. I guess we all appreciate that there is a great deal of political appeal or sex appeal in respect to consumer protection. I also want to remind the House of numerous antibusiness initiatives of the current government and the previous government in accord with its friends to our right.

I also remind the minister that the vast majority of businesses, especially small businesses operating in this province, have built their reputations on fair dealings with consumers. I remind the minister of that and suggest that in future bills that we expect to be tabled in this House dealing with the Consumer Protection Act, he keep in mind that the businesses of this province are, by and large, good businesses and have done well in terms of their dealings with this province. I ask him to keep that in mind.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier, who is making this city of Metropolitan Toronto a playground for the rich and famous in which working families cannot afford to live, cannot afford to buy a house and cannot afford to stay here.

The most recent figures show that the average price for a home in Toronto is now $232,000, which is a 75 per cent increase over the last two years. His government has rejected every proposal that has come from this side to deal with this incredible skyrocketing of housing prices for families in this city.

I would like to ask the Premier once more, given all the community pressure to do something, why does he continue to resist the commonsense approach which would say that where there is speculation, simply tax it so it does not happen?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am surprised the honourable member would raise that question today. I assume he saw the figures of yesterday, indicating that the heat is somewhat out of the market.

Interjections.

1400

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The members opposite may not agree with that. In fact, sales were down some 38 per cent last month and the high growth rate of the past few months has changed. I think your question is less timely today than it may have been at some time in the past.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe that a Premier would be so callous and show such lack of understanding of what working families are facing in this city as to say that an increase of over three per cent in one month represents what he calls a cooling down of the situation, that it is no longer heating up. That shows a complete lack of understanding of what working families are having to go through.

Does the Premier realize that what this figure of over $232,000 means is that a family has to be making over $80,000 before a bank or a financial institution will even consider granting a mortgage? Does the Premier feel that a housing situation which restricts housing to people making over 80 grand is something he considers acceptable in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member’s figures are correct in that regard. We recognize there has been substantial heat in the housing market, as there has been in other areas. Vancouver is another one. I say to my honourable friend that if he would look at the facts that were revealed yesterday, his figures are wrong. I do not think it is three per cent; I think it is less than that. It says there is a downward trend in this regard and we hope it will continue.

Mr. B. Rae: The average resale price in May over April has gone up 3.9 per cent. That is the average resale price. That is on a monthly basis. I say the Premier does not understand what that does to working families. If he thinks this is cooling down, if he thinks this is OK and as far as he is concerned it is just a sweet headache, why would he not at least meet with those citizens who make less than $80,000 per year, who are locked out of his rich-and-famous-lifestyles city, which is what he is creating, a city where rich people can live and where everybody else has to struggle? That is the Ontario he is building. I hope he is proud of it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I meet with people regularly. I bet I meet with a lot more than the member does. I met with some in his riding yesterday who were very charming, actually.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: A little bit dissatisfied with the representative.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They were not happy with the local leadership but were very happy with the leadership of this province.

NATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: A question, by way of contrast, to the Attorney General, who is also responsible for native issues in the province today. My colleagues from northern Ontario conducted some hearings across the north last week, where they heard representation from several native groups on the very profound concerns about the quality of care in native communities and the fact that access to medical care and basic health conditions are not at all spread evenly across the province.

The minister will be aware that life expectancy in the north is 10 years less than the average in Ontario and that the suicide rate among young people is six times as high as the national average. He will also be aware that there is an incredible lack of services on the reserves themselves, as well as a lack of services for native people in many communities.

Can the minister tell us what responsibility he takes for the delivery of health care, either on the reserves or off the reserves, and precisely what he is prepared to do to see that health care is made more accessible and more equal across the province for our native people?

Hon. Mr. Scott: On many reserves, though I do not believe on all, health care is a service provided by the federal government under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Off reserve, we provide those services in some locations and we supplement federal services from time to time. Off reserve, of course, the native population of Ontario is entitled to access to medical services just as any other Ontarians are.

I am aware of the problem the honourable member refers to and I have met with a large number of native people and have regarded it as my responsibility to take up their concerns with the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), who is responsible for health services in the province.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister may not be aware that there is now, at Lakehead University, a native nurses’ entry program which is the only program in northwestern Ontario which deals specifically with the needs of the community from a nursing standpoint and which encourages native people to get the training. What steps is he prepared to take to ensure that funding is guaranteed after March 1989 for this program? He should be aware that funding is not guaranteed and that, in fact, funding for the program is threatened.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have met with a number of native organizations in the north and that particular concern has not been brought to my attention by them. I will be glad to look into it and see what we can do to respond to the concerns the honourable member has.

Just in passing, I want to make plain that native people, particularly in northern Ontario, have reason to have real concerns about the provision of services. We have faced, as they have faced on the ground, a major retreat by the federal government in respect to funding, and the province is trying to fill the gap where federal obligations have been abandoned or shortchanged. We are keeping an eye on that and doing what we can to meet what is a very real need.

Mr. Pouliot: Need I remind the minister that our first Canadians are also our first Ontarians? With respect to the minister, they have had it up to here when they have to listen, whether it is to a provincial jurisdiction or a federal jurisdiction. Reality or not, the thing is that the minister responsible for native affairs has a responsibility. To hide under the umbrella of jurisdiction does not wash well. What we are asking is that native people be given treatment that is humane, fair and just.

More specifically, by way of a question, will the minister undertake to provide translation services in northern native health care institutions so that people can relate to one another in their own language?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not accept the premise of the honourable member’s question. I agree, of course, that native people in Ontario are Ontarians, and we have an obligation to them, as we have to every other citizen. But, as the honourable member will know, native people on reserves do not want provincial governments to take over responsibilities that are traditionally performed by the federal government under the Indian Act.

An interesting example of that is when the federal government began to back off the provision of costs for native policing. My colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) offered to make up the deficiency so that our contribution for native policing would be larger than the federal contribution. The native organizations that meet with us regularly in the Indian Commission of Ontario rejected that proposal, even though it meant the native policing program could not expand, because they expect and rely on the statutory and constitutional obligation of the federal government to provide these services.

We do everything we can to provide the backup, and I can see that there is a great unanswered need to which we are responding. But we have to respect, on reserves particularly, the wish of the native people, which is that the federal government, which has the constitutional obligation, should not be displaced by the provision of provincial programs.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it relates to a situation that developed on May 14, where the Toronto Star requested information of the Ministry of Community and Social Services with respect to the matter of profit and nonprofit day care centres. As a result of this particular request made by that newspaper and the information that was provided, could the Premier advise this House whether that information was requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have absolutely no idea, but I gather the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) does, as usual.

Mr. Speaker: Referred to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: To the best of my information, it was.

Mr. Brandt: I am not too sure what that means. It was?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It was requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

1410

Mr. Brandt: In light of the manner in which that particular situation was handled, I say to the minister, since the question has been referred to him, my information is that the newspaper requested the study and in fact, as I understand it, provided his ministry with the questions for the study; and that the ministry then went out and hired a consultant to respond to those questions that were provided by an independent business, namely, the Toronto Star newspaper, and that all this was done at taxpayers’ expense.

I have some difficulty, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I say this to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the members of the government, when a colleague of mine asks for information from this government under freedom of information and is told he is going to have to pay for it, when exactly the reverse happens when a newspaper requests information of the ministry and it hires a consultant at some substantial expense to provide that information. Does he think that is consistent with the spirit and intent of freedom of information?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I wish to change the record. I was just sent a note by one of my staff, and it was not requested under that; but I can also speak to the other part.

Mr. B. Rae: It was just leaked.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Sorry; I have corrected it, period. I think that is something we should do once in a while around here.

To speak to the particular issue the honourable member has raised, and it is a valid one, all the information was in our files. When we received those questions, we realized they were questions to which we ourselves should have had the answers and did not. Consequently, the information was just as useful to us as it was to somebody requesting it. We believe we collected it as much for our own purposes as anyone else’s and therefore did not feel it was proper to charge for it.

Mr. Sterling: I find it a little bit ironic that yesterday I received a response from the minister to a question I raised with him regarding some documents on February 15. It took him 112 days to respond to my request; and in the response I received basically government documentation which had been printed. I got a copy of this particular publication, some speeches of the minister. That took 112 days. I thank the minister for not charging me, as his other colleague has chosen to do.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Sterling: I find it a little ironic as well that he is treating different requesters in different fashions. Does the minister consider that an elected representative of this Legislature should be treated in a detrimental manner when a profit-making corporation requests information from him and he goes out and hires a tax consultant? He actually paid money to do work for them, whereas he will not pay money or even supply the services to an MPP to receive information he should be entitled to.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: To the best of my information, the information the member had requested was delivered to his office yesterday. I distinctly remember signing the letter. We broke it down into two sections. I have apologized to the member in the past, and I do so again, for the length of time.

The difficulty was that we had a significant amount of information dealing with the issue. We had to make a judgement call within our ministry as to which of that information was advice to cabinet, which is exempt, and which was not. I clearly indicated in that letter, and I think the honourable member can verify this, that we gave him every bit of information we had that was not under the heading of advice to cabinet, all those pieces of information. There were specific references to the act, sections and subsections of the act. As to those sections that were directly advice to cabinet, I indicated I could not give it.

With respect to the cost part, in terms of the actual information we provided to the member, the amount was relatively small; I think it was $20 or $25. Under section 57 of the act, I think it is, I made a judgement call not to charge, as I am permitted to.

DOCTORS’ SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Premier. Both the Premier and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) have been quoted in the media recently as indicating that there are too many doctors in Ontario. In the Premier’s view, are there too many doctors in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If you look at the world health statistics, we have an ample number of doctors. We had roughly a five per cent increase last year, as the member knows, and manpower discussions are ongoing with the Ontario Medical Association. What we have to do is plan in the long term in this regard, and we are in the process of doing that.

Mr. B. Rae: Does that answer your question?

Mr. Eves: Yes, that answers the question; and as usual, it does not answer the question, as I am sure everybody is aware.

The question is: in the Premier’s view, are there too many doctors in the province or not, yes or no? He has indicated that there are ongoing discussions with respect to this manpower situation, as he puts it. Yes or no, are there too many doctors?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the system is under control at the moment, but obviously we are looking at the long-term projections and the manpower needs. We do know that physicians here tend to drive the system in terms of costs. Physicians are going up something like five per cent a year even though the population is only going up one per cent a year. We talked yesterday about the distribution problems we have with the medical profession, and that is an ongoing problem we are dealing with.

Obviously, an effective health care system has to have well-trained physicians and a planned manpower system so that we are getting maximum efficiency, and we are doing that.

Mr. Eves: I think we all appreciate that there are some distribution problems with respect to doctors, but it might help if the Premier had indicated where there are too many doctors in the province, if in fact he is hinting that there are too many doctors in the province and that their numbers should be controlled. He says they are discussing limiting or putting limitations on the services they can provide or where they can provide them or how many of them there are.

We have a lot of emergency wards throughout hospitals in this province with lineups of patients waiting to see a doctor. Is the Premier telling me now that Ontario is considering a quota system for doctors or rationing of health care services in the province? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, I am not.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT PROGRAM

Miss Martel: Given that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is not here today, I have a question for the Premier concerning the northern health travel grant. The grant was established to financially aid northerners who are referred to larger centres for medical treatment because those same services are not usually available in their own communities.

In northwestern Ontario in particular, most communities do not have any form of specialized medical care, so residents are constantly forced to seek that treatment elsewhere. However, the travel grant is only available to people who must travel more than 300 kilometres one way to seek medical attention.

I am wondering if the Premier can respond to the situation in Atikokan, for example, where members of the Sportak family must take their father to Thunder Bay three times a week for kidney dialysis. The travel one way is only 190 kilometres, so they do not get the grant. However, the family has already spent over $1,000 since February 1988 to take their father to Thunder Bay for this essential care.

I am wondering if the Premier can tell us what he is going to do for this family and others like it in northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honour-able member’s suggestion, and as she knows there have been other suggestions, in the Kenora area, with respect to travel to Winnipeg and other places. As I am sure my honourable friend will know, the 300 kilometres was, shall we say, an arbitrary figure. Her suggestion presumably is that it be lowered to some other figure, and I will take any advice she has under advisement. Obviously, we will take seriously any advice the committee has for the government and will look at the suggestions.

Miss Martel: There is another part of the grant that is also particularly ridiculous; it concerns the escort criteria. An escort is reimbursed for medically necessary travel if she or he accompanies a patient who is under 18 years of age.

I wonder if the Premier can comment on the case of a 38-year-old blind man in Red Lake who was referred to Winnipeg for an ophthalmological consultation. As the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Winnipeg was unable to make arrangements to pick him up at the airport and take him to the consultation, he had to arrange with a friend to go to Winnipeg with him in order to make the consultation. When the friend applied for reimbursement for the travel grant, he was denied the grant because the blind man was over 18 years of age. I am wondering what the Premier is going to do to rectify this type of situation in northwestern Ontario.

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s bringing that to my attention. I do not have a quick answer for her, but I will obviously discuss that with the minister and see if there are ways we can sensibly implement a program that, on balance, is working fairly well.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Attorney General, if he would pay attention, regarding Sunday shopping.

In the Attorney General’s factum to the Court of Appeal with regard to the Magder case, he said that a uniform pause day was needed to allow the pause day of retail workers to coincide with that of their children, spouses and friends. He went on to say that a quality common day of recreation was needed for as many of Ontario’s citizens as was possible.

Does the Attorney General believe that the current legislation before this House to delegate the power over this particular matter to the municipalities will result in more or fewer citizens of Ontario enjoying a common pause day?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I believe -- and that is the situation, because it is impossible to answer effectively with the statistics at hand -- that under the present legislation the chances are excellent that more people will enjoy a common pause day than is now the case.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: That is pretty hard to believe.

I would also like to point out that the same factum says, “Employees in the retail sector were viewed as being in need of a statutorily mandated day of rest. Without such a regulation prohibiting Sunday openings, the vigorous competition for market share would force many retailers to open.” It goes on to say, “As a group retail workers are not ‘in an economic position to negotiate a satisfactory financial arrangement for Sunday work’ and are ‘subject to subtle economic pressure to work particularly in large establishments where employee resistance to management decisions to open would be met simply by replacing the resisting employee.’”

In the light of the Attorney General’s very own statements as to what is going to happen -- more retail stores are going to be open, more employees are going to be required for Sunday shopping -- how can he continue to support legislation when it goes against the very position he put forward to the Court of Appeal?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As a matter of fact, it does not go against the very position, as my friend calls it, that is in the factum. The factum suggests that if a certain result is not achieved in the court, there may be certain labour consequences. That suggestion was made before I was aware of the proposal that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has before the House in the form of the companion bill, which for the first time in Ontario is going to provide some worker protection for people in respect of a common pause day. Frankly, I did not have that ingenious solution to the problem in mind when we did the factum.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. McGuinty: I have a question for the Treasurer. On February 11, 1988, the Treasurer released the report of the Rowan Task Force on the Investment of Public Sector Pension Funds and the Coward Report to the Treasurer on Financing Benefits under the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act and Associated Superannuation Plans. At that time, a review was ordered of both reports. Can the Treasurer give a status report on the review to members of the Legislature and to concerned pensioners across Ontario?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the honourable member for giving me notice of his question. I want to report to him and to the House that Dr. David Slater has been commissioned by the Treasury to hear the views of those organizations and, to some extent, of individuals directly affected, and that his review of this is ongoing.

As a matter of fact, I believe about a week ago he had a special meeting in which representatives of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, and the public servants as well as, I believe, employees at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and others affected, were brought together with pension experts so they could consider what the ramifications were of the recommendations in the two reports the honourable member refers to.

Mr. McGuinty: First, I commend the Treasurer for his choice of Dr. Slater, who is a neighbour of mine, a resident of Ottawa South, a riding that was Tory for 43 years prior to last September.

When does the Treasurer expect that he will be able to table Dr. Slater’s report in the Legislature?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The letter in which Dr. Slater was asked to undertake this review indicated we would expect his report about the end of July, on July 31. I would hope that would be made available to the general public, certainly to members of the Legislature, as soon after that as possible. The government policy will be announced after we have had a chance to see his recommendations.

