Journal des débats 1988-juin-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs. Stoner: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on private members’ Bill 143. This legislation would prevent discrimination against deaf people accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. I first became aware of hearing-ear dogs and the valuable role they play in the lives of many deaf people when I met Jill Johnson of Ajax. Jill has a hearing-ear dog, Toby.

Members may recall that I introduced Jill and Toby to the Legislature in February, along with Jackie Harbour of the Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada and Corky, another hearing-ear dog, who almost jumped down into the Legislature. It was through my association with Jill that I found out about Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada and their need for legislation to be enacted to guarantee access for hearing-ear dogs. I decided that perhaps I could do something about this. I am asking members today to support this private members’ bill.

This legislation will give deaf people with hearing-ear dogs the same rights of access as those that are now enjoyed by blind people under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act. My bill is patterned after that act. The purpose of Bill 143 is to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against because they are accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. These dogs are guide dogs and should be treated the same as seeing-eye dogs.

If this bill is passed, it will be against the law to deny any person accommodation, services or facilities available in any public place because he or she is a deaf person accompanied by a guide dog. In addition, no one would be able to deny a deaf person with a hearing-ear dog occupancy of any self-contained dwelling unit.

Under the legislation, the Attorney General or a designated officer can, upon request, issue to a deaf person an identification card. This card would identify a deaf person and his guide dog. The card would be proof that the deaf person and his dog are qualified for the purposes of the legislation.

The bill also contains a clause that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the qualifications for guide dogs. I would anticipate that those would be along the same lines as the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, which recognizes dogs that are trained at particular facilities as seeing-eye dogs. Contravention of this act would carry a fine of $1,000.

In approving this bill, the Legislature can break new ground in Canada and set a trend for recognizing the rights of deaf people in this country. There is currently no province in Canada which protects the rights of deaf people to be accompanied by guide dogs. This is the case, even though there are at least three training programs for hearing-ear dogs: Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, Service Dogs of Canada and the Western Canada Handi and Hearing Ear Dog Society.

I have received a letter from the administrative assistant of Hearing Dogs of Canada, Frances Jewell, in support of this bill. Frances writes, “On behalf of Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, I would like to thank you for your efforts to have a private members’ bill passed to ensure access to public places for hearing-ear dogs and their owners.” Further in her letter, she states: “Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada understands that accessibility in the community is a major concern of disabled Canadians. We hope that, through a private members’ bill, hearing-ear dogs will be given recognition and full access, thus creating a more secure and independent lifestyle for some of the 2.5 million hearing-impaired Canadians.”

I thank Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada for its support and its words of encouragement. I know from my conversations with Jill that having Toby has enhanced her already active life and he has been of great assistance to her.

In a letter to a local newspaper last December, Jill wrote about how much Toby has helped her. She wrote that Toby is very valuable in providing independence, not just for her but for her family and her friends as well. Before getting Toby, Jill had to rely on other people to alert her to sounds, and if there was no one around, the sounds went undetected. But now Toby alerts her to various sounds so that she can live more independently.

As I have mentioned, none of the provinces in Canada has legislation which recognizes the rights of deaf people to be accompanied by their dogs. In contrast to that situation, those rights are almost universal in the United States. There are currently 48 states with some form of hearing-ear dog legislation. The two states which have not passed such laws are Alaska and Hawaii.

I would like to discuss briefly the existing laws in the states of New York, Michigan, California, Pennsylvania and Illinois. In New York, the rights of hearing-impaired people to be accompanied by a hearing-ear dog became part of the laws of that state in 1979.

The civil rights aspect of the New York law provides that deaf people shall not be denied admittance to and/or the equal use and enjoyment of any public facility solely because they are accompanied by a guide dog. “Public facility” is defined broadly to include public and private transportation, public and private housing, food service, educational facilities and theatres. Under that law, deaf people with hearing-ear dogs cannot be discriminated against in employment and various other matters.

In Michigan, the laws were amended in 1980 to provide that no one shall refuse admittance to a deaf person to various public and private facilities if that person is accompanied by a hearing-ear dog. The law had previously been applied to blind people with their guide dogs.