I am looking forward to the report, as I believe some of the information that has been disseminated, to teachers particularly, has been somewhat misleading. Some of the honourable members may have noticed they have had letters on behalf of the teachers, who are of course large contributors to the superannuation plan, indicating a very healthy concern, but in some instances based on inappropriate and incorrect information. I want to make Dr. Slater’s review of that report available as soon as I possibly can.

SPEECH THERAPISTS

Mr. Hampton: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I would direct my question to the Premier. Virtually every community in northern Ontario urgently needs the services of a speech-language therapist, either in their schools or in their communities.

The long-term consequence of not having trained speech-language therapists is that young children often fail academically and often end up with social problems which can lead to unemployment or perhaps even incarceration. The long-term result is that it costs our social support system and our health care system a lot more to deal with the eventual social problem than it would cost to train and provide speech-language therapists.

I wonder if the Premier could give some commitment, or some indication of a commitment, that the needs of so many of these communities in northern Ontario for speech-language pathologists will be met.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of the need. I remember the former member for Port Arthur used to speak eloquently about this matter.

As I recall, and the honourable member can correct me if my facts are wrong, we have in fact doubled the number of bursaries available for people from the north to study in this particular regard. I believe the government has started to move to correct this problem.

Mr. Hampton: The solution the Premier has referred to is in fact exactly the solution that so many communities across northern Ontario refer to as a Band-Aid solution. The simple fact is that you can use the bursary only to go to school here in Ontario and there are not enough positions in Ontario schools, so many people who want to be trained as speech-language therapists cannot use the bursaries.

Let me give just a further example. There are all kinds of native reserves where you will find children with speech disabilities, and the needs are not being met. I wonder if, to deal with this urgent need for so many native and non-native communities, the Premier would give a commitment to establish a training program at one of the northern Ontario universities to train speech-language therapists.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My recollection, and I could well be wrong, is that the bursary program applies to certain institutions in the United States which are in fact closer. I could be wrong in that regard, but I will consider any suggestion the honourable member has.

1430

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Premier. On April 28, I first raised the issue of a young girl who was brutally attacked in London on March 31. I have been informed recently by Ministry of Health officials that two outside firms are being interviewed to assess hospitals that have Lieutenant Governor’s warrants and that interviews will not be completed until next week. Their report will not be ready for the public until the fall, more than six months after the brutal attack occurred. This is much too long, I am sure the Premier will agree.

Considering this information, will the Premier re-evaluate the situation and use his authority to request that the Provincial Auditor move quickly to be involved and complete this report?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the matter has been attended to in a judicious and thoughtful way. I understand the nature of the event, coming from the same community, and the brutal attack, and I understand the emotional reaction to that as well. I think the government is dealing with it in a thoughtful, measured and considered way and not just creating a situation or fear that is not necessary in the circumstances.

Mrs. Cunningham: If I thought this was the most efficient and thoughtful way, I would not be standing here asking the question. We have looked at the alternatives. The auditor can get involved and he can complete this review more quickly, I can assure the Premier. This brutal attack occurred in London Centre, in the Premier’s own riding and in our city. I know he does care and I know he wants to do as much as he can to solve this problem and make London a safer place, as well as cities across our province.

The city council did submit a resolution requesting that all passes for those individuals being held under a Lieutenant Governor’s warrant be suspended. I am not going to ask the Premier to do that because I think these persons have a right to be treated and there is that part of the argument.

I ask the Premier, what can he do personally? Is there anything more that he can do personally to make certain this review will be completed as soon as possible, because October is too late? I am sure he does agree to that. When we do get the review done, if the Premier can intervene in some way will it be made public?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This was a terrible incident in our own community and there is not a parent or anybody who did not have a violent, emotional reaction to this. If any one of us put ourselves in that same position, it would be an unbearable situation. I understand that. There are other incidents like that in politics as well, and I am sure my honourable friend will agree with that. We have to take as thoughtful an approach as we possibly can.

My honourable friend may argue that the review is taking too long. There is no desire to elongate this hearing at all, but only to make sure it is thorough, thoughtful and responsible and not just an emotional reaction, as would be normal in the circumstances. We want to make sure our system is fair, that it prevents this kind of thing, hopefully, ever happening again.

On the other hand, there have been some successes in the program, I am sure my honourable friend recognizes that as well; but I think, as responsible legislators, we have to approach it in that regard. We are trying to do that and we will share the results with our friends opposite and elicit their best judgements on how to prevent this from ever, ever happening again. It is a blotch on the system. There is no question about that. We have to ask ourselves, does that mean the entire system should be discarded? How can we prevent this ever happening again? We need thoughtful people to assist us in that regard.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. McClelland: I have a question today for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. The minister will be aware, obviously, of the fact that we just came off a week where we tried to draw national awareness to the issue of accessibility.

In the light of an attempt to make homes more accessible, in January 1987, the ministry announced a program in co-operation with the Easter Seal Society to provide funding to make homes for parents of children and disabled people more accessible, with fewer barriers in the home.

The minister will also be aware of Mr. and Mrs. Lariviere in my constituency, who applied under that program and who, having received very positive signs that they were on the road for funding, were advised that the funds had run out. Some nine months into the program, they were advised that they were not eligible. The minister knows a little bit about that. I wonder if he would be able to explain why they were not allowed funding for making their home barrier-free for their child?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: The honourable member is referring to two separate grants that the Office for Disabled Persons gave to the Easter Seal Society, the most recent grant being $1.1 million, which was given in December.

The program is fully administered by the Easter Seal Society. It has regulations and guidelines. I should say that the honourable member has made numerous phone calls to my office and has also written on behalf of this family. I think he has given his constituents outstanding representation.

When the application was first received in the office run by the Easter Seal Society, it was not known at that time that the money was intended to be used for a new home in Ajax and not for the family home, which is in the member’s constituency.

Mr. McClelland: In the light of that response, and I recognize that this turned on the new home issue, I want to draw the minister’s attention to the agreement drawn up by his ministry with the Easter Seal Society.

It refers specifically to the purchase and sale of dwelling units. Obviously, we are looking at second acquisitions; so a person contemplating moving can apply. Moreover, the application says that any parent of a disabled child who owns their home -- and ownership includes prospective ownership -- is eligible to submit an application.

Furthermore, the criteria set out that a change, modification or addition, “provided that the addition does not result in the creation of a self-contained unit” -- those are the words -- that makes it ineligible.

At first blush, I read that to mean the creation of an apartment. I think most reasonable people reading that would also. In the light of the fact that it excludes new homes -- we talk about long-term planning; a new home can be made barrier-free for some $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 less -- would the ministry consider reviewing the agreement with a view to doing some long-term planning for a more economically feasible, rational way of making homes barrier-free?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: After having received the numerous calls and the letter from the honourable member, I had my senior staff meet with lawyers in the Ministry of Government Services to go over some of the same concerns that he brought to our attention, because I too was concerned about the wording. The legal opinion I received from the lawyers in the Ministry of Government Services was that this particular application did not qualify.

But I want to say to the honourable member that I do agree with his opinion that if we do this again in the future, our wording should be much clearer and we should certainly take into consideration new homes which are either under construction or planned for construction. I want to thank the honourable member for his comments and for his pointing out what may be a deficiency in what we have done in the past.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Pouliot: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I too have a question for the Premier. One of the painful parts concerning our task force on health issues was centred on individual cases that appeared before us.

I would like to share with the Premier the tragic experience of Mario Savian of Dryden. He almost died of a brain tumour simply because he was on a waiting list of seven weeks for a computerized axial tomography scan in Thunder Bay or of three months for a CAT scan in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

1440

Instead of waiting, quite naturally, his family advised him that he should go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and he did. Upon entering, he was tested immediately, and a brain tumour the size of a small fist was discovered. Mr. Savian then spent the better part of the following three days on and off the operating table. In this case, he is a very fortunate person; his life was saved.

I know it is a difficult question.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Pouliot: What assurance can the Premier give the House that this kind of situation, this kind of horror story, will never happen again?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure. Is the honourable member’s suggestion that the fact the individual had to go to the Mayo Clinic was the problem or the fact that there was not a CAT scanner in Thunder Bay? I should tell my honourable friend --

Mr. Pouliot: The waiting period.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- there is a new CAT scanner. I was at McKellar General Hospital not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and they are in the process of buying a new CAT scanner in that hospital. I think the best I could say to the member’s constituent or friend is to expect in the not-too-distant future to have a new CAT scanner at McKellar hospital in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Pouliot: I was referring more specifically to the waiting lists. In this case, it almost proved tragic.

Northerners are not asking for the moon. We are not suggesting that every community between 2,500 and 10,000 people be equipped with a CAT scanner. This would not be reasonable, but what is reasonable is to ask for equality in terms of access to health care.

May we respectfully suggest that the government give us the assurance that it will train medical personnel in the north, resulting in better access for northerners?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are a number of questions mixed up in there. As I said to my friend yesterday when this question was raised, there are a number of initiatives that have been undertaken with respect to health care in northern Ontario, in community-based mental health and in a wide variety of health care initiatives, including one the member participated in, the health travel grants. Yes, we are determined, as the basis of our public policy formulation, to equalize that opportunity the very best we can.

The member recognizes and I recognize that we cannot have a speech pathologist or a CAT scanner in every community. But it is interesting: when I was at McKellar, I looked at the new renal dialysis unit there that is bringing in people from literally thousands of miles across northern Ontario, a large catchment area. They are raising money for a new CAT scanner. I was one of those who was very impressed with the facilities and the wide area they serve.

There is no question that distances are longer in northern Ontario, and I understand that. That is why the northern travel grant is, I think, a very constructive addition to that.

My honourable friend and his colleagues have been raising a number of individual problems, and they exist. Some of them were happy problems, or perhaps could have been problems but were not problems.

I am sure I can tell the member of people in my own riding who have had individual tragedies with the system. Perhaps the system could have helped them better, perhaps it could not have, but when we get a copy of the report I am sure the minister will analyse it thoroughly. If there is anything constructive that we can do with the suggestions, we look forward to positive, constructive suggestions.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Villeneuve: Ma question s’adresse au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Plusieurs raisons se sont prononcées vis-à-vis de la démission à mi-mandat du président de la Commission des services en français de l’Ontario. Une de ces rumeurs porte sur des conflits que Me Bertrand avait avec certains de ses collègues ministériels sur la mise en oeuvre de la Loi sur les services en français.

Puisque la commission est gérée à huis clos, les citoyens ontariens ne pourront jamais connaître la vérité de cette démission soudaine. Le ministre est-il prêt à nous présenter un nouveau président qui sera ouvert envers les citoyens, et de mettre en toute disponibilité aux députés de l’Assemblée législative ainsi qu’au public ontarien, les procédures de la mise en oeuvre des services en français en Ontario?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Mon collègue le critique des Affaires francophones n’est pas sans savoir que la démission de Me Bertrand, on l’attendait depuis quelques semaines.

M. Villeneuve: Est-ce qu’on la lui a demandée ou est-ce qu’on l’a sollicitée?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Non, on n’a jamais sollicité sa démission. Je crois que Me Bertrand a écrit sa lettre de démission de sa propre main, en nous offrant des raisons personnelles.

Maintenant, pour répondre à la deuxième question du député -- je crois qu’il m’a posé deux ou trois questions -- je peux assurer tous les députés à cette Assemblée que très bientôt, nous annoncerons un nouveau président ou une présidente à la Commission.

M. Villeneuve: C’est énormément apprécié, mais tout de même, on doit reconnaître que, là où les services en français seront disponibles à des milliers de gens en Ontario, la planification ne peut pas être gérée dans le secret. Le ministre est-il prêt, de la part du gouvernement, à accorder la mise en oeuvre des services en français à un comité législatif, avec audiences publiques, tout en gardant les comités de citoyens déjà en place, afin d’assurer que la Loi 8 sera exécutée efficacement et sans préjugés en Ontario?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je ne peux pas accepter ce genre d’accusation que la Loi 8 a été adoptée en secret. Ce même député a voté en Chambre pour la Loi 8...

M. Villeneuve: La mise en oeuvre.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: ...pour la mise en oeuvre. D’article en article, la Loi a été très bien expliquée, très bien comprise. Elle a été acceptée d’une façon unanime.

Le député devrait au moins avouer à la Chambre qu’il est chancelant. Aurait-il dû voter pour la Loi 8 ou non? Maintenant, on chancelle. Alors, il faudrait régler ces problèmes avant de demander à l’Assemblée de revoir la Loi 8. La Loi 8 est là pour rester.

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC SITES

Mr. Keyes: My question is directed to the Minister of Culture and Communications. On Thursday, June 2, two historically designated buildings in the city of --

Mrs. Marland: Oh, so far away.

Mr. Runciman: That’s a long reach.

Mr. Pollock: Tap her on the shoulder.

Mr. Keyes: Methinks I hear an ass braying.

On Thursday, June 2, two historically designated buildings in the city of Kingston were tragically and intentionally demolished by a Toronto firm, Great Northern Developments, owned by Richard “Tracey” Christie. The developer did not have a demolition permit, and even the efforts of distressed citizens, police and a city official with a stop-work order could not prevent the destruction of these buildings.

It appears that the buildings were demolished in the evening, without a permit, after the developer assured the city of Kingston that only an adjacent building would be torn down. The demolition of Spearn’s gift shop and the Brown Bear, which were between 135 and 145 years old, was another serious blow to the city of Kingston’s attempt to preserve and respect its architectural and cultural heritage.

I would like to ask the minister if she intends to grant the request of the city of Kingston for permission to initiate legal proceedings against Great Northern Developments as provided for under subsection 69(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, which reads, “No prosecution for an offence under this act shall be instituted except with the consent in writing of the minister.”

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Under the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act, the city solicitor or the city must contact this minister for permission. I am currently in the process of preparing a letter to be sent back to Norman Jackson, the city solicitor.

Mr. Keyes: I would be more than happy to deliver that personally, if it was prepared this afternoon, and to see that it gets there so the proceedings can begin immediately.

The honourable minister may also be aware that the city of Kingston provided the initial model to the province for the Ontario Heritage Act, indicating its sincere commitment to the preservation of this province’s architectural and cultural heritage.

As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister if she is prepared to immediately initiate a review of the Ontario Heritage Act, now some 13 years old, particularly as it pertains to restrictions and the penalties for demolition of our historically designated properties.

1450

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: As soon as I have the letter prepared, I would be delighted if the member would deliver it to the city of Kingston.

In response to the member’s question as to a review of the Ontario Heritage Act, I should tell him that in July 1986 we in fact did instigate what I consider to be a comprehensive review of the act. The process began in February 1987 and we expect that we will get all the responses back from the communities later this year.

Part of the review will certainly take a look at the conservation powers of municipalities in liaison with the city; and, of course, I would like to also recognize the work done by the city of Kingston and the city of Toronto in taking a look at the relationship between demolition and the Ontario Heritage Act. I would expect the results of that review and, in particular, how we allow municipalities to conserve buildings that have been designated, will be made available as soon as possible.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Miss Martel: I have another question for the Premier, this time concerning problems faced by the hearing-impaired in cities and communities east and west of Thunder Bay.

West of Thunder Bay, in Atikokan, Fort Frances, Dryden, Sioux Lookout and Kenora some 1,300 people suffer from some form of hearing impairment. Not in any of the communities are there any services to maintain or repair hearing aids. In each community, the ability of the public health unit to properly do testing is hampered by the lack of adequate equipment. There is no means to test preschool children at all. There is one audiologist in Kenora who serves that community, Dryden and Fort Frances. The community of Sioux Lookout relies on an ear, nose and throat specialist who comes from the University of Toronto to the zone hospital for one week three times a year.

Would the Premier tell us how he can describe the health system as world class when it is seems obvious to me that the needs of the hearing-impaired in northwestern Ontario are not being met at all?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s sharing that information with me. I think her colleague said it very well before. We are not going to have a system with specialists in every tiny community that they cannot justify on the basis of the population, but we want to do the best we can to provide those services. If she points out information where we are not, then we will try to respond.

Miss Martel: We are not asking for specialists in every community. We are asking for some access to adequate health care for the people in northwestern Ontario.

Let me give the Premier an example of what is happening in communities east of the city of Thunder Bay. In those communities, 241 people have hearing impairment. None of the communities, again, has any service to maintain or repair hearing aids. Screening occurs only in schools and, in those communities where there are sawmills, the industrial nurse provides some testing. There is no screening available anywhere for the francophone population. There are no interpreting services, nor is sign language taught in any of the communities. There are no audiologists and there are no ear, nose and throat specialists who come in, even on a rotating basis.

I ask the Premier again -- this is a pathetic situation -- what specifically does he intend to do to alleviate this kind of problem?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We did not know about the problem until the member raised it just now. Presumably, I assume she will have a few more of these to raise and when she gives us her report, then I will discuss it with the minister and see where we can make a response.

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. No doubt the minister is aware that his federal counterpart, the Honourable Tom McMillan, was the recent recipient of the prestigious environmental award by the Sierra Club of North America, making him the first foreign politician ever to be recognized in this fashion.

In light of everything that we have heard from this minister, I ask the minister, can 440,000 Sierra Club members dedicated to protecting the environment and recognizing this achievement be wrong?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Perhaps I could give a detailed answer to this particular question. The member will know -- I forget the actual reason for this, but he will recall -- that there was a development in eastern Canada of an acid rain abatement policy that would take place and various provinces were to make a contribution. It would depend on how aggressive they wanted to be in dealing with the specific amount of acid rain generated in the province as to which program would be implemented.

Of course, when requested by the previous federal government to do so, we as a government in Ontario -- my good friend the former Minister of the Environment was enthusiastic about it but had not announced a specific program -- the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said that within six months we would have an acid rain abatement program in Ontario; and within six months of taking office, we had an acid rain abatement program in Ontario.

If the member were to look at which provinces had the deepest cut that could make all of Canada look good, we in Ontario chose to cut, not 50 per cent, which was to be the national average, but 60 per cent of the emissions in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Sterling: Since the Minister of the Environment is not humble enough to acknowledge the contribution of our federal minister, I asked the minister whether he would approve of this resolution which I will be tabling this afternoon, asking him to ask the government to pass this resolution:

“That in the opinion of this House, this Legislature should extend its congratulations to the Honourable Tom McMillan, Minister of the Environment for Canada, for being the first foreign politician ever to receive the Sierra Club’s Edgar Wayburn award from the largest and most respected nongovernmental environmental association in the world; that we should congratulate him on his leadership in his fight against acid rain, protection of the ozone layer and work for cleaner water and air; and that we recognize Tom McMillan and the government of Canada as the leaders in the protection of our environment.”

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as I was interrupted -- I know you look at the time constraints of this period, but as I was interrupted by you -- I was attempting to point out to the member how co-operative we in Ontario wanted to be and that if you look at all of the provinces in terms of the reductions, you find that Ontario was far ahead of anyone else in Canada.

We are happy to make the federal minister look good, but members of the House might not be so enthusiastic about passing such a resolution when they find out that the same government that he extols the virtues of actually cut $46 million from the Environment budget.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the minister for that brief answer.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I think all members of the House have seen the very excellent commercials that have appeared on television dealing with the question of sexual assault. I would like to inquire of the minister, first of all, whether or not we own the prints of those commercials.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Brampton South points out the advertising campaign that we are currently undertaking through the Ontario women’s directorate, directed at the very serious issue of sexual assault. I am glad to hear that my friend the member for Brampton South has seen those commercials. I expect that everyone in this House and everyone in the province will see those advertisements and will take heed of them.

His question was whether or not we own the rights to those commercials, and the answer is yes, we do.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, that completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council signed by 330 persons from Sarnia and area which reads, in part, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, oppose further expansion of Sunday shopping and ask our municipal council to protect Sunday as the traditional day for rest, worship and family activity.”

1500

I have a further petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 827 persons from the London area, which reads:

“We, the undersigned, wish to draw your attention to this petition which we have formulated in opposition to Sunday openings in the retail sector of London. We feel very strongly that Sundays should continue to be seen as a day of rest for the preservation and enrichment of family life.”

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Faubert: 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:

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system contains an abundance of natural beauty and sites of historic importance and archaeological significance; and

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system is a unique oasis of nature found within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto; and

“Whereas the Ontario government has indicated its continuing commitment to the environment through its generous support programs towards preserving the Rouge Valley system and the Carolinian forest, and the historic and archaeological sites contained within;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to give every consideration to the various alternatives available to them to ensure that the Rouge Valley system be preserved so that future generations may have the opportunity to enjoy them; these alternatives include a provincial park or a natural heritage park.”

This petition is signed by 48 citizens of Ontario. I have appended my name thereto and I submit it for the consideration of the government.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition, signed by 150 concerned citizens of the city of Sault Ste. Marie, which reads as follows:

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

“In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened and that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

I have signed this petition and support it very strongly. I hope the government will act upon it.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 246 persons from St. Andrew’s Church in Toronto, Ontario, which reads in part:

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

I have a second petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 61 members and adherents from St. Luke’s-on-the-Hill United Church in Mississauga, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We are opposed to transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to municipalities, and further, we are opposed to open Sunday shopping in Ontario.”

Ms. Poole: I would like to present a petition to the Legislature today from members of Glenview Presbyterian Church. This petition is signed by 108 people, 50 of whom are my own constituents in Eglinton riding. The petitioners wish to register their opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which, in their words, “threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business.”

The petition states that the signers are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for various reasons, which are appended. Pursuant to the standing orders, I have affixed my signature to the end of the petition.

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 23 persons from The Picture Place in Hamilton, Ontario. It reads in part as follows:

“We, the undersigned retail employees, are strongly opposed to the transfer of store hours authority from provincial to municipal level.”

It is signed by its proprietor, Danny Davids, and also has my signature and support.

Mr. Harris: I would like to give notice of a petition that I forgot in my office for the third day in a row, from 50 members of the public of North Bay who are opposed to Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Wiseman: I have a petition signed by 49 people from the great town of Smiths Falls and it reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and 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.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Villeneuve: I have petitions, 4,800 of them, from irate taxpayers in Ontario, and I have affixed my signature to this 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:

“Mr. Treasurer, Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which reads in part:

“We wish to bring to our government’s attention that we are concerned about preserving our environment.

“We strongly urge you to care about our forests by seeing that reforestation is enforced in the lumbering industry, as well as selective harvesting, by preserving some of our forests in their natural state so that wildlife may continue to survive and people may enjoy the natural beauty of our land.

“We are also concerned about the quality of our waterways. The need to clean up the St. Lawrence River is currently in the news and we would urge you to get working on this. Our lakes and rivers are a resource which must be cared for regardless of cost. We need clean drinking water.”

This is signed by a discussion group of the Bethesda United Church of Forest Glen at 3311 Fieldgate Drive, Mississauga.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McCague: I have two petitions to His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The first is signed by 20 Collingwood residents concerning Sunday shopping. They insist on upholding a common pause day for their families. I am pleased to support their petition, in which they say:

“We object to the elimination of the opportunity for a common pause day for families.”

The second has 57 signatures from many retail business employees in the Collingwood area who feel threatened by the concept of wide-open Sunday shopping. Their individual families will suffer due to Sunday shopping, as will the quality of life throughout Ontario.

The bottom line is, “Say no to wide-open Sunday shopping.”

Mrs. Marland: I have another petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In fact, it is an extension to an original petition signed by 47 members of the First United Church on Lakeshore Road in Port Credit and it is in opposition to Sunday shopping. I will not take the time read the detail of it.

I also have a petition signed by 62 persons from St. Luke’s United Church in Cambridge, which is also opposed to Sunday shopping. I will not read it, for the sake of brevity.

I have an individual petition opposed to Sunday shopping, by Ann McKenna at 1515 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr33, An Act to revive the Vic Johnston Community Centre Inc.;

Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Huron.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Primrock Mining and Exploration Limited;

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the Owen Sound Young Men’s and Young Women’s Christian Association;

Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Brockville Rowing Club Incorporated.

Your committee recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the Owen Sound Young Men’s and Young Women’s Christian Association;

Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Brockville Rowing Club Incorporated;

Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Huron.

Motion agreed to.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This bill is a reintroduction of a bill that was introduced by me in the last session and that died on the Orders and Notices paper. Its purpose is to permit reporters and certain other classes of persons to transcribe court hearings with audio equipment for the purpose of notetaking.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 151, An Act to revise the Personal Property Security Act and to repeal and amend certain other Acts related to Personal Property.

Motion agreed to.

REPAIR AND STORAGE LIENS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 152, An Act to revise and consolidate the Law related to Repairers’ and Storers’ Liens.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT

Mr. Black moved first reading of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the County of Simcoe.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Les motions de troisième lecture des projets de loi suivants sont adoptées:

Bill 5, An Act to amend the Proceedings Against the Crown Act;

Bill 7, An Act to implement the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law;

Projet de loi 7, Loi portant mise en application de la Loi type sur l’arbitrage commercial international adoptée par la Commission des Nations Unies pour le droit commercial international;

Bill 82, An Act respecting Energy Efficiency;

Bill 118, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act;

Bill 126, An Act to assist Ontario Residents to save for the purchase of a First Home;

Bill 59, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to municipalities.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

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

Ms. Bryden: I rise to explain why I am going to oppose third reading of this bill and my New Democratic Party colleagues are also joining in this position.

We all know that the Municipal Elections Act needs updating and that amendments are necessary from time to time, but we feel the process that was adopted to amend the Municipal Elections Act was much too curtailed by the very late introduction of the legislation.

The minister will tell us there were lots of preceding activities to examine the need for municipal election reform. There was consultation with most local governments, municipalities and school boards, mainly with either the appointed officials or, in some cases, the elected officials from those areas, but there were never any general public hearings to which the ordinary voters could come to discuss what they thought was needed for the revision of our Municipal Elections Act.

Certainly, as we all know, elections are basic to our democratic process. This bill was introduced very late by the minister. It was forecast last fall but did not come in until April 5, 1988. We have municipal elections coming up on November 14, so in that period, the whole process of amending this act and seeing whether it fully covered all the possible events which might arise as a result of the amendments was telescoped into a very short period in this House.

The bill was itself referred out to the standing committee on general government for some opportunity to invite the public to comment on it. In actual fact, the committee decided that if the bill were going to be in effect for November 14, if we were to get it through this month, it could not have lengthy hearings and would only receive written submissions from the general public and only give the general public about two weeks to make those written submissions.

It was decided that the only other people who might appear before the committee and be able to discuss their concerns about the bill would be people who represented the few umbrella bodies in the province -- the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the various other municipal associations, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and bodies of that sort.

1520

Their proposals were very helpful as to where the bill needed amending. In fact, all of these consultations did lead the ministry to bring in about 20 government amendments for the committee to look at, whereas, if we had not had those public hearings -- and I may say it was the opposition that mainly demanded them -- the bill would have gone through with a considerable number of flaws in it that were corrected by those amendments.

However, there were many other suggestions that came in from the written submissions that the committee really did not have time to go into in detail to see if there was a need for further amendment, and so there may be still a considerable number of flaws in the bill. The committee itself had such limited time to deal with the bill that it could not go into all of the suggestions that came forward.

So this process was really not a democratic process and it has probably left us with a bill for which the government will have to take responsibility, if it is passed today. It is a bill which will be a sort of pilot project for the next municipal elections. If it goes through, we will have to live with it during the coming municipal elections. If there are things that should have been amended, they will not be able to be amended until the next session of the Legislature after the municipal elections.

We consider this bill really a trial run of what a new municipal elections bill should be, but we wish it did not have to be a trial run. We wish it had gone through at least a 6-month, probably 12-month, process of amendment. The government has now been in for more than two years, and the examination of this bill has been going on by the permanent officials, I understand, for a number of years. There was absolutely no real excuse for bringing this bill in so late, with so little time for public input in it.

I am afraid there may be a lot of problems emerge during the elections that we will just not be able to solve. That is one of the main reasons why we are going to oppose the bill on third reading, to express our disapproval of the process.

The second main reason is that part III of the bill provides for a system of accountability which we would support in principle. We do think that election expenditures should be limited. We do think that contributions by individuals should have a ceiling on them, so that we do not have one or two large donors providing most of the money for candidates.

Instead, we would spread it over a great number of donors and make it more democratic, so that we do not allow the obscene sort of expenditures that were allowed in municipal elections in the past where one candidate would spend over $100,000 and another would only be able to afford $10,000 or $2,000. That kind of unfairness just does not promote democracy.

We are in favour of the limitations on election expenses and contributions, but we object to the third part of part III, which provides for a system of rebates to contributors. That is another reason why we are opposing the bill.

We are not against rebates to contributors, in principle, either. I think, in order to promote democracy, there should be encouragement for people to contribute to election expenditures of candidates, but the rebate system that we have at the federal and provincial levels should be carried through to the municipal level.

In other words, the people who collect the income tax and who benefit from those collections should be the ones who should pay for the election rebates. But under this bill, the municipalities and the school boards are going to have to, first, decide whether they want a rebate system in the first place and, second, dig into their own pockets for the cost of such a rebate system.

We all know the property tax is overburdened and that to put in this additional expense of providing a democratic election contribution expense law should not be left to the property taxpayers. In the first place, it will be an inhibition for people to contribute to elections --

Mr. Faubert: Who should pay?

Ms. Bryden: The member from across the floor asks who should pay. Obviously, I am suggesting that the provincial government and possibly the federal government should pay as part of the income tax administration and costs.

That is the only fair way to do it and it is the only way to put it in across the province so that in every municipality a contributor will get the same possibility of a rebate; whereas under the system in this act, it is strictly a local-option situation, and a great many municipalities and school boards will decide to opt out. We are going to have a very uneven election expense rebate system and we are going to have a very costly system, particularly for small municipalities or for school boards, if they do adopt it and if every candidate takes advantage, or at least has received fairly sizeable contributions.

That is the second reason we are opposing it. We would have liked to have seen that part rewritten, but there simply was not time when the bill came in to strike out part III and rewrite the whole part. The principle is that the rebate system should mirror the rebate system for federal and provincial elections and should come from the general taxpayers and not the local governments or the school boards.

Those are the two main reasons we are opposing it. There are some good amendments in the bill which will streamline some of the access problems to voting: an extension of the proxy vote with less red tape and less definition of who may qualify, simply people who are not able to get to the polls and who will sign a statement to that effect.

Things like that are valuable, but we would have liked to have had them combined with those other two things that we consider significant flaws in the bill. Therefore, we hope that if flaws emerge in the coming municipal election, there will be prompt legislation after the event to rectify parts of the bill that may not have worked and that we will be ready for the first by-election after the municipal elections with fresh and amended legislation.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I do not want to make too many comments, except to thank the members for their participation both in the House and in committee in regard to this bill. I think it is a good bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, this is not your windup. This is just questions and comments on the member’s statement.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am sorry. I just want to answer then to the member that we have taken into consideration many of the concerns she has raised, and I think many of those concerns have been incorporated into the bill.

Mr. McCague: As the minister probably knows, had my colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) been here today, he would have been speaking on third reading of this bill, but he has a seniors’ seminar in his riding which he had to attend.

The minister has had a series of bills before us, all of which the two opposition parties thought were flawed to a considerable extent. I guess the underlying problem with all the bills he has had that apply to elections and election financing is the very strong recommendation the advisory committee made to the minister that he not, if you want to say, tamper with those acts after January 15 of an election year.

1530

The minister can contend he was held up by the opposition parties in the House or by events or by his House leader because he would not put the bills on earlier for him, but the underlying principle the municipalities I think were trying to convey to the minister was that these bills should not receive royal assent as late as June 10 or June 15, or whatever it may be, and the minister seems to have ignored that.