In California, the law respecting hearing-ear dogs came into effect in 1979. It was an amendment to the civil code. The law provides that a deaf person or persons whose hearing is impaired shall have the right to be accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog or service dog. Under this law, however, denial of rental accommodation to physically disabled persons with dogs is permitted where other tenants are also denied dogs.

In 1982, Pennsylvania’s human relations legislation was amended to protect deaf people accompanied by guide dogs against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation.

1010

The state of Illinois extended human rights protection to hearing-impaired people with guide dogs in 1982. The following year, this protection was further extended to physically handicapped people with support dogs. The Illinois law protects the rights of blind, deaf or physically disabled people accompanied by guide hearing or support dogs to use and have access to public facilities, transportation and accommodation. Illinois law also makes it an offence to refuse to sell or rent property to a person because he or she has a guide hearing or support dog.

The examples of American law which I have outlined are very similar to the one I am proposing for this province. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the work being done by Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada in training dogs to alert hearing-impaired people to sounds such as a baby crying, an alarm clock, a smoke detector, a malfunctioning car; and a telephone, which deaf people can now use with the TTY printing and Bell Canada relay systems. As hearing people we take all these sounds for granted, but that is not the case for a deaf person.

To date, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, which is based near Ancaster, has placed 41 dogs throughout Canada, with the majority going to hearing-impaired people in Ontario. The organization has 16 people on its waiting list and nine dogs that are currently being trained. Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada is a nonprofit, charitable organization which has been training dogs to assist the deaf since 1979. It costs about $3,000 to train a hearing-ear dog. All of the dogs are donated to the program. Not just any dog is cut out to be a hearing-ear dog. The dog has to meet a number of requirements, including having a friendly and outgoing personality, being of small to medium size and being healthy. The dog must also be under one year old.

The dogs are donated to the program and many of them come from the humane societies. Training begins with basic obedience and all commands are taught in both sign language and verbally. Each of the hearing-ear dogs is trained to match the specific lifestyle of the deaf person with whom the dog will be placed. For example, if a deaf person is a woman with a young baby, the dog is trained to alert its mistress to the sound of that baby crying; or if a hearing-impaired person lives in an apartment, the dog is trained to respond to the apartment intercom.

When a young dog begins training, it is placed in a foster home for several months. This way, the dog can learn how to interact in a family situation. Once the dog is ready for placement, the trainer accompanies him or her to the new home. During this placement period, which lasts about a week, the trainer helps to get the dog acquainted with this new home. It also gives the dog and the owner a chance to learn to work together and get to know each other. According to Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, it is very important that the personalities of the dog and its new owner complement each other.

It is interesting to note that the deaf person does not have to pay for the hearing-ear dog. As a nonprofit organization, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada relies on donations to support its program. Hearing-ear dogs can be identified by their special orange collar and orange lead. Deafness is often referred to as the invisible handicap. You cannot see hearing impairment, but you can see that orange collar and orange lead. It is hoped that soon that signal will be as readily recognized as is the harness on a seeing-eye dog.

The hearing-ear dogs’ program has the support of such agencies and organizations as Lions clubs, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Oshawa Deaf Centre. I know of a number of companies in the transportation sector which also recognize the importance of these guide dogs. For example, on Via Rail passenger trains, seeing-eye and hearing-ear dogs are the only pets allowed in the passenger cars. Greyhound Bus Lines allows seeing-eye and hearing-ear dogs on its buses. On GO Transit trains and buses, blind and deaf people can be accompanied by their guide dogs.

The deaf are probably the most socially isolated of all of our handicapped groups in Canada. Hearing-ear dogs have opened up a whole new world for many deaf people. I feel this legislation is the logical step in recognizing these dogs and their tremendous importance. No deaf person should be denied access to any public place or accommodation because he is accompanied by a hearing-ear dog. I want to make sure there is absolutely no question about rights of access for deaf people with their dogs. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that these rights should be recognized in legislation.

At no time should a hearing-impaired person be discriminated against because he is accompanied by his dog. I want to make sure that deaf people with hearing-ear dogs have unrestricted access to public transportation, that they can get accommodation even though they have a dog, go out for a meal in a restaurant accompanied by his dog and have no fear of being turned away from any door.

These dogs are not pets. They are working dogs. They are an extension of the deaf person himself. That person relies on that dog. I urge all members to support this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on it, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate? Le député de Scarborough Ouest.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Merci, monsieur le Président. Yes, I would like to participate and support this piece of legislation and make a few comments on it if I might.

It is interesting that in this session and this spring we have had two pieces of private members’ business, my resolution on education for the deaf and now this member’s action in terms of certain rights of the deaf in terms of hearing-ear dogs.

I think this symbolizes a major change which has taken place recently with the deaf community. It has been a very invisible community, as the member has said, for decades, in part because of the nature of the public policy which had been prevalent towards the deaf, some of which I think was quite restrictive. Recent events in the United States, culminating in the takeover of Gallaudet University by the deaf students and then the assertion that they wanted their own deaf president and board and control, a deaf board of governors, has changed an awful lot of things. This community in Ontario, finally, is speaking up in a way which is forcing legislators to listen.

What I would like to say about this legislation is that it is so self-evidently a good piece of legislation and should so self-evidently be part of existing laws in this province that I would expect there to be unanimity in the House in terms of support for it. It is amazing to think that we have not done this up to this point, whereas, as the member has said, all but a couple of states in the US have actually enacted this kind of legislation.

I hope the government will not allow this piece of legislation to remain in the kind of no man’s land, if I can put it that way, that a lot of private members’ legislation ends up in, but instead will indicate that it wishes to adopt this itself and to bring it forward as government legislation as quickly as possible. I am sure it could be passed through this House in no time at all.

Barring that taking place, I hope this legislation will be sent out to a committee after we approve it, as I am sure we will this morning, and that the committee can hold some brief hearings on the matter and bring it back to the government for it to bring forward for third reading. It would be a lovely precedent to have a private member’s bill come before the House in that private member’s name for third reading and passage and then even possibly proclamation. It would be almost an unheard of event in the way things work here, and it might be a very nice gesture if we can do it speedily. Government legislation could clearly be brought in even more quickly if that were seen to be the road that should be taken.

It is possibly true that the Human Rights Code at the moment would guarantee to a deaf person the right to use a hearing-ear dog and to have rights to access to accommodation and to not be denied work on the basis of that and possibly to have access to other kinds of private buildings. However, it is not sufficiently clear, in my view, that this would necessarily be the case. The deaf person would have to be able to show that in fact that was a limitation on his access. An onus is now placed on that deaf person that is not placed on a blind person in the province. As the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) said, it is the kind of thing that we have taken for granted as a specific right for the blind for many years.

1020

It is also important to understand that there are people out there who are still not as sensitive to the rights of disabled people as are, I presume, all members of this House. On a regular basis, we see people driving into parking spots that are set aside for the disabled and using those spots. I have in my own riding a government-run building where the superintendent continually uses one of only a couple of disabled parking spots that are available, even though he himself is not disabled.

There is now an awful lot of talk about increasing the fines for that and making it a much more serious offence, because we have to get the message through to people that these kinds of rules are put in to provide access and they are crucial to the participation of disabled people. So I think it is only right that we have this piece of legislation which specifically says that access to accommodation and private and public services in Ontario should not be denied anybody just because he happens to have a dog to assist him to operate as fully as possible within our society.

I think it is a very positive thing that has been done. I think the kinds of fines that are involved are probably sufficient at this stage, but it might be a matter of some discussion by the ministry as to whether or not the fines for the exclusion of both the blind and the deaf may be increased at this stage, because they have not been changed, in terms of the blind, for a number of years now. That would be a very small matter and an administrative concern that could be dealt with.

The change that this has meant for a lot of people is very profound. I just ask members to think about some of the things that these dogs are able to do for people. If there is a fire in a high-rise building and a hearing-impaired person is living high up in that building, which is often quite possible because the hearing-impaired are not, as are wheelchair-bound people, often given any kind of preference in terms of ground-floor accommodation, that person does not necessarily hear the alarm. Deaf people can therefore be the last to come out of their rooms and are at greater jeopardy than others.