The problem with the bills is that there is some good and some bad in them. That probably is a well-designed mix that he and his staff have come up with and it makes it very difficult to oppose Bill 106. My colleague in the New Democratic Party has said her party is going to oppose the bill for two reasons. We try hard here to find reasons to support a bill and we see in this bill more reasons to support it than to be opposed to it.

It should be said that the minister, if my information is correct, made some 30 amendments to this bill in committee. I am not sure what the minister would say those 30 amendments say about the original drafting of the bill. He will likely tell us that they show he is very flexible and that he does in fact listen, but I think some of those amendments come under the heading of poor drafting.

The other thing I want to say is that my colleague the member for Markham introduced some 30 amendments. Those amendments were predicated on the complaints that were made by various municipalities, organizations, citizens, councillors or whoever during, in this particular case, the somewhat limited public or association debate on this very subject.

My colleague wanted me to acknowledge the fact that the minister did accept some of those amendments. I personally want to thank the minister for introducing the amendment that corrected the situation I pointed out to him the very first day he introduced it. For that, we are thankful.

We will be supporting the bill, but with a long-time involvement in municipal politics, I am somewhat concerned about the introduction of the election expenses activity into municipal elections. I know my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) has things to say about that. I would like to point out to him that what he is saying is probably very appropriate in Scarborough, but I also say to him that it is not very appropriate in certain parts of the province.

The minister will come back and tell us that all this election-financing legislation is permissive. That is fine, but if somebody who is either on council or wants to run for council thinks that Alliston or Collingwood -- they may well adopt it; they are bigger municipalities -- or Beeton or Cookstown, with 800 electors -- if somebody wants that in a municipality, I suggest a council is going to be very hard pressed to oppose it because it is going to be seen as oppressing what the minister thinks is the norm for municipal elections in Ontario from this point forward.

I personally spent a lot of time on boards, commissions and councils where there was no pay. I figured that as a citizen of the province of Ontario, it was right that I should offer my services if the people wanted to elect me to do so. I am saddened to see that kind of principle disappearing from our way of life in Ontario today, and I am sure the minister himself is a little saddened by that.

Too many times in legislation here -- I must admit I have seen it more since the new government took over than when I was part of the old government, and that is not to say at all that the new government is doing more of those things than the old government did. We just have become more aware of the problems we have as a government and as a province in legislating for those municipalities that have, let’s say, 20,000 people and above, and those that are below 20,000. There are many things this Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has brought in during this past year where the legislation really did not fit in those two cases.

That is something I would like to see him be cognizant of as he goes about drafting more legislation, because I see it as a real problem. I think what happens in that case, when it applies to all municipalities, is that he comes up with a compromise, maybe a sort of watered-down type of legislation, that is not good for the larger municipality and is not good for the smaller municipality, but comes somewhere up the middle of the road. I do not think that is good legislation.

I wish the minister well with all the revisions he has brought in, be it to this act or others, for the municipal elections that happen on November 14 of this year. Both the New Democratic Party and ourselves have pointed out to the minister on occasion that the legislation he proposed is so flawed that it really is not worth tampering with. Let’s let it go. Let’s let the fallout be to the credit or otherwise of the minister. I think that is basically what has been done, except, as I noticed, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has on tomorrow’s Orders and Notices paper a resolution that gets back to the basics of this whole thing; that is, that we may be changing the election process too late in the election year.

However, we will be supporting this bill. I feel I have put on the record those things that I consider to be important and that my colleague the member for Markham does also.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to thank the honourable member for his contribution, comments and indication of support. I feel that through the committee system, as I mentioned when I met with the committee, we were open to any further comments and resolutions that would help to make it a stronger bill. The honourable member has made that contribution. I appreciate that, and I feel that as a result of the committee hearings and contributions by the municipal people, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the large urban sector, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and by others, we will have a bill for the municipal people and the municipal elections of this province of which we can be very proud.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Eakins has moved third reading of Bill 106.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

1540

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

The Deputy Speaker: As Mrs. Marland was the last one to speak yesterday, it will be a government member’s turn to speak.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am very pleased to rise and speak today in support of Bill 113. I do so as one of the members of the government who is on public record as being personally supportive of a common pause day. This fact is well known in my community and it is now known in the Legislature because my name is one of those appearing on the list that was circulated some weeks ago by members of the opposition. I presume this list was circulated in order to attempt to embarrass members of the government who made that list, but it may be somewhat disconcerting to members of the opposition to realize that members of the government, including those of us who have indicated a personal preference for a common pause day, can and do fully support this bill.

I would like today to indicate why I can support this bill without any sense of inconsistency or any lessening of personal conviction. I can support the legislation on retail business hours because it is good legislation. I suggest that anyone who believes this legislation provides for open Sunday shopping look honestly and carefully at what the bill does and does not do.

The legislation provides guidelines for retail store openings that are clear and unambiguous, and because it does that, this legislation will be more enforceable than previous legislation was or ever could be. The legislation does not create a vacuum municipalities must now rush to fill. The bill provides, on its own, guidelines that can serve to regulate store hours without any further action by municipal governments. Municipalities can choose to stay with the provincial guidelines and need not exercise local option beyond this.

The opposition has tried to portray this legislation as creating wide-open Sundays. This is not, of course, what the legislation that has been tabled actually does. In fact, what it does is quite the reverse. The legislation provides for stores to be closed on Sundays, with some exceptions. It is somewhat ironic, given all the furor that preceded the introduction of this bill, that the guidelines will actually close some stores that are currently allowed to open.

I believe it is also of importance to note that the bill allows a retail owner who closes on another day of the week to open on Sundays, but only if this is done consistently all year. So I am comfortable in supporting this bill and the guidelines it provides for regulating retail business hours.

I am also comfortable with the fact that local municipalities are given the option of amending the guidelines according to local needs and concerns. Local governments now have the right to declare they will allow Sunday openings under the tourist exemption clause. It is quite clear that some flexibility in this regard must be retained. Any attempt by the provincial government to write legislation that identified tourist areas across the province would have had to contain so many exceptions that enforcement would have been impossible. As well, I expect that the discontent of individual communities would have been widespread and the demand for amendments would have been continuous.

There were really only two alternatives to attempting such an impossible and ultimately unsatisfactory task. One of these alternatives was to allow all stores to be open on Sundays. This was a direction our government chose not to take, so the only reasonable solution to the problem was to allow each local council to decide what particular exceptions, if any, are appropriate in each unique situation.

I would perhaps have been less comfortable with the legislation if it did not give individual tenants the right to remain closed should a city council vote to permit Sunday store openings in certain shopping malls, but the legislation does give that right.

I would perhaps have been concerned if our government had not introduced legislation to protect retail workers by giving them the right to refuse unreasonable assignment of Sunday work, but it has introduced such legislation. So I return --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Come on, it doesn’t do that. What does that mean?

Mr. Ballinger: Another good point.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That northern trip seems to have unsettled a lot of you.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Whether members are sitting in their seats or not, there are a lot of interjections and a lot of exchanges between members on both sides of the House. Out of respect for those who have the floor, I recognize one person at a time and that person is the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I reiterate my belief in the importance of the fact that this government has introduced legislation to protect retail workers by giving them the right to refuse unreasonable assignment of Sunday work.

I return to my earlier statement that this is good legislation and is fully deserving of our support. I have no doubt that full and open discussion of what this bill does and does not do will allay any concerns others might have. I recognize that those who favour wide-open Sunday shopping may not favour this legislation and will undoubtedly call on local governments to ease the provincial restrictions.

It will be important for local councils to be aware of the feelings of the majority of people in their communities and to be sensitive to the particular needs of their areas in order to respond to these pressures. I have every confidence that local councils are very much aware of the particular circumstances in their communities. Local debates on this issue will make community concerns very clearly known; that is one of the functions of local option.

I found it interesting that in my home city of Thunder Bay, the chamber of commerce initially expressed its support for open Sunday shopping. The retailers who were members of the chamber expressed opposite views, and those views were listened to. The consultation that followed made it quite apparent a majority of members in that community did not want Sunday openings. I submit it was the prospect of local option that led to that very clear expression of opinion. I also recognize that residents in a neighbouring town, Nipigon for example, may feel quite differently about the prospect of opening stores for the tourists who pass through that community during the summer.

This legislation accommodates a diversity of community needs. While it has this flexibility, it also provides guidelines that are fair and enforceable. I believe it represents the best of the alternatives before us.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would just like to ask the minister, the member for Fort William, a question. I am not sure whether she spoke on behalf of cabinet or caucus when she expressed her support for Bill 113, but the question I pose is that if caucus is unanimous in its decision that this legislation is so wonderful, what is the point of having eight weeks of public hearings? Is it going to mean anything or is the government just going to waste the taxpayers’ money and the time of the members of the Legislature?

With the resolution condemning free trade having been passed before the committee hearings, it did not make a lot of sense to have any hearings. I wonder if that is the position the government is in now. Does the minister mean the committee hearings that will be held for eight weeks starting the first of August will not have any meaning? Will any input be accepted? Has the government made up its mind now that it means nothing? If so, why go through the charade of having hearings? I am terribly disappointed the government cannot have hearings that mean something.

The member mentioned Bill 114, and it says a worker can refuse to work when he considers it unreasonable. Government cannot define “tourism”; they said it is impossible to define “tourism.” Define “unreasonable.” The government cannot define it to suit both employee and employer. They will get caught up with the – what do they call it? -- mediator and then it will be referred to an independent referee. Is that a National Hockey League referee?

1550

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would not like to insult the Supreme Court of Canada which has used the term “reasonableness” in defining the rights of people to refuse to work for religious reasons. The Supreme Court of Canada seems to think it is a term with validity in this exact relationship and I would support the Supreme Court of Canada in that.

I wish to assure the member that, as I said in my speech, I will be listening to the committee for any improvements it will suggest that still observe and keep the proposed law both fair and enforceable, and that, within those criteria, indeed we will listen for any helpful suggestion it has.

Although it was never suggested we would not allow committees to determine what they wished to do, it seems amazing to me that an opposition that presented petitions for days on end because it claimed we were not going to let the committee travel is now standing there and, apparently, is going to accuse us of spending too much money because we are going to allow it to travel. I do not know, the opposition had better make up its mind what it was doing when it was presenting all those petitions and holding out for so much time.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did not mention that the government was wasting money. I simply said that if the government has no intention of listening to what the people say, what is the point of spending the money?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I will examine Hansard to see if he mentioned money in this.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I probably will not take the entire two minutes.

I do not know how the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) responded to the comments of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) when she was not here for most of the speech. I certainly am happy that these bills will be going out to committee, but I tend to agree with concerns that have been expressed throughout the debate, and probably in the comments from the Minister of Colleges and Universities, that this government does not tend to listen to committees very often.

We know the history of this legislation. The member can make all the comments she wants to rationalize the legislation that is now before this Legislature, but before she was a member, in the last parliament, a select committee was set up, of which the Solicitor General was a member, and a unanimous report was produced -- that is less than a year ago -- that said there should not be wide-open Sunday shopping, that the legislation should be at the provincial level to control retail store shopping. That was going to be done at the provincial level.

What they have done now is passed the buck to the municipal level, and there is no way the member can rationalize what the provincial government has done. It has passed the buck.

Mr. Ballinger: Sure we can.

Mr. B. S. Cooke: Well, she can rationalize it, but she cannot really speak on this matter with a lot of credibility.

What happened was that, when there was minority government, this government listened to the people. Now that there is majority government, they are smug, they are arrogant, they do not give a damn and they do not listen to the select committee. I doubt very much whether they will listen to the eight weeks of public hearings and all the people who will come before them and say that the public does not want shopping on Sundays. The government cannot and should not be passing it on to the municipal governments.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Perhaps just on two points. The first perhaps would require a closer reading of Hansard to determine exactly the comment the honourable member just made, but he made some reference to the member having been a part of the select committee. I am not sure if he was referring to me, but I certainly would want to draw it to his attention that in fact I was not elected to the Legislature at that time. I certainly was on public record, prior to my election to this Legislature, as being supportive of a common pause day and it was in that context that I wished to rise and speak today in support of this legislation.

I am not sure whether to address my second point simply in response to the first member who spoke or whether in fact it is a point of order, but there was a question raised as to whether I was somehow reflecting the views of the government and/or the cabinet and if my commitment to and support of this legislation in some way precluded a fair hearing at the committee level. I was certainly under the impression when I rose to address this issue that I was free to speak in this Legislature as a member of the Legislature, reflecting my own views. Those views were independently arrived at after a very thorough and thoughtful analysis of this legislation. I presented them as individual views which I believed to be consistent with my personal convictions on the issue and I do want to clarify that.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. One person at a time, please.

Mr. Swart: I suppose in the sort of wind-down of members’ terms in this Legislature, they are less likely to speak on as many matters as they would when they have no intention of leaving, unless the public in their community tells them to leave, but I want to take part in this debate and perhaps in one more before I leave.

I want to take part in this debate for two or three reasons. First of all, I have been involved in this issue since the beginning and have real concerns about it. Second, I spent 21 years in --

Interjection.

Mr. Swart: What is that?

The Deputy Speaker: The member will ignore the interjections and address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Swart: OK, I will ignore the interjections. I think that was a friendly interjection, so I wanted to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mel, did you ever shop in Lackawanna on Sunday?

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have an obligation to ignore the interjections, and perhaps other people have an obligation not to make them.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is quite correct.

Mr. Swart: I was saying that I have spent about 21 years in municipal life and have had rather a close association with municipal people. I think I know what they are thinking and how they feel on this issue.

Third, this issue does in fact relate, to a very substantial degree, to values in our society. What the bill we have before us does -- as do the two bills -- is really to take a further step in the precedence of commercialization over family values. There is no question that is what this does. It is a move to give higher priority to commercialization over family values in our society, and I am really quite concerned about the attitude of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Liberal government’s indifference to these values in our society.

It does not matter whether it is beer and wine in the grocery store, which would have had some negative impact on values in our society; whether it is inaction on practices in the bereavement sector, which I do not think a decent society should permit and which this government has refused to take action on; whether it is that they are now proposing to extend the drinking hours in our society, or whether it is their indifference to the tremendous housing problems that we have in our society -- all of these have an impact on family values in our society, and it is a negative impact.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I’m going to tell George Samis what you just said. George Samis was a good family man.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the House leader for the Liberals keeps interjecting. Perhaps you could call him to order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to say that, like the member for Welland-Thorold, I have great respect for the former NDP member for Cornwall, and to hear his memory and his legacy so attacked disappoints me.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) neglects to mention, of course, all of the support that there was on his side of the House. If he derides the former member for Cornwall, then of course it applies to his own members as well.

Mr. Speaker, if I can continue, and I am sure you would like me to, rather than dealing with interjections I want to say that there is a trend in the Liberal government since it has been in power to show less concern for the family values and, for that matter, the general values in our society and to give priority to commercialization.

In fact, I suggest that the Premier is really quite an admirer of United States values. His yuppie attitudes seem to be oriented towards the values they have in the US, and the things I have mentioned which are patterned after US values would clearly indicate that. I do not want to overemphasize this, but the facts are that the bill we have before us does, to some extent, lessen those values in our society.

1600

If they like the US, if they want to move in that direction, I might remind them that there is no democracy in the western world which has a higher degree of crime, a higher degree of family violence or a higher degree of family breakup than does the US. Yet that is the direction in which the Liberal government here is moving with regard to its values.

Almost everything in the US -- and the way we are moving to a greater extent here -- is subordinated to the marketplace. It is all subordinated to the marketplace. It is the marketplace that makes the decision.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: Apart from that, I suggest this bill is totally impractical; the bill is in fact hypocritical and it is sleazy --

Mr. Ballinger: That was a direct hit.

Mr. Swart: That was a direct hit; the member is right. Another term for a direct hit, I think, is an objective observation.

Mr. Ballinger: In other words, a low blow.

Mr. Swart: It is all of those things. Transferring the decision-making authority on this to the local governments has nothing to do with common sense. It has everything to do with buck-passing for reasons of political expediency. That is the real answer to this.