The dog is a great warning device for those people just in terms of the security of their lives. In terms of the practical applications on a day-to-day basis and letting people know that somebody is at the door or that the phone is ringing or that other kinds of sounds that we would all be alert to are taking place, again, the dog can provide that person with an ability to operate which more closely approximates that of a hearing person than he would otherwise have.

It is my hope that the government will see this as the ground-breaking legislation it is, filling a gap, which in my view is exactly what private members’ legislation should do. It should be for a private member to point out something which is presently missing in our government legislation packages or which is wanting a direction for movement, as I was trying to do on the deaf education matter.

Appropriately, the member has found that spot, something which, surprisingly in 1988, is not handled. She said: “This is the very simple way of doing it. Here’s your model of legislation. It fits very much what’s been done in the United States. It would be a model for the rest of Canada, because nobody is doing it as yet.”

Hopefully, the government will assume its responsibility quickly and will take on this bill, as I said. If not, then it should be referred out, probably to the standing committee on administration of justice, I think, because of the responsibilities of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) here. The standing committee on social development would be delighted to deal with this kind of bill as well. I see the chairman nodding his head, saying we would welcome that. Then we could deal with it in as quick a fashion as possible, get it back to the House and allow the government to break new ground itself and let a private member actually see her own work proclaimed in law, which would be a wonderful thing to see.

It is my pleasure on behalf of our party to say that I doubt that there will be a member in the House who will rise to vote against this bill. We should therefore recognize the will of this Legislature as quickly as possible and fill this gap. I thank the member for moving it.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to comment on Bill 143, An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons, and to congratulate the member for Durham West on her insight and her determination in presenting this bill to the House today.

Unlike most of us, many people across this province suffer from blindness and deafness, disabilities which make even the simplest daily activities such as crossing the street, answering the telephone or waking up in time for work a great personal challenge. These are the real challenges for our special citizens that we often take for granted.

Most of us are familiar with the seeing-eye dog or guide dog used by many blind people to assist them in everyday challenges such as crossing the street. What is not all that familiar to us is the use of dogs to assist the deaf, a group of people who are somewhat socially isolated and who need and deserve accessibility rights across this province.

Deaf people use hearing-ear dogs for many of the same things that blind people use dogs for. Dogs alert the deaf to various warning sounds such as smoke detectors, alarm clocks, telephones and children who are crying. A deaf person is able to obtain a dog through the Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada or other related organizations. Each dog is trained for the individual person based on individual needs.

Parents of small children could train their dog to alert them to the sound of a child’s crying. Since many deaf people are dependent on these dogs, the dogs must accompany them in public places such as washrooms, buses and planes. This causes some problems for both blind and deaf persons when other members of society question their rights or are unaware of their rights as legislated.

At present, blind people with seeing-eye dogs have legal protection from discrimination under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act. However, this has not eliminated instances of discrimination against blind people with seeing-eye dogs who have entered public places with their dogs.

After looking into this matter and speaking with staff of the London Centre of the Deaf, we were made aware of some cases, especially one in Metropolitan Toronto, where a blind person accompanied by a dog was denied access to a taxicab. Although the case was resolved and the taxi driver was charged with violating the act, this demonstrates the lack of awareness of many people in the province as to the rights of the blind in Ontario. In fact, we understand that some blind people carry the legislation with them personally in the event that they will not be allowed into a public place with their dog.

Thus, it is evident that deaf persons in this province are indeed in a very vulnerable position at present. If blind people who are protected by law find it necessary to carry the legislation with them, how then do deaf persons with a hearing-ear dog protect themselves against discrimination when there is no legal protection?

Bill 143 seeks to give the same legal protection to another equally disadvantaged group of people in this province, the deaf. For this reason I support this bill and offer my sincere congratulations to the member from Durham West for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. Fleet: I am pleased to speak in favour of this bill and I congratulate the member for Durham West on her initiative in this area. A hearing-ear dog may seem strange to most people. An initial reaction might well be, “Why would a deaf person need that?” I think that such a reaction typifies what we so often take for granted, which is our health and in particular our reliance on our hearing.

Our sophisticated means of communication in this society are very frequently sound-oriented. We use the telephone repeatedly each day, without ever stopping to contemplate, “If I could not use the phone or hear someone else calling me, how would I convey my message or hear the latest news?” As for hearing the commercial news, naturally, radio is nonexistent and even television is extremely restricted. As members think about how they would cope without sound, they should consider also what that deprivation really means. The result is isolation and literally a different environment in which to learn the nature of our world.

1030

I do not profess to have expertise about the subject of deafness, but as a lawyer practising in Metropolitan Toronto and region, I certainly had an opportunity to act for a fairly large number of deaf clients and I learned some of the hurdles that they experience and some of the culture of the deaf world. Many of my deaf clients were surprisingly poor readers, which made it increasingly difficult to communicate with them. That may partly be the fault of our educational system.

What may not seem obvious is that to simply function in everyday life, a deaf person essentially has to be bilingual. He or she must learn sign language and commonly lipreading, and also a completely separate language of the written word. They are not the same, and it represents an additional challenge or hurdle for deaf people.

Sign language, as I experienced dealing with it, has a methodology and nuances that are all its own. In fact, I was surprised when I learned that there are several different sign languages, which tends to complicate life even more for deaf people if they were hoping to travel to other countries.

Speaking to a deaf person, even with the help of a sign language interpreter, is not the same as simultaneous translation with other languages. To communicate effectively, I found it was best to use simple sentences and precise words and to break down my own speech pattern to express only one concept at a time and to do that in a logical sequence. It is rather tricky, I found, and I had to concentrate particularly carefully to make sure that I was communicating well, and supposedly I was the person without the disability. Think how much harder it has to be for deaf people to cope with.

Sign language is a different way of communicating, only slightly different but enough to be significant, and it affects the way, I think, deaf people perceive the world, particularly people who have been deaf from birth. In many families where there is only one deaf person, there is only one other member of the family who learns sign language. I cannot really explain that logically. It is just something that seems to happen quite commonly and, unintentionally and unconsciously, the hearing members of the family tend to rely on one person to communicate directly to the deaf person. The deaf person, as a result, is placed at a double disadvantage.

The first aspect is that he or she is in a position of dependency with that one link to the rest of the family. The second aspect is that there is a relative deprivation from at least some of the ordinary experiences of family life, the interaction with other family members. Thus, the way in which deafness can shape and isolate an individual can be quite subtle. The cumulative effect of the physical disability and an insensitive society can be devastating.

In terms of my experience as a lawyer, I was also rather shocked to learn that, historically in the courts deaf people, particularly those who are deaf and dumb, were categorized as being insane. That was the kind of orientation that we had, amazingly not so long ago. Even now, the assistance that is provided in courts for sign language interpreters is largely dependent on volunteers or people who are paid but, frankly, not overly well paid.

I particularly would like to take this opportunity to praise the efforts of the volunteers and the staff at the Bob Rumball Centre for the Deaf in Scarborough and of the Canadian Hearing Society. Certainly, the courts could not operate properly without them. We have come some distance at least, because now the Charter of Rights contains an express provision ensuring a right of deaf people to have a sign language interpreter in court. It surely behooves all of us to make an extra effort to break down the walls of isolation that deafness can create and that we can exacerbate if we do not pay attention.

Some of the education, I submit, must be directly to the families of deaf persons so that they too can cope better and understand better. We need to focus more of our ingenuity and our material resources on helping deaf people directly. There are marvellous advances being made now: TTY machines which adapt telephones for the deaf. They are very easy to learn. Even somebody like myself who does not have any particular keyboard skills can operate a machine quite easily and quite effectively to communicate and to break down that isolation.

Now we have a wonderful development with the hearing-ear dog program to accomplish the many objectives that the member for Durham West and other members have referred to. I think, quite clearly, deaf people do not need to be dependants in our society. They do need an investment, as we all do, in order to function and to produce at maximum capacity.

This bill is one small, but particularly meaningful, contribution to help people to help themselves, and I think it helps all of us in the long run. In addition to urging all members of this House to support this bill, I agree with comments made earlier that it is appropriate for this government to adopt the bill so that it will receive third reading and pass into law.

I am pleased to note also that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) is here today. Whether it is his responsibility or the Attorney General’s I am not sure, but I certainly trust the minister present today will give consideration to this matter.