The most recent speaker, who has now left, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, said she is in favour of a pause day but fully supports this legislation. The present legislation we have on the books provides for this pause day in all municipalities. The proposed legislation permits the pause day to be abandoned in all municipalities. To say you support a pause day --

Mr. Ballinger: That’s no change. It’s just as it was before under the tourism option.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: -- and at the same time support --

Mr. Philip: Try to get a tourist option for Mississauga. Try to get a tourist option for Vaughan.

An hon. member: You can.

Mr. Philip: Like hell you can.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear with all that noise over there.

Mr. Swart: I am having the same trouble over here.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I am trying to make it so that any member who speaks is the sole member and is heard by the Speaker and others, regardless of the party, and you do not make it easy for the standing orders to be respected. There is a question-and-comment period for members who want to respond, but not during the speech made by the member who has the floor. The member for Welland-Thorold may continue.

Mr. Swart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to proceed by saying that all the arguments used by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) -- and I believe the exact words she used were “the present law is not enforceable” -- and by the Minister of Colleges and Universities that the new law is more enforceable, are simply nonsense.

It simply is not the case. It is pure subterfuge. Can municipalities enforce the law better than the province? In fact, it will be more difficult. You will have two laws to deal with. You will have the local municipal law and the provincial law to deal with. You will have two laws instead of one. It will be much more difficult to enforce them.

It will vary to some degree from one municipality to another across this province. Of course, when you have laws that vary from one municipality to another, it is much more difficult to enforce those laws; it is not easier to enforce those laws.

Perhaps the first thing I should say is about the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). As soon as this bill was tabled in the Legislature, he was asked whether that would permit the liquor stores to open on Sunday and he said, “Oh yes, I guess it would.” He guessed it would. Then within a day’s time, or a few hours time, he had to do a complete flip-flop on that and say, “No, it wouldn’t.”

The pharmacies are covered under provincial legislation, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, although some across there may not know it. They are covered under the provincial legislation. What are you going to do with more than a drugstore, that type of a business? What are you going to do with that? The province is going to have to determine what the drugstore is, so we will have two authorities that are going to be making laws and, in fact, administering those laws. I suggest to the government that it is going to be much more difficult; it is not going to be easier.

When the Solicitor General gets up to make her too many comments about what I say, I would like her to tell me how it is going to be easier for the regional municipality of Niagara to administer this act than it is for the province. In the regional municipality of Niagara, there is every type of municipality. Some of them will be fighting with others to get their municipalities open. We know what happened there rather recently with regard to tourism: the province has turned down some in that regard. It is not going to be any easier for them to design what should be done in Niagara, with every class of municipality. And as regards the classification of tourism, if you will, it will not be any easier for them to do that than the province. Anybody living in the Niagara region knows that.

Of course, the municipalities do not want it. I listened to the minister state in her introductory comments how this is a great idea. This was really the right answer: to give it to the municipalities, which will then be able to look after their own municipalities and be able to do the right thing. It is a total flip-flop, but we will come to that later.

As I say, I was in municipal life for a long time, and I think generally the municipalities want to do the right thing for their people. They want to do the right thing, and they have already said what is the right thing; that is, this should be left at the provincial level.

For the first time in his life, the member for Renfrew North is speechless. He waved his hands but nothing came out. It is not too often that nothing comes out. Usually, there is a noise.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Your confusion is breathtaking. The tourist exemption is local option, and my government has been exercising it for years. I don’t know what you’re talking about, because the world you’re complaining about doesn’t exist.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: I am paying attention to the Speaker, and he admonishes me that I should not deal with interjections. That is more than others are doing when he says they should not interject. Right, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Conway: You’re exciting me, Mel. You’re provoking me.

Mr. Swart: I do not think that is the right word.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You called my colleague the Solicitor General the architect of this sleaze bill. I’ll tell your wife.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Welland-Thorold may continue.

1610

Mr. Swart: They simply do not want that authority, because they want to do the right thing for their people and they cannot do the right thing. They know they are going to be forced into opening up if the neighbouring municipality opens up. They know that and they do not want to be put in that position.

I do not think I need to remind the House leader or anyone else there on the Liberal benches about the resolutions that have been passed by the municipal associations and by the executive of that --

Miss Martel: Remind them.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps I should remind them that after they proposed this, the executive of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario voted 58 to 3 against transferring this authority back to the municipalities. That is about as near unanimous as you can get.

It is all right, quite frankly, for the Liberals to say -- because it is what they are saying -- that the municipalities do not know what is best for their people, because that is what this bill says and it is what they are saying to them, when 58 to 3 vote against this legislation and then this Liberal government is telling them they do not know what is best for their people; “We know what is best for the municipalities and we are going to give them this authority whether they want it or not.” That is what they are saying to the municipalities.

I hope the minister will deal with that issue, this contradiction, when she gets up. She says this is right -- best -- for the people in those municipalities that their councils have a local option and the local councils are saying: “No, it is not. It is much better to have a uniform system left with the province.” I want her to get up and say how she resolves that contradiction. Is she saying to those municipal people that they do not know what is best for their people? Of course she is, but I would like to hear her deal with that.

I think it is significant that in this chit that was put out by the government, which is supposed to explain this whole issue, supporting the transfer of this authority of municipalities, it does not deal with local option at all. They use a couple of examples in here. They use one in Calgary and then they have a very lengthy document in here of blue laws. I do not know; it has 30 or 40 or 50 pages.

Do you know what both of these documents say? They say wide-open Sundays are good. They do not say anything about local option.

Mr. Ballinger: No.

Mr. Swart: They do not? Then the member has not read it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: There is not a thing in here that says anything about local option. This one is headed Blue Laws: The History, Economics and Politics of Sunday-Closing Laws, by David N. Laband, of Clemson University, and deals with all the advantages of having wide-open shopping on Sundays. That is what it is about, and this is what they give the members of this House to justify local option? They know the end result of local option -- at least their staff knew it when they prepared these and put them in this document -- is going to mean wide-open Sunday shopping.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: Why put these documents in here supporting wide-open Sunday shopping?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: For those who want wide-open shopping.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member will sit down, please. I think there is another period of rest and relaxation required. The House is restless this afternoon, I can see; it must be the nice weather outside, but inside, the member for Welland-Thorold may continue.

Mr. Swart: Thank you, I will continue, Mr. Speaker. It may be inappropriate to comment on your remarks about the nice weather outside, but I will tell you why they are restless, and they have been restless since this debate started on Monday. They are restless because they are sensitive. They know the people back in their own ridings are opposed to this bill which they have before this House. That is what makes them restless and they feel they have to defend this decision.

I have never seen those benches over there so sensitive as they are at the present time. With all due respect, it does not have anything to do with the weather outside. No, it has a lot to do with their consciences being uncomfortable about this legislation.

I have here a copy of yesterday’s Toronto Star that is rather interesting. “Peterson Says Opposition MPPs to Blame -- Sunday Shopping Bill Misunderstood.” Poor Premier. The people out there misunderstand. The story begins, “Opposition MPPs are intentionally promoting ‘misunderstanding’ about the government’s Sunday-shopping legislation, Premier David Peterson says.”

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what bothers the Premier? Do you know what bothers all of those people over there? It is that the public out there does understand it. That is what really bothers the government members. They understand this will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping. They understand this legislation is being passed to pass the buck back to the municipalities. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they want the buck passed back to the municipalities because they may lose some votes if they keep the legislation opposing open Sundays or if they pass legislation.

The public understands. A year or so ago, 40 per cent of people were opposed and 60 per cent were in favour. That is why that is reversed now: because they have come to understand what this legislation really is.

Even if it did not lead to wide-open Sundays, this legislation is simply unworkable. My colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip), quoted from speeches in the Nova Scotia Legislature when, after two years, they reverted to provincial jurisdiction after doing the kind of silly thing the government is doing in the bill it has here. He quoted from the Attorney General down there, I think, but I do not think he quoted some of the other members.

I want to quote Vincent MacLean: “Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for bringing forth this piece of legislation. Our caucus will be supporting the legislation because we feel and have felt for some time that there should be a uniform application of the act across the province. Whatever the application of law that is going to be enforced, I think the government should have a pretty close look at it and come out and espouse a principle. If it is going to be open on Sunday, well, so be it; there will be some flak on that. If it is going to be closed on Sunday, there is going to be some flak on that. But espouse a particular principle, draft the legislation to see that people are treated equally.”

I will stop there. That was a Liberal member speaking for the Liberal caucus in Nova Scotia just last year.

Mr. Ballinger: This is Ontario.

Mr. Swart: That is right.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: Do you know, Mr. Speaker, not only does that political party over there have different views from Nova Scotia and other Liberal governments in Canada, they have a different view from one day to the next and one month to the next. This is the third flip-flop they have done on this.

Mr. Ballinger: Listen, you do not hold any option on that.

Mr. Swart: No, but boy, you really perfected it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address your remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Swart: Yes. To you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say they have perfected the flip-flop. Mind you, they had good teachers in the government which was there prior to them, but they really have excelled, I think, since they have come to power.

I say to the minister --

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker.

Mr. Swart: -- do not go on trying to kid the public and play games. We know what you said --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks through the Speaker.

1620

Mr. Swart: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, we know what she said and it has been quoted many times, that it would be chicken to give it back to municipalities. We know the minister signed that report which was tabled a year ago. It was very clear in the fact that there should be a common pause day and that this should be not transferred back to the municipalities.

She signed that report and to stand up now and somehow or other try to defend this legislation, I suggest to her is quite a convolution. I am really impressed how remarkably well she does it, but is a convolution that really nobody will accept. Of course, it is not only her but it is the Premier as well. I would say that the minister was mugged in the corridors of the supermarkets but she was not mugged by her opponents, she was not mugged by her bureaucrats, but really it was her own cabinet colleagues -- primarily the Premier -- who mugged her for their own political expediency in bringing in the wide-open Sundays.

I do not intend to go into the pros and cons of the matter of open Sundays to any great extent. I spoke on this in some detail when we had the special debate at the opening of the session, and my colleague here and the members of the third party, I think, have put forth practically all the arguments against having wide-open Sundays, or put the other way, of having a uniform common pause day throughout this province.

But I do think we should once again remind the government of its lack of credibility on this matter and its convoluted flip-flop over a period of time. We know in the election campaign of 1985, the Premier flatly gave a promise that they would have open Sunday shopping all across this province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Only where they want it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am not speculating on anything. I just made a flat statement that there was a promise given by the Premier in the 1985 election that in fact they would rescind the legislation which prevented shops from being open on Sunday and would permit Sunday shopping. If members want to get the documentation on it, I will be glad to provide it. That was a statement they made.

Then we had the select committee report. Then we had the Premier stating during the last election and before the last election saying that he was not going to change the legislation which we had. According to the Toronto Stun -- Sun --

Mr. Pelissero: Stun?

Mr. Philip: You were right the first time.

Mr. Swart: -- Stun is right sometimes -- it said “Premier David Peterson had no plans to make major changes to Ontario’s controversial Sunday closing law.” That was during the election campaign back in August. “‘In my own view, you try as best you can to reflect the value of society on an issue like that,’ Peterson said, adding that was what the government tried to do by striking an all-party legislative committee to study the subject. He said, ‘I accept that advice. I don’t plan any immediate changes.’”

I do not know what immediate is, but it was only three months after that when, through his minister, he proposed that there would be legislation which would permit wide-open Sundays all across this province.

It is strange too, because they do that kind of a flip-flop on the surface when public opinion shows now that 60 per cent of the people of this province are opposed to it. I guess when they made that change in December that poll had not come out, had it? The latest poll showed that something like 58 per cent of the people in this province are in favour of Sunday shopping, so the government decided it would go ahead. I suppose even with Liberals there is a limit on the flip-flops they can do. They may figure that three in two years is enough, so now they are going ahead and bringing in this legislation.

Mr. Black: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Under which standing order?

Mr. Black: I do not know which standing order, but I am doing my best to hear the speaker and I cannot hear because of the interjections of members of his own party. Could you ask them to be quiet so that I can hear the speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold will continue.

Mr. Swart: I just want to say that if the member who just spoke resents the fact that I have so many cheerleaders behind me, then perhaps he should organize a rally for himself the next time he speaks.

I just got my survey in. I suggest that public opinion is moving still further away from open Sundays, still further away from this legislation. I got my constituents’ replies back in the last three weeks, and 83 per cent of those 615 people who replied were opposed to this legislation. With the previous constituent leaflet which I sent out a couple of years ago, there was something like 60 per cent opposed.

Now, I do not profess that these accurately reflect public opinion, but relatively, they do reflect public opinion. Anybody who sends out a constituent leaflet with a questionnaire will know that they do, to a substantial degree, give an indication of what the people in his area are thinking. I suggest that the public is more and more dissatisfied with what this government is doing in this regard.

It is clear that once the pros and cons on the issue got fully before the public, they decided against it. They know that a lot more people, especially women, are going to have to work on Sunday. They know that the legislation itself is totally unsatisfactory. We will not be able to police it. We cannot even police the health and safety legislation that we have. How are we going to police this kind of legislation, with different rules in every municipality in this province?

They know that it is going to adversely affect society. Every organization -- and I want to point this out -- that is concerned with family integrity says no to open Sundays. Every organization. There is not a church organization that has not come out in opposition to this. The social agencies are in opposition to it. All of those groups that are concerned with values in society are opposed to this legislation, and they know it will hurt small business.

I guess this shows more than anything else how the government is prepared, when it has this kind of a majority, to ignore the wishes of the public.

In conclusion, I want to say two things. I hope when these hearings are held across this province, the public comes out en masse, as I am sure they will, to tell the government members what they think of their legislation. Finally, let me say this: I hope and challenge the government to make this an issue in the by-election in Welland-Thorold. I challenge it to make that an issue, and I say it will get the kind of rejection it deserves.

1630

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just very briefly, I would like to commend the member for Welland-Thorold for an excellent speech. It may be towards the end of his career but he is certainly carrying on in a very diligent manner and his suggestion to make this an issue in the by-election in Welland-Thorold is absolutely tremendous and I know that this party will support that position.

Mr. Chiarelli: The member for Welland-Thorold has just provided justification for an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen in April of this year. If I can quote, the headline is: “This Obstruction Should Be Fixed.”

“Grandstanding and gimmickry are inevitably a part or a price of democratic politics but there must be limits. The New Democratic Party has succeeded in attracting the media spotlight by using devious tactics to paralyse the Ontario Legislature. Now it should start acting responsibly. It should use its collective ingenuity to offer an alternative to the Sunday shopping legislation it is manoeuvring to block. So far, all Ontarians know is that the NDP does not like the government’s plan to phase out the hodgepodge of Sunday shopping rules that exist across the province. The only thing that vaguely resembles an NDP or Tory policy on Sunday shopping is the notion that there should be public hearings on the issue.”

With the member’s comments we still do not see one constructive suggestion or comment on how to amend this legislation or how to change it. I would like to see not only mass participation in the committee hearings that are coming forward, I would like to see some mass participation in constructive comments from the NDP and the third party.

Mr. Philip: I am surprised that the Ottawa Citizen and the member for Ottawa West are so ignorant that they do not realize that we signed, as did the Liberal members, a select committee report. The only difference is that we are consistent; when we have signed something or put our names on it, we stick to that report. The Solicitor-General and the Liberal members in this House do not.

I do have a question to the member for Welland-Thorold. Under the system that we have had up until now, there was at least a tourist exemption and the local municipalities had some idea of what it was to have a tourist area and at least made a decision based on what they conceived a tourist area to be.

I ask the member for Welland-Thorold, as a former mayor and municipal councillor, is there anything in this bill that gives any kind of directions by which a municipality might decide what in fact will be open, or will the local council simply be faced with the tabula rasa in which anybody who wants to give any kind of reason why they want to stay open on Sunday will, in fact, have to be given an opening on that Sunday? Where is the leadership from this government? Where is the criteria put into this bill by which the local municipalities can decide how they will judge whether or not the stores should be allowed to be open on Sunday? Where is the leadership?