Once again, I urge everyone here to support this bill and I would like to close by noting that, on this issue, we have no excuses that we are deaf to the needs of people in our society.

Mr. Hampton: I want to indicate immediately my support for this bill and the support of the other members of my party and my colleagues here with me today.

We should never underestimate the difficulties that disabled people have to overcome in our society. The fact that we are too often generally unaware of the nature and the extent of the difficulties, I think, indicates the first problem. We just generally are not aware; I think this is particularly the case and the member has indicated this in terms of her bill. There are many obstacles which deaf people have to overcome and this is one very important, though, as has been indicated, only one initial way that we can recognize the difficulty and attempt to do something about it.

As someone who was formerly a teacher in the elementary schools here in Toronto and also in the northwestern part of the province, I have encountered, to a certain extent, the difficulties which many young deaf people have to overcome. They are difficulties not just of a physical kind, but difficulties in terms of social development and educational development and, finally, difficulties in terms of finding an occupation and becoming a self-supporting and a self-actualizing member of society. I say again that we should not underestimate those difficulties.

Our education system has come a long way in terms of dealing with some of these problems; but again, we as a society, must progress in terms of recognizing the difficulty that has to be overcome every day, the difficulty that has to be overcome in doing what many of us would regard as the most menial tasks or the most everyday activities. The difficulties that deaf people encounter in attempting many of these things are quite formidable and I and my colleagues recognize that the resolution which the member for Durham West has placed before the House today would go a very long way toward assisting deaf people in dealing with one of the problems which many of us are not even aware of, or have not taken the time to even think about.

We commend the member for bringing this bill before the House. I commend her and it is my intention to support this bill. I say again, this is one that is worthy of the government’s consideration. Hopefully, the government will provide the assistance that is necessary to ensure that this bill becomes law in the province of Ontario.

1040

Mr. Pollock: I want to join my colleague the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and all other members in this House in paying tribute to the member for Durham West on her private member’s bill and assure her that I will be supporting it. I think the bill is straightforward and self-explanatory and I wish her every success in getting a third reading and royal assent.

I have to admit that when I first heard of this private member’s bill, I did not realize that there was such a thing as a hearing-ear dog. The first thought that came to my mind is the fact that they would have these dogs for protection. However, in checking into it I realized that these dogs are not only there for protection, they can also warn a person about the phone ringing, the doorbell ringing, the tea kettle boiling and various other things. I think the legislation is needed and once again, as I say, I support the member for Durham West for bringing it forward.

I think we also owe a debt of congratulations to those service clubs that donate their money for the training and the placement of these dogs, and to the Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada organization which undertakes the training of these particular dogs.

I was impressed with the comments from the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) when he said that there were two pieces of legislation that have already come before this House this season. I might point out -- and I was pleased to be able to make a statement in this House in regards to it -- that I received a letter from a young lady who goes to Sir James Whitney School in Belleville. Her name is Jenny and she wrote the letter to request assistance to buy a TDD phone. That is a telecommunication device for the deaf. These phones run somewhere between $250 and $550. Apparently there is a program out there where, if you needed a hearing aid, you would get 75 per cent of the cost of that hearing aid paid for by the government.

Naturally, I was in support of her letter. I not only answered her letter, but also I thought maybe I could call her and talk to her on one of these special telephone device systems. Needless to say, I could not call her at her home, so I had to go through Sir James Whitney School. At one time Bell Telephone only had 20 of these special operators for the deaf. Now, because of the demand, they have up to 100 of these special operators. Anyway, I called the special Zenith line and the operator made contact with Jenny in Sir James Whitney School. I have to admit conversation is pretty slow through that procedure, but at least you can make contact with a person like that.

It was a real experience for me. As I say, I am in full support of this particular legislation and just hope that it gets speedy passage in this House.

I might mention too, to the member for Durham West, that I had a private member’s bill here once. It was to make the blue jay the provincial bird for Ontario. But as the member knows, and as some other members here know, the blue jay did not fly.

Mr. Wildman: It flew yesterday.

Mr. Pollock: Did it?

Mr. Wildman: It got to score yesterday.

Mr. Pollock: I see.