Ms. Poole: I have great respect for the member for Welland-Thorold but he did make a comment that raises concern of mine. He said that everyone concerned with family integrity is opposed to this legislation. I would like to assure him that is simply not true. Every member in this House is concerned with family integrity and protection of the family. There is not one member here who is not.

As he raises the spectre of family life disappearing in this province because of this legislation, I just say to him it is nonsense. Families who wish to worship on Sunday will continue to do so. Families who wish to spend time together will continue to do so. l just say the family is a very resilient institution. Its fate will never hinge on a single act of this parliament. I think it is presumptuous for us as legislators to think that we have the power to make or break the family. The family has existed through the centuries. It has weathered war and famine, dramatic changes in values and traditions, upheavals and criticism. It has survived intact. It will not suddenly vanish because a store is open on Sunday. I firmly believe that, and that is why I am supporting this legislation. It does not impugn the integrity of the family. As the Premier said in the House not too long ago, family life simply cannot be legislated.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I was asked to speak on enforceability. I would ask the members to consider whether they have looked at the two bills, the old one and the new one, side by side. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) asked, will municipalities have to decide? Will they have to make all these decisions? Has he read the bill? The bill states that the provincial framework will be in place unless and until the municipality decides to change it. If a municipality does not want to decide anything, the provincial framework which is in the old bill is in the new bill; it is still there.

Now, under the old bill, the way to get around the provincial framework, if a community so chose, was by section 4 which said, “If you want to declare yourself a tourist area, you may do so.” That was not enforceable. That is what was not enforceable and remains in the old bill not enforceable. We recognize that and --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Why didn’t you say that in the select committee, Joan?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Because I believed at that point it could be enforceable, but having talked to many lawyers, I now realize it is not enforceable because we cannot make a way by which is it enforceable. All the municipalities which have taken advantage of this clause to open for silly reasons have proved that the clause is not enforceable. We recognize that and we put it up front.

We say to the municipalities: “We have a provincial framework. That is the law unless you choose for any reason to change it and then you can change it the way you want. You do not need to lie and claim you are a tourist area or a tourist occupation. We recognize your right to make your town reflect something other than what we have put in place,” which is the same as what was in place before. It is the provincial structure. This is enforceable and that is the difference.

Mr. Swan: My colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale answered the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) fairly effectively. We have been consistent on this. It is not we who have changed. We have been constructive. We believe the report of the select committee was a constructive report.

Legislation should have been based on that. We have not flip-flopped around. It is the Liberals who have flip-flopped on this issue. We are being constructive when we support a report which is an all-party committee report, and we think legislation should have been introduced on that instead of this change that the government has made.

My colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale asks me if there is anything in this legislation to define a tourist area or for that matter to define anything else. The answer is no. The municipalities themselves are going to have to define this. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to raise this issue that they are going to have --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That’s local option.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That’s passing the buck.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: If this government with all the money it has to spend on experts cannot define tourism, how is the regional municipality of Niagara going to do it? Not only that, but the local jealousy there, which has already come out between one municipality and another that wants to stay open, will inhibit the kind of criteria being adopted, and it is necessary to define that. This government could have done that here.

With regard to the comments on family integrity, that I had said that everyone concerned with family integrity --

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr. Swart: I will conclude with one sentence. I said every organization, not everyone.

1640

Mr. J. M. Johnson: At times it is very discouraging to listen to the comments from the Liberal Party, the government party. They do not seem to understand what is going on, especially in this debate.

I was very encouraged to read the Instant Hansard of yesterday, and I would like to quote very briefly from that pertaining to the comments made by the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South). I think he sits over there.

The member says: “I would agree with the member for Mississauga South that we, the government...will learn much from listening more closely to the opposition. They made some very good points. I want to recommend especially and commend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Wellington (Mr.
J. M. Johnson) and the member for Mississauga South, who have made some very good points.”

I would go on to say more, but members can read it for themselves. It is on page L-72.

Having said that, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to once more express my very strong opposition to Bill 113 and Bill 114, the so-called Sunday shopping legislation.

As we go through life, we are called upon to make decisions from time to time that are not earth-shattering or of major importance in the vast scheme of things. Today, in debating Bill 113 and Bill 114, we have such a case in point. Some people feel it is of little importance whether this legislation passes or not. Others are very deeply concerned about the ramifications of this legislation.

I personally feel it is not the legislation that is of importance but the principles that flow from this type of legislation. The day this legislation passes, as it will because of the massive Liberal majority, our society takes another turn away from our traditional family values inherited from our forefathers.

Sunday will become just another day, a day of commerce, not a day of rest and not a pause day to allow families to share some time together. In many cases, Sunday is the only day that they are able to spend together as a family.

I am sure that many members of this assembly would not understand that even today, many farmers will not work their land or take off their crops on Sundays. This is something that people do not understand. There are people in rural Ontario who think that Sunday is something special and they want to preserve that way of life.

Speaking for the vast majority of the people in Wellington, Sunday is a day of rest and a day they respect. This legislation further erodes that way of life.

Mr. Ballinger: It does not.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Let me finish, and I will point out why I say it erodes this way of life.

Mr. Ballinger: I believe it’s why people are in favour of Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: It dismays me, as I try to comprehend the philosophy of many people who wish to protect our heritage and our historical buildings, yet have no regard for our moral philosophy, our forefathers’ standard of living, or the traditional family values. Are buildings more important than people?

Sunday has always been a special day in Ontario, a day of traditional worship for many of our people, a family day, a day of rest, a common pause day and a day to be with your family. When this legislation passes, all that will change.

Let me use just one example. When a small family retail business is forced to open on Sundays because the opposition decides to stay open, it compels the father and mother to work in the store on Saturday and Sunday, the only days their children are not in school. When will this family have any time to share a common pause day? Will this not cause more serious social problems through our society? I certainly think it will.

Naturally, the same situation would apply to the employees of larger retail stores.

Perhaps I am overly concerned about this issue and the impact on the social fabric of our society and our family structure because I am closer to it than many of the members here. I have a son in the Anglican ministry, and he tells me of the tremendous social problems that people are having to cope with the problems today. Wide-open Sundays will only add to this problem. Perhaps I have a conflict of interest trying to protect my son’s job, but surely the government would not close the churches.

Mr. Ballinger: That is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard.

Interjections.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: They are not going to close the churches.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just as an aside, I was driving through the little village of Hillsburgh the other day. There is a church on Highway 25, a Baptist church that the former member John Root attends. He is a very religious man and a man who served this province well. On the side of the church there is a sign, “Open Sundays.” I wonder if there is a message there.

Regardless of the assurance of the government that this legislation will not create wide-open Sundays, hundreds of my constituents have asked me to voice their concerns that indeed that is exactly what it will do. I would like to deal with this again in a few minutes.

I would like now to turn to the local-option issue. One week after stating that handing the entire issue over to municipalities would be the chicken way out, the Solicitor General stood up in the Ontario Legislature and said, “It is the intention of the government to introduce in the new year legislative changes allowing individual municipalities to regulate Sunday openings.” That was on December 1, 1987. The government has taken the chicken way out, and I hope the chickens come home to roost.

The Solicitor General has also admitted -- and I would like the members to listen to this -- that the so-called municipal option will eventually lead to wide-open Sunday shopping because of the domino effect. That is also the concern of many of my constituents, and I share that concern.

Regarding the local option, what do the municipalities of Ontario think about it? I will not repeat it in detail, because the member for Welland-Thorold has mentioned it, but they were nearly unanimous in their decision that they did not want it. I will just repeat the resolution they made,

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

Mr. Pelissero: When was that resolution passed?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That was passed in February.

Mr. Pelissero: Before the legislation came out. That is very interesting.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: They go on to say:

“It is abundantly clear the retail shopping patterns are not dictated by municipal boundaries either at the local or regional level. By no stretch of the imagination can the regulation of store hours on a Sunday or holiday be viewed as a matter which properly comes within the influence of a local council.”

I do not think it makes any difference whether it was February or June, that still prevails.

Why does the government not listen to the municipalities? The government talks about local autonomy. They tell the government what they want and the government will not give it to them. They tell them what they do not want and the government gives it to them.

I represent 21 municipalities. There is not a single municipal council that has indicated to me that it wants this responsibility, and the vast majority of them have said they do not want it.

Mr. Chiarelli: Are they capable of handling it?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Does it say that those people do not care?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly I do.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Surely, Vince, of all people, you care. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that is the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Pelissero: Through you.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Through you. And through you, Madam Speaker, I would like to mention some comments to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation. He is not here today, but he is a good member and usually is here.

The minister said: “The current situation has been a hodgepodge. For the tourist areas to open is important because of the emphasis on tourism in Ontario.”

I agree. There are problems. If the current legislation creates a hodgepodge situation, what will happen with this legislation? There will be 839 municipalities trying to deal with this so-called flexible legislation.

1650

Mr. Pelissero: It clears it up.

Mr. Black: You have no confidence in municipal politicians.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: If the member reads section 4 of Bill 113, and he should read it before he makes so many comments, the section giving municipalities the powers to regulate holidays and Sundays, each and every municipality could have a different piece of legislation and set of bylaws. Now that is a hodgepodge.

If they think the situation now is a hodgepodge affair, wait until we have hundreds of conflicting pieces of municipal legislation. Then chaos will indeed set in. The ultimate result will be the government stepping in to resolve the issue by making the province wide open. Retail shopping on Sundays will become a fact of life. Just as the Solicitor General has predicted, it will eventually happen.

Mr. Black: Nonsense; it won’t.

Mr. Villeneuve: You don’t believe your Solicitor General.

Mr. Black: It won’t happen and you know it.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Surely the member is not saying the Solicitor General is inaccurate? Has anyone over there on the government benches, and the people on this side, considered the impact this legislation, Bill 113, will have on municipal councillors? This is an election year for municipal councils and this will be one of the major issues facing every council, every candidate.

The candidates will be faced with the question, “What is your position on Sunday shopping, and if elected, what do you intend to do about it?” Is it fair to place that question to the candidates, some of whom have never had any experience with this type of legislation? It is easy for the people who come from large cities, who have many lawyers and staff and waste many dollars paying for advice they should know themselves, and do not, but what about the many small municipalities, the councils -- for example, in my riding, there are 21 small councils, some for a population of 1,000. They do not have the dollars to spend on lawyers, seeking advice on this type of legislation.

It is so bloody complicated those members do not even understand it. Many of the lawyers would not understand it. How can they properly draft legislation that hopefully will achieve the results we are all looking for? The minister knows it is complicated and it is a problem. It is going to be difficult for small municipalities to deal with it. Section 4 of Bill 113 is so convoluted it would be next to impossible for most councils to deal fairly with all aspects of it.

Under section 4, the council “may by bylaw permit retail business establishments to be open on any holiday” or may require them to be closed. They may restrict the class of business establishment. They may control the hours and holidays. They may restrict opening to specific periods. They may classify businesses “by size, number of employees, character of business, geographic location” -- and for good measure, just to cover everything, the government adds -- ”or any other criteria.”

Is that sensible legislation? A councillor would need the wisdom of Solomon to deal fairly with this convoluted legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to address an aside to you that I think maybe touches on the point I am trying to make. When I was mayor of my home town of Mount Forest, I owned a retail business. I could have designated my store as the only one open on Sundays and holidays. I would be the only one open in that town. All I had to do was convince the council to go along with me and we would have had a nice, cosy relationship.

An hon. member: Cosy or clothesy?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Either one.

I would open my store and close the opposition. I would assume that I would have had a conflict of interest if I did that.

Mr. Pelissero: That is a good assumption.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: It is.

I asked that question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) three, four or five weeks ago. I said, “Do you feel that municipal councillors -- in small towns, many of whom are retail merchants, having to make decisions like this -- would be in conflict?” The Premier sloughed it off and said, “No way.”

I disagree with the Premier. They certainly would be in conflict in my estimation. That, again, is one of the problems with this in the small municipality. I imagine that chap Mel Lastman, who used to have a few stores around, would have had a slight conflict at one time.

I will move quickly along to the government itself. This is a great government. The government owns and controls bookstores and banks. It has many government offices that serve the public. It has the say in the courts, the registry office and even has a vital say in the operation of our schools, colleges and universities. Is it intending to open any of these facilities for the use of the public on Sundays and holidays? The answer is, of course not; never on Sunday. Let the other people work on Sundays, but not the government people.

Why should the public not be served by the courts? Why should they not be served by the government bookstore? Why should the registry office not be open on Sundays? If a municipal council passes this bylaw saying its stores can be open on Sundays, it should apply to the liquor stores, the registry office and every government office in that town.

I questioned the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) in the House several weeks ago about this very point. This minister is responsible for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario operation, the retail liquor stores and the brewery stores. I asked the minister whether, if a town council decided on an open Sunday for its municipality, the government would allow liquor and beer stores to be open on Sundays and holidays? He muttered something in the House. He was not even sure of what he was saying, but thought that the responsibility was with the board; that he did not have any. He went out into the corridor where the Premier’s people grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and told him that indeed it was his responsibility.

He came back in the House the next day and said, “We think that the number of hours that the liquor stores are open now is appropriate and we do not contemplate a change.”

I agree with the minister’s statement. I do not want to see the liquor stores open on Sundays, but I do not want to see all the other retail stores in Ontario open on Sundays either. I am just asking the government if it is not being hypocritical by saying that retail stores in the province should be open, but that government stores should not be open. It cannot have it both ways, not if it wants to be credible.

Just a brief comment on the companion legislation, Bill 114: the explanatory notes of this bill say, “Employees in retail business establishments... that are permitted to open on Sunday will be able to refuse work that they consider unreasonable.” That sounds great. If the employer and the employee cannot agree on the issue, they may then ask for mediation. If mediation fails, “. . .the matter will be referred to an independent referee for determination.” Several years later, before that employee reaches his retirement years, maybe the case will be resolved.

Having owned and operated a retail store for over 30 years, and having served on municipal council, the chamber of commerce and business associations for many years, I would like to advise the members of this Legislature that there has never been an issue that creates more problems in the business community of small towns than the question of retail store hours. Regardless of the Sunday issue, they have a tremendous problem resolving just the basic six-day-week, store-hours question. In many cases, they simply cannot resolve the issue without fracturing their business community. I think most of the people from the smaller communities will understand that. Bill 113 will only compound this situation. The provincial government should and must take the leadership in this very important area.

1700

It is my understanding that Bill 113 and Bill 114 will be sent to committee for several weeks of public hearings this summer. If the government is serious with regard to these public hearings, then I support this initiative. But at the time of the free trade committee hearings, the government passed the resolution condemning the free trade initiative and then held public hearings. To the government House leader: how mad can one get? It is insanity.

Surely, if public hearings are going to be meaningful, then the committee must have an open mind and make the report to this Legislature based on the presentations it receives during its committee hearings. If that does indeed happen, then I, for one, will accept the results.

It is my personal feeling that the present Retail Business Holidays Act could be amended to clarify the ambiguous sections that have caused problems in the past and also to strengthen the powers in that act. We should not turn the whole mess over to another level of government to deal with.

The Solicitor General has stated that the government could not define the term “tourism,” so therefore the present legislation is unworkable. Surely a government that has a Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and dispenses millions of dollars to tourist operators and then admits it cannot define “tourism” is a government that is incapable of governing.

On that note, I will conclude for the moment.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any honourable member wish to comment on the remarks made by the honourable member?

Mr. Chiarelli: In my 10 short months in this House, I have come to respect the wisdom, advice and judgement of the member for Wellington, which he contributes from time to time. I say that sincerely, but I have to take strong exception to his comments when he suggests that because this is a complicated piece of legislation, rural councillors and rural councils will have great difficulty dealing with it and that this is perhaps the reason it should not be enacted.

I remind the member that these same councillors and councils are presently dealing with the Assessment Act, the Planning Act and the Municipal Act, which are very complicated pieces of legislation. I think all members of this House should show greater respect for rural councillors and councils being able to deal with this type of complicated legislation. I think the people in the rural parts of the province deliberate on electing their councillors, and I think that we, as provincial members of the Legislature, should respect the people who are elected by these rural voters.

Mr. Villeneuve: May I commend my friend and colleague the member for Wellington for the comments he has made regarding Sunday shopping. Yes, I represent 23 municipalities, none of which wants the local option. There has been a clear message from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that municipalities do not want the local option.

The member for Wellington represents small business, family-owned business. For 30 years, the man owned and operated a small business. The vast majority of small businesses are against the local option.

I attended a Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping meeting in the city of Ottawa. The member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) will be interested in hearing this. I represented my party and 1,500 people showed up, all dead against the local option.

The member spoke of local municipalities. His worship, Bryan Lynch, a man who tried to become a Liberal candidate in the last election, was heading up the CAOSS group from the city of Cornwall. We had Canadian Tire stores with the entire staff present saying, “No, we do not want the local option.”

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) was in Ottawa that night; I rode on the same plane back to Queen’s Park with him. I was there representing my party. Not one Liberal member was there; not one. They did not want to face the music where the public was saying, “We do not want the local option.”

From the select committee on retail store hours that travelled the province, the first recommendation unanimously said that we want a common pause day, that we must have a common pause day. Where are those people who were on that committee?

I again commend the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) who yesterday spoke on behalf of some of the Liberal back-benchers who have, all of a sudden, got the message from their constituents. Listen to him; he has got a good message.

Mr. Reycraft: The early part of the remarks by the member for Wellington had, as their principle, the fact that somehow people who work on Sundays have an inferior quality of family life, that this legislation is going to weaken the family structure in this province. I wonder if he has really thought about what it is he is saying.

There is a document out that I would recommend to all members, a book called The Century of Sundays, published just this year by the People for Sunday Association of Canada. I would like to read into the record one of the comments. They have concluded that “one in four of the principal wage earners in households already work on Sunday.”

Think of that: a quarter of the principal wage earners in this province already work on Sundays. Something like 157,000 retail store workers in this province already work on Sundays. The member is suggesting those people have an inferior quality of family life. In fact, he mentioned that his own son is a minister. I am sure a good part of his duties are required to be performed on Sundays. I doubt very much that has threatened or weakened the quality of his family life. I wonder if the member might think about that just a bit longer.

The other point he made is that municipalities are going to be forced to do something they do not want to do, that they are going to be forced to make a decision they do not care to make. That is not the case. Under the current Retail Business Holidays Act, if a municipality does not think about Sunday retail store hours, the provincial framework stays in place and applies. Under Bill 113, if a municipality takes no action at all, and it need not, the provincial framework applies.

Ms. Poole: Like the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli), I have the greatest respect for the member for Wellington, but I must say that I disagree with him when he claims this legislation is going to lead to wide-open Sunday shopping. He is ignoring evidence to the contrary.

We have heard time and time again that municipalities will fall like dominoes, but look at the evidence we have right now. Look at the town of St. George, which is in the riding of the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon). The whole town was declared a tourist exemption with open Sundays, yet we have not seen Paris, a nearby town, open on Sundays. We have not seen Burford open on Sundays. We have not seen any of the surrounding towns open on Sundays.

Take Point Edward as an example. It is the same thing. The towns around it are not opening on Sundays to compete with it. They have not followed suit.

I will give members another example right here in Toronto where the domino effect has not come into play. Municipal councils have had control over liquor licences for decades, yet there are areas in the city of Toronto that are still dry to this day. The domino does not always come into play.

The other thing is that the member for Wellington stated he has 21 municipalities in his riding and not one of them has approached him in support of this legislation. Well, the answer is simple. They do not have to do anything. There is a provincial framework right now, with this legislation, that will be in existence. They do not have to pass a law. They do not have to touch it. They can do nothing and operate within the provincial framework that says stores are closed on Sundays, with certain exemptions as specified in the act.

I think, if he looks at it, he will see this is good legislation and is not legislation that is going to lead to a domino effect or impact the municipalities in the way he thinks.

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired. The member for Wellington, in reply for two minutes.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: First of all, I thank the member for Ottawa West for the kind compliments.

Municipal councils dealing with this legislation do have a problem. They already foresee it and they have indicated they do not want it. I have had many resolutions, from practically every municipal council in my riding, saying they do not want the responsibility and to leave it at the Ontario level. They are telling me that is their decision.

My municipal councillors are good councillors and they have been elected by the people to serve them. They understand their limitations. I would hate to sit in council and try to make determinations on some of these issues. They are extremely difficult, and I tell members in all sincerity, I am concerned that it is a problem for them.

1710

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and one other township has, as always, made one more fine speech and, of course, I agree with everything he said.

The member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) said that I dwelt too heavily on the fact that people who work Sundays have an inferior quality of life. I do not mean to imply that they have an inferior quality of life but I do not think they have the same opportunities as other people. My son is a minister and my son knows the people who would like to go to church and cannot because they have to work Sundays. That certainly bears heavily on families.

The member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) mentioned that working Sundays will not impact on churches. I do not know how you can go to church and go to work at the same time. It is one or the other. The member for Eglinton also mentioned that wide-open Sunday shopping will not become a factor from this legislation; but the Solicitor General is the one who made the statement.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Pelissero: I would like to address the issue of the impact this legislation will have on the industry that is worth more than $9 billion to Ontario each year; that is, tourism. It is the inability to designate exactly what a tourist is that I would like to touch on in some of my remarks.

Before doing that, I want to say that tourism generated $1 billion in provincial tax revenues last year, helping to build new schools, to pave streets and to maintain our standard of living in the province of Ontario. Tourism is one of the province’s most efficient generators of gross domestic product, creating an additional 31 cents in income for every dollar spent, ahead of agriculture and the construction and transport equipment industries and only slightly behind the trade and finance sectors.

Close to half a million Ontarians depend on tourism for their livelihood. Its impact on employment and income is particularly significant in the regions that are dependent on nonrenewable resource industries. In northern and eastern Ontario, for example, the tourism industry generates over $930 in gross domestic product for each man, woman and child.

Tourism’s impact on the provincial economy is staggering. For example, $1.8 billion in tourism dollars was spent in the retail trade sector in 1985. Another $1.7 billion was spent in the food and beverage sectors. Nearly $3 billion was spent in transportation and $1.1 billion in accommodation.

Clearly, it is in the best interests of Ontario to encourage the continuing good health and growth of the tourism industry. The proposed legislation will do exactly that. Let me be more specific. Let me give you a little more detail as to why that will happen. Shopping is a major tourist activity. In fact, shopping ranks second only to transportation in tourism spending in Ontario. Furthermore, shopping ranks third among attractions specified by tourists in selecting destinations.

The needs of each community in this province may differ. Mayor Heinz Hummel of Fort Erie explained his council’s decision to allow wide-open Sunday shopping in his community when he noted that up to 22,000 cars enter Fort Erie from the United States each summer weekend, compared to 10.000 cars on weekdays. This weekend travel represents 25,000 Americans who come to stay at their cottages and pick up materials, according to the mayor.

Community leaders in Sault Ste. Marie expressed a similar conviction. In that community, the chamber of commerce as well as the economic development corporation encouraged the municipal council to adopt the tourism exemption. In their view, the use of the exemption “would create jobs, bring in tourist dollars and enable retail stores to compete with businesses in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, that open up on Sunday.”

There are at least 25 municipalities that have used the tourist option to open. That means about five million people in this province have access to Sunday shopping currently.

While the use of the tourist option represents the intention of the old Retail Business Holidays Act to allow for the development of tourist areas, it does not represent the spirit of the law. While I am sure members believe that the tourist exemptions in their constituencies are entirely proper and necessary for the promotion of tourism in their areas, we can all point to some unreasonable abuses.

A store selling handmade furniture in Scarborough, for example, was granted a tourist exemption while just down the street a store selling manufactured furniture is required to close. In Toronto, Chinatown, Harbourfront and Markham Street have been deemed crucial to Toronto’s tourist industries, yet one of Toronto’s biggest attractions is the Eaton Centre and it remains closed on Sundays.

The problem with the tourist exemption is that no one has been able to devise a workable definition of tourism which eliminates some of the abuses of the present system without hurting communities which generally rely on this economic activity.

“What is a tourist?” some would ask, and we have had difficulty defining that. A tourist is not a person who wears shorts and Hawaiian shirts and carries a camera around his neck. It is you and I, other Ontarians and Canadians. In fact, 80 per cent of the $22-billion tourist industry in Canada in 1986 came from Canadians travelling within our own borders. That, in fact, is a tourist.

A graduated approach has been adopted in order to ensure that steps already taken by municipalities to foster the growth of tourism are preserved during the transition period. In terms of the triggering mechanism that a municipality uses, the province does not get involved in the discussion as to the delineation of the criteria that have been used by a local municipality in determining which areas should be designated for tourism, and there is no change in the proposed legislation to deal with how municipalities are going to use the criteria, so the criteria do not change, from the municipalities’ point of view, as to what they want to do to encourage their local tourist industries.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Solicitor General, who has stated that under the proposed legislation communities will be able to allow Sunday and holiday shopping in whatever areas they wish but they will not have to stretch credibility by manufacturing a tourist area. It is a more coherent, more honest and fairer approach.

We recognize that needs and situations in this huge province vary from community to community. Many areas depend on tourism for their economic survival. We recognize that municipalities must be able to pass their own bylaws to regulate Sunday and holiday shopping, as indeed they presently can and do set hours for retail businesses on other days, in fact.

As a result, we have brought forward a fair and enforceable law that allows for the development of that tourism potential and for other unique needs and values of individual communities. This legislation will create jobs, bring in tourist dollars and enable retail stores in border communities, such as Sault Ste. Marie and Windsor, to compete with their American counterparts. Under the new law, tourism will continue to flourish and individual municipalities can choose how to best facilitate their own economic and tourism development.

I support the comments of the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) with respect to the domino effect. The tourist exemption is in place now. Some municipalities are using it while municipalities that border those municipalities are not. And it will continue to work under the proposed legislation in terms of the municipalities setting store hours that are unique and are individual with respect to the citizens who live in those communities.

1720

Mr. Philip: The member has indicated that there are already a great number of tourist municipalities which are using the present legislation. He uses the example of Windsor. In Windsor, actually, those of us who were there and talked to them found many of them are upset that they did move in that direction because many of the merchants are not making money by that, but none the less, it was their decision and they used the tourist exemption.

If it is working so well, if all of these municipalities have been able to use the tourist exemption, why throw away the baby with the bath water? Why allow a municipality like Vaughan or Mississauga or any of the others to simply open up for any criteria? The criteria are not explained in the bill. Why allow them to virtually give a licence to stay open regardless of the law? In fact, that is what this bill does.

It says a municipality can reduce the fine right down to even $1 if it wants. Why throw away everything that seems to be working, and that you talk about as working, by bringing in new legislation? Surely, if it is working as well as the government says it is, it does not need fixing.

Mr. Pollock: I am well aware of the value of the tourist industry to eastern Ontario. I just want to point out that I have talked to some of those tourist operators and people who are involved in the tourist industry there, and they are concerned about Sunday shopping, not because of this particular legislation and the way we interpret it, but because of the fact that if the big centres stay open, they have a fear that there will not be the influx into those rural areas that depend on those tourist dollars. It is a major concern to them.

The person who talked to me was no fly-by-night operator. He was a person who was truly concerned, who had a pretty good handle on things, and he was as concerned about the tourist business as anybody in my riding.

I agree with the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip). The member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero) mentioned the fact that we have all these tourist dollars flowing out there now, yet all of a sudden we have to fix the thing. It is not broken.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have listened very carefully to much of this debate today and I am particularly interested in the comments of my friend and neighbour from Stirling, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), as we represent many of the same kinds of areas in rural eastern Ontario.

I have listened for so long to this debate and I do not know where it is that some of my friends opposite have been. I know where the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) has been because his views have been very clearly spelled out in the Glengarry News and elsewhere. He knows that if I go to Alexandria or St-Eugene or, I dare say, to Bancroft, where I often am on summer Sundays, the reality of the current act is that by virtue of a tourist exemption, municipalities large and small can and do open for some or all Sundays.

As the Solicitor General has quite rightly said, the good thing about this bill is that it puts in place a much clearer, stronger framework. The old order is not the perfection that my friend from Moose Creek, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, would have us believe. I have to say that as I listened to the squire of Stirling talk about the impression left in rural Ontario --

Mr. Pollock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew North is supposed to comment on the comments of the member for Lincoln, not on mine. You should point that out to him.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would point out that the member for Lincoln has rightly focused our attention on the reality of our contemporary society. Speaking as a member from rural eastern Ontario, we have a whole series of small municipalities which have open Sundays because the good people of Grattan or Airy or Deep River in my constituency have decided it should be so.

Mr. Villeneuve: I, too, want to comment on the member for Lincoln’s very eloquent address to this Legislature. He mentioned some border towns. He did not mention the city of Cornwall, which is very much a border town, not only --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Under which standing order?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Well, you heard the other point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the same one that the previous member used.

The point of order is that if there is a discussion going on, I do not think someone who stands in his place to bring up a point of order should be taking away to any degree --

Mr. Villeneuve: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: -- the time that is allotted to the member.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If I were to reinforce that point, it would be obvious, as the clock ticked away, that he is going to be put at some disadvantage --

Mr. Villeneuve: Thirty seconds is owed me.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Will the member sit down until I am finished? He is going to be put at some disadvantage in making his point, because he will not have enough time left.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is precisely why I was standing.

When the member for Lincoln talked about typical border towns -- close to the province of Quebec, close to New York state -- he did not mention Cornwall.

I respect Mayor Lynch very much. As I mentioned a while ago in my comments, he is a man who tried to become a Liberal member in this very distinguished assembly. He did not make it. However, he is the leader of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, which is against Sunday shopping and against changing the rules. The mayor of Cornwall is quite happy in the kind of town that was very well described by my colleague the member for Lincoln, a border town that is close to Quebec and close to New York state.

Why do the government members not talk to the people? The Association of Municipalities of Ontario says that 90 per cent of its municipal leaders are against the bill, so why do they not listen for a change?

Mr. Pelissero: I would like to respond to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) with respect to throwing the baby out with the bath water. The whole concept of the tourist exemption is one that is triggered by the local municipality. I stated a couple of cases where I believe the tourist exemption that is being used by some of the municipalities stretches the credibility of that term.

The tourist industry, in fact, has changed over the last few years. I can certainly sympathize with the other member who made comments with respect to some of the smaller tourist-attraction areas being concerned about the larger areas opening up. because nowadays when you talk of a shopping centre, you are not only talking of a place to shop, you are also talking of a place where you can go with your family. It is a family entertainment centre, and I underline the word “entertainment,” when you look at some of the facilities that operate right across Canada.

Mr. Villeneuve: Instead of going to church.

Mr. Pelissero: No, you can do that. It is not instead of going to church, as commented by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. The fact is that some of the people who attend church go, after church, to the restaurants and to some of the entertainment centres.

Mr. Villeneuve: And they are open.

Mr. Pelissero: In fact, the churches are open and the entertainment centres are open as well.

I think the proposed legislation allowing the municipalities to determine their own unique requirements for the citizens who live there is in fact more fair and more enforceable, and I fully support the proposed legislation.

Mr. Charlton: I rise with some considerable trepidation to make some comments on Bill 113. I do that because, as was mentioned by the government House leader, I too have listened very carefully to the debate on this bill over the course of the last three days, and the unreality of some of the comments of some members in this House -- and some of the interjections, for that matter -- frightens me considerably.

I listened, for example, to the comments of the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon) on Tuesday afternoon, and I want to suggest that there are obviously some government members or at least some government researchers, who have not done their work very well.

The member for Eglinton, in one of her questions-and-comments interludes a few moments ago, referred to the town of St. George and the fact that it was now open as a tourist area on Sunday and all the surrounding towns had not collapsed like dominoes. It is true that expression is one that has been used by some in opposition to this legislation: “The municipalities will fall like dominoes.” But it is an expression not to be translated literally. None of us expect that, half an hour after this legislation receives royal assent, all the dominoes in Ontario will have fallen and all the municipalities in Ontario will be wide open on Sundays.