Anyway, I am sure this particular piece of legislation is far more important. I would still like to see the blue jay as the provincial bird for Ontario, but as I say, I wish the member every success with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Matrundola: I would like to address my congratulations to the member for Durham West on Bill 143. Here, I believe, is a very good idea. I think it is something that is very important for deaf people.

Deaf people, like blind people, do need the protection of hearing-ear dogs because many times a person who is hard of hearing could be next to danger and the dog can certainly save the person’s life. This can apply to young people as well as senior citizens.

I think this is a beautiful idea. It is something that was long needed, and I certainly hope this bill is going to get a speedy passage and royal assent in the very near future because the lives of many people do depend on the help of well-trained dogs in this matter.

Having said so, once again I wish to congratulate the member and I hope the bill will get speedy passage in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate? If not, will the member for Durham West wish to wind down?

Mrs. Stoner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would indeed like to do that.

The first thing I would like to do is to thank my colleagues in the House for their support. I very deeply appreciate it.

The point the member for Scarborough West made about the possibilities that this private member’s bill could actually become law is something that I certainly hope is a prediction and will happen.

The point he made about sending it to committee, perhaps to review such questions as the increase of the fine from $1,000, is something I would support. I would in fact ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on social development for review.

I would like to thank the member for London North for her kind comments, particularly her awareness of the needs of the blind people and also the need to promote that in recognizing the needs of the deaf. In saying that, when she refers to the fact that the blind need sometimes to provide written proof of the legislation that they have, think of the deaf person who cannot explain verbally his situation. It is much more difficult for them to deal with the world in social interaction sometimes than it is for the blind.

The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) was very sensitive. His comments on and awareness of the world of the deaf, and particularly those who are deaf from birth, are very much appreciated. Their need to know several sign languages, to be able to read lips and to work through and evolve understanding of written languages is very difficult to achieve. His knowledge -- such as the fact that, historically, the deaf around the world have been categorized as insane in many cases, and in the most recent history treated as retarded, which in fact they were not -- and sensitivity are much appreciated.

The member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) is absolutely correct that we should never underestimate the obstacles in the paths of the disabled in our community, and his points on education and social interaction are particularly well taken.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) was right about the fact that these dogs are not well understood and his appreciation for the fact that they are much more than simply protection. I second his statement of an appreciation of gratitude to those volunteers from the Hearing Ear Dog Society of Canada and from all of those other volunteer organizations which have made this program and other programs for the deaf possible.

1050

The member for Willowdale (Mr. Matrundola), I would also thank for his very kind comments and understanding of the situation that we are dealing with.

It is important that we do not discriminate against the hearing impaired in our society, that there never ever be a situation where the hearing impaired with their guide dogs are denied the right to rent an apartment or live in a certain place, or are prohibited from entering a restaurant or a theatre or any other facility.

There is no legislation in Canada at this point that will do what this bill does. I would hope that not only would it achieve the actuality of becoming law here in Ontario, but also that perhaps the other provinces would follow suit.

I would hope that the minister would support the bill and that ultimately the House would support it.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to be a member of this Legislature and to bring forward a bill like this. I thank you all, very, very much.

The Deputy Speaker: This concludes the debate.

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. Farnan moved second reading of Bill 145, An Act to prohibit the Sale of Gun Replicas.

Mr. Farnan: I feel that this is an important piece of legislation that I place before the House today. It is a serious and real issue and, as we have tragically discovered, it is a life-and-death issue.

I would like, first of all, to quote from an editorial in the Brantford Expositor on October 28, 1987. It is referring to toy guns.

“Their use can be just as deadly as the real thing, as is now all too evident. When a robber points a gun at a bank teller, a variety store clerk, or in this sad case a police officer, it doesn’t matter whether it is a real weapon or a toy, the victim feels equally at risk.

“From the point of view of the person holding the gun, it doesn’t matter whether it is a toy or a replica, the intent is the same: to intimidate and frighten his victim.

“Toy or not, the replicas can be used like real guns and should therefore be treated like real guns.”