1730

I listened to the member for York Mills on Tuesday afternoon when he started quoting from Hansard, from the 1975 debate on this same issue. He quoted one of the Tory cabinet ministers from the former administration, suggesting that, for example, the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth had done an admirable job of regulating store hours for some number of years and they were doing just fine, thank you very much.

I want to suggest that the member for York Mills did not do his homework very well on that question. It is true that the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and, before its inception in 1974 the individual municipalities which made up the area that is now Hamilton-Wentworth, followed their instincts and stood steadfastly in place opposing extended hours on weeknights. The individual municipalities, and then the region, did a good job of regulating store hours until the competitive pressure from Halton-Burlington finally caught up with them just a few short months ago. Now Hamilton-Wentworth is open six days and five nights a week.

It took 15 years for that commercial battle to cause the domino to fall, but the domino fell none the less, and the same thing will happen under this legislation, whether it takes one year, five years, 10 years or even 20 years. There are pressures, especially here in the Golden Horseshoe where you have one regional municipality packed right against another regional municipality from Oshawa all the way to Niagara Falls, and in the area that my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) was referring to earlier in this debate. All of those municipalities are very much in competition with each other, trying to attract commercial developers and new industry; they are in very serious competition every day of every week of every month of every year. The little towns like St. George may not fall, but around the Golden Horseshoe, under this legislation eventually every regional municipality will fall.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: St. George is open.

Mr. Charlton: I said that, no, St. George has not caused the other small towns to fall. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I should be addressing my remarks to you.

It was a 15-year battle in Hamilton-Wentworth, but the battle was finally lost. It is the same battle that we are talking about around this piece of legislation. It is precisely the same battle and it will end in precisely the same way, with the municipalities that do not want to make the decision in favour of wide-open Sundays eventually being forced to make that decision.

It is really interesting that the Premier and the Liberal members in this House have created a whole new definition of the words “democracy” and “local option.” It used to seem to me that democracy was about listening to the people and responding to the demands of the people through governmental processes, both in terms of electoral processes and programmatic and legislative processes. The government is supposed to reflect, in a democracy, the demands of the society. What we have here is the Liberal government creating a new definition of democracy.

We know that 60 per cent of the people in this province do not want wide-open Sunday shopping. We also know that 80 per cent of the municipalities in this province do not want this legislation, do not want this option and do not want the competitive game that is going to go on as a result of the local option; so we impose it on them through this piece of legislation.

Mr. Mahoney: They’ve already got it.

Mr. Charlton: The member -- I am not sure which member it is; I was not watching, because I was looking at you, Mr. Speaker -- who is suggesting that they already have the option is wrong; they do not have it.

Mr. Mahoney: Sure, they do.

Mr. Charlton: No. Those areas that have been able to make a case for a tourist exemption have got it; the whole province does not have it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Charlton: It really leaves me in a quandary that we are here in the middle of this very heated, emotional debate around a piece of legislation that is the crown jewel of the government’s legislative program in this spring session. This is the government’s primary piece of legislation during the course of the first session of this new parliament.

I can recall, from numerous question periods we have had since the campaign last summer, a fairly significant range of very important issues that have been raised in this House: the issue of affordable housing and the difficulties in our health care system around the funding of hospitals and a number of other issues in the health care sector. And what is the crown jewel of the government’s legislative program? A piece of legislation on Sunday shopping.

It baffles me that we are even here debating this piece of legislation, when we know, as I have suggested, that 60 per cent of the people in this province do not want it, that 80 per cent of the municipalities in this province do not want it and that we have serious and important problems we should be dealing with that are being ignored.

The member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who was up speaking just a short time ago, has had to leave because, with my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton), he is attending a public meeting on this very issue in Guelph -- a meeting in opposition, I might add, to this piece of legislation.

Six or eight weeks ago, the member for Wellington and I also attended a large public meeting in the city of Stratford. That meeting was on an evening, in the middle of a thunderstorm, in the city hall auditorium. There were about 1,000 or 1,200 people present, almost to the person opposed to this legislative approach on the part of this government.

This question is becoming an issue of credibility for this government. It is becoming an issue that seriously calls into question this government’s ability to listen to this province and to govern.

Sunday shopping and the issue around Bill 113 is, for some people, a religious issue. For some people, it is a family issue, and for some others, it is a labour issue. For still others, it is an issue for small business. More recently, even the large commercial retail enterprises in this province have largely come out in opposition to this piece of legislation. Gradually, one at a time, all the sectors of this province are coming to realize the real dangers down the road that this legislation holds for them and for society as a whole.

1740

When we were attending that meeting in Stratford, there was one gentleman who got up to a microphone and raised a very interesting question. It is, unfortunately, a question which the present government in this province is not prepared to deal with in relation to this bill.

This gentleman happens to be a retail worker. He is in the position where he presently works six days a week -- not five; six days a week. The only day of the week on which he gets to see his children, except for a very brief period while they are going to bed, is Sunday.

He got up to the microphone and he raised the very simple question, “If the provincial government passes this legislation and the municipality in which I live then opts out of the legislation and opts into wide-open Sundays and I get forced to work on Sunday, is the provincial government going to provide the funding to the school board in this area so that the schools can be open on Sunday so that my kids can be out of school on the day off I do get?” It is not going to happen, is it?

I have heard a number of members, during the course of this debate, including the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) just earlier this afternoon, refer to the fact that 25 per cent of the people in this province already work on Sundays. I think it is just about high time that the Liberals got in touch with some of the people in this province who do work on Sundays.

Yes, there are people in this province who work on Sundays. They work in variety stores, and they start at noon or one o’clock when the variety store decides to open. There are industrial workers. There are steelworkers who work Sundays. They work the afternoon shift on Sunday and they work the night shift on Sunday. They never ever work days on Sunday.

Mr. Reycraft: They do in Sarnia.

Mr. Charlton: Well, in the two largest steel companies in Canada they do not. They have Sundays off, day shift, and they always have had; the same as the retail workers have.

We have seen legislation in some other jurisdictions where they do have wide-open Sunday shopping. For example, some of my colleagues were in Massachusetts last year, and yes, they have wide-open Sunday shopping in the state of Massachusetts. They also have ironclad legislation which makes their work on Sunday absolutely, under any circumstances, totally voluntary. They cannot be forced to work under any circumstances, and regardless of how many hours they have put in during the week, if they choose to work on Sundays at their employer’s request they get paid time and a half whether it is overtime or not.

If this government was prepared, in its wisdom on this issue, to provide those kinds of ironclad guarantees, then perhaps the people of this province would find this initiative a little more acceptable. I still do not think they would find it totally acceptable, but those people, the retail workers, for example, who are particularly concerned about having to work on Sunday might find the situation a little more palatable. If they had an absolute guarantee that they could not be forced to work and were guaranteed time-and-a-half pay if in fact they ended up working, they might be able to approach this question from a little different perspective; but this government has not had the intestinal fortitude to provide that kind of ironclad protection.

As a matter of fact, the legislation which we will be dealing with next, which is supposed to provide the protection, provides little or none at all.

The small business people, who are concerned about this legislation, understand what wide-open Sundays in a municipality will mean. Never mind this talk about whether or not Ontario will become wide open province-wide all of a sudden, let’s just look at one municipality that is not now open on Sundays taking up the option. Go out there and talk to those people in closed municipalities who are already open on Sunday, the small corner stores that are now open. Talk to them about the volume of business that they do on Sunday versus the rest of the week. Sunday is the day that is making the business for those small retail operations.

They do as much business on Sunday as they do on any other three days of the week. But if you open up that municipality so that all of the large supermarkets and all of the larger stores in the retail sector are open, those small businesses, in many cases, will go down the drain.

Let’s not understand only the social, moral, emotional and labour issues around this, let’s understand some of the economics of what it is we will do to the small business community, even if it only happens in one municipality.

Last evening, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and I attended the firefighters’ convention up in Barrie, and during the course of her remarks she said she had developed quite an affinity for firefighters because she found herself having, quite frequently, to run around putting out fires.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Be sure it comes back to haunt you. Not this fire though.

Mr. Charlton: That is right. When I got up to make my remarks, I suggested to the firefighters that the minister had not quite told them the whole story because, in the vast majority of cases the fires that they were putting out were not set by their friends. That is one of the things that the minister has to do some serious thinking about around this piece of legislation.

Just to wrap up my comments on this piece of legislation: another event last evening was particularly interesting at this firefighters’ convention. The firefighters do have a number of ongoing, controversial issues with the Solicitor General. After the formalities were over and we were trying to leave the stage, the first issue she was confronted with was not one of the firefighters’ concerns around the Fire Departments Act. It was Bill 113, the Sunday shopping issue, and not from a positive perspective, I might add.

Interjections.

Mr. Charlton: No, she came up to me on the same issue.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That’s par for the course.

Mr. Charlton: With that, I will just implore the government members to stop and start thinking about some of the things they are saying. Do not talk to us about evidence, as the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) suggested, evidence that does not exist.

Let’s look at some of the real evidence, like the commercial battle that went on between Burlington and Hamilton for 15 years that finally caused that domino to drop; that has Hamilton open six days per week and five nights per week, commercially, already. The same battle will go on between Hamilton and Burlington, between Burlington and Peel and between Hamilton and Niagara, around this issue of Sunday shopping.

Mr. Black: It is on right now and you know it. Tell the whole story.

Mr. Charlton: The Sunday shopping issue is not going on, none of them are open. Under the tourist exemption, little, lonely Fort Erie deciding to take the tourist exemption because of people who are coming right across the border does not affect the entire Niagara Golden Horseshoe.

Mr. Black: They can do the same thing.

Mr. Charlton: No, they cannot. They cannot get the exemption.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the members on the other side of the House should take the time to find out about municipalities that have tried to get the tourist exemption and have been turned down because they cannot, in any way, shape or form, make a case. Hamilton cannot, Burlington cannot; they cannot get it now. The Fort Eries of this world, the St. Georges of this world, the Windsors of this world and the Sault Ste. Manes of this world can make a case.

Hon. Mr. Conway: What happened to that nice little chap from Hamilton Mountain?

Mr. Charlton: He has had to listen to you for a decade.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Not a bad answer.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I just implore the government members to look realistically at what is happening out there, to look at the comments that the member for York Mills made on Tuesday afternoon vis-à-vis the reality of what happened four months ago in Hamilton-Wentworth; not what happened in 1975 but where the battle has ended in relation to that competition between municipalities, and start to understand what this bill will mean, not next year but over the next 10 or 20 years across this province.

1750

Mr. Reycraft: The member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) has implored us to “look around out there” and see what this bill is going to do and see what is going to happen. I suggest that he would be well advised to heed his own advice, to look around out there and see what is happening now, to take a look at what is happening in the stores where areas are being roped off and barricaded and people are going under the ropes and around the barricades. Nobody stops them from making their purchases.

He should take a look at the department stores that are masquerading as pharmacies, as drug stores, many of them very large in size, but obeying, of course, the limit on people. He should take a look at some of the other abuses of the current legislation. Then perhaps he will see why legislation like this has to be brought forward to direct attention to some of these problems and to seek correction of them.

Somebody also criticized us for using quotes from 1975 and suggested that perhaps those were too old to be relevant now. Perhaps he is right. I would like just for a second to put on the record a quote that is a little newer than that. It is from 1985, and the quote reads like this: “It’s hard to sustain a law where there are more breaches of it than respect for it.” The fellow who said that was a guy named George Taylor, who was the Attorney General of this province. That was in 1985.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Solicitor General.

Mr. Runciman: He was never Attorney General. You’ve got that wrong.

Mr. Reycraft: The booklet from which I am quoting calls him the Attorney General, but the government House leader tells me he was the Solicitor General at the time.

The point is that the existing legislation is also unenforceable because the penalties are not large enough and the government has not been able to enforce it.

Mr. Runciman: I want to express some surprise at comments we have heard from the members of the New Democratic Party, stressing the antifamily nature of this legislation. I share that view, but it is rather ironic that they are taking that position. If we look back at the NDP-Liberal government two and a half years ago, the centrepiece of its social thrust was the amendments to Bill 7, the sexual orientation bill, and I do not think we have been faced with more of an assault on the family than that particular piece of legislation.

Anyway, I am pleased to see the Solicitor General in the House today. Obviously she has swallowed her pride on this issue, showing up here. She was very strongly supportive of retaining a common pause day. Two weeks before the Premier announced this, she was saying it was the chicken way out. When the Premier made his decision, we are obviously aware that she fell to her knees and indicated to the Premier that she had undying admiration for his ability to make very profound decisions, instead of saying: “Mr. Premier, you’re embarrassing me. You’re going to make a fool of me. I’m going to look ridiculous to the community and the province at large. Just two weeks ago, I said this is a chicken way out, and now you’re coming in here and telling me you’ve made a decision which is completely opposite from the position I took publicly.”

But she swallowed her pride. That car and driver and the perks that go with office can have quite an impact on individuals and their pride.

We have to look at this government making this kind of decision. Just remember, we are talking about a government that is led by a leader who goes up to northern Ontario and encourages teenage sex and professes to be Canada’s number one fan of Pee Wee Herman.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the comments from the member for Hamilton Mountain. He is correct in one part of it: it is a border town and we do have a great number of tourists coming across the border to the town of Fort Erie. We have the racetrack at Fort Erie and racing on Sunday. That was done by local option. We do have some of the businesses open on Sunday but not in all areas of the town, and there have been charges laid because some of the businessmen have opened up their businesses.

I suggest to the member that he is quite correct, but in the Niagara South area, which I represent, there are 3,500 householders along the lakeshore who are tourists. That is one of the difficulties that we find in the area. We do have tourist establishments in the area and it has been partly designated as a tourist area. It does not apply across all of the municipality. That is what is wrong with the present legislation. This new legislation will correct that; it will be either yes or no with it.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too just want to make a few comments to congratulate the member for Hamilton Mountain.

It is always being brought up by the Liberal government that the present law is working so well, and I have to agree. We have a large tourist area along the St. Lawrence River, Lake St. Lawrence and Lake St. Francis. Lancaster was designated as a tourist area as of May 1, and well it should have been, because it is a tourist area. Upper Canada Village opened on May 15. No one suffers from a lack of services. The stores that are needed are open. The public is served. The tourists are well served.

I wonder why we are debating legislation in this Legislature that is really not needed at all. Someone somewhere must have asked the Premier to bring it forth. I am not sure who it was, and I hope that before this debate is over we will know who wants the Premier and the Liberal government to enact this legislation.

Mr. Charlton: Just very quickly to the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), I am not going to get into an argument with him about which of us is a better family man. We will let somebody else judge that one.

To the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty): yes, there are some problems with the current legislation, but if he listened to what the Solicitor General said earlier -- and I would like to clearly understand what the answer to this question is -- she said, “If you don’t do anything as a municipality under this bill, the old rules are going to apply.” How have we fixed any of those problems?

There has also been some discussion about the new legislation tightening up the rules. That is not clear in the bill, but if the rules have been tightened up and some of the problems have been addressed, then what is the need for the local option?

The member for Middlesex referred to the tampering that is going on now.

Mr. Reycraft: Read the bill. You don’t know what’s in it.

Mr. Charlton: We have been through it, and the guidelines are no clearer than they were before. That is the point. The government cannot have it both ways. As the minister said half an hour ago when she stood in this House, “If you do nothing as a municipality, the old, unenforceable rules will apply.” We are going to have some municipalities under unenforceable provincial guidelines and other municipalities creating a hodgepodge of God-knows-what, with ropes who knows where. How is that going to be any more enforceable than what we have right now?

On motion by Mr. McCague, the debate was adjourned.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 5, An Act to amend the Proceedings Against the Crown Act;

Bill 7, An Act to implement the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law;

Loi 7, Loi portant mise en application de la Loi type sur l’arbitrage commercial international adoptée par la Commission des Nations Unies pour le droit commercial international;

Bill 59, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to municipalities;

Bill 82, An Act respecting Energy Efficiency;

Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act;

Bill 118, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act;

Bill 126, An Act to assist Ontario Residents to save for the purchase of a First Home.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

8 juin 1988