This legislation responds to the tragic incident in Ontario last October, in Brantford, when during the investigation of alleged assault a Brantford man drew what appeared to be a Colt Python .357 Magnum revolver on a police officer after being told he was under arrest. When the man refused to drop the weapon, he was shot in the chest and subsequently died of his injuries. Later, it was discovered that the gun was a toy, a replica, and not the real thing at all.

Robert Monument, a firearms expert at the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto told the inquest into this case that the copy was a lot lighter than the real gun but had the same colour, shape, trigger, and barrel length. He said the fake gun, which was sold with a red plug in its barrel is indistinguishable from a real gun when the plug is removed.

The coroner’s jury, investigating the death, recommended that manufacture and sale of realistic handgun replicas should be banned in this province.

At the time of the inquest, Brantford police department officials said it was important for the province to pursue the recommendation in order to prevent any further tragedies.

Twenty-six days after the shooting, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said he would consider the coroner’s jury recommendation to ban replica guns.

In another incident that took place in Cambridge, a police officer actually drew a gun when a teenager was wielding an imitation gun in a public amusement area. There was the potential for similarly tragic consequences, but fortunately none occurred. And this incident took place in the last six months. These are just two incidents. Hundreds across North America and Canada have already been documented.

There is growing concern among the public, the police fraternity and municipalities. Initiated by Alderman Woods, a Cambridge alderman, Cambridge city council passed a motion dealing with this issue and in its final form the motion read, “We, Cambridge council, petition the province of Ontario to enact legislation to regulate and/or prohibit the sale of toy guns, which are replicas of real weapons.” This resolution was forwarded to municipalities across the province with populations of 50,000 or more.

Support and endorsement of many Ontario municipalities, including the county of Oxford, Brampton city council, city of Guelph, Oakville town council, the county of Lambton, the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, the city of Etobicoke, the children’s services and education committee of Simcoe county and many others endorsed the resolution of the Cambridge council. Those councils that did not actually endorse the resolution forwarded the motion of the Cambridge council to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their support.

Police officers and police associations across Canada and North America are naturally concerned about this issue. The deputy chief, Charles Clare of Cambridge, had this to say:

“Imitation weapons sold today as toys are so realistic looking that until you handle them you cannot tell the difference. I fully support this type of legislation. It has been talked about in police circles for some time and certainly we would welcome any type of law, whether it be a bylaw, through the province or through federal legislation, that would ban the sale of imitation weapons.”

According to Joe Ledermann, the president of the Waterloo Police Association:

“In 1988, Ontario police officers will face more than an estimated 100 similar incidents involving imitation firearms or guns of this type. We have run into some problems locally,” said Mr. Ledermann. “Little toy guns are just fine,” he said, “as long as they look like little toy guns. Manufacturers should make them look like little toy guns by making them in different colours and without all the working parts of a real firearm. When they are exact duplicates of actual firearms or can be mistaken as such, and are readily available to the public, that is when the problem arises.”

I would like to remind the members of the House of the stress under which police officers carry out their duties. We cannot afford to be insensitive to this very real danger in which our police officers must function. They are forced by the nature of their job to make life and death decisions. They have to presume that the weapon they are facing is real. They cannot jeopardize their own safety by second-guessing. They cannot go through mental gymnastics as to whether the gun is real or not real. It is not just the victim whose life is at stake or the individual with the toy gun, it is that of the police officer for whom, in the case where a real gun is being used that split second may mean his own death.

1100

Quoting again from the Brantford inquest, one of the police officers had this to say: “I thought I was going to get shot. I was scared to death.” There were two officers who went to the scene of the crime. “I was really scared, because I didn’t know which gun had gone off first,” said the second officer. That is just how real the situation is facing our police forces.

There is a real need to act. The issue has been debated at the municipal level and it is being passed between the provincial and federal jurisdictions. As we pass this issue up and down the ladder, instances occur. We have the police officer representative saying 100 cases in 1988; but that is not to include all those cases where toy guns are used in armed robbery where the individual carrying that gun has not come into face-to-face contact with a police officer, and the fear and intimidation that are caused to the individuals who are in the situation of being threatened by the individual carrying the toy gun.

There has been much discussion as to where this legislation appropriately belongs. My view, and the legal advice that I have received, supports dealing with the issue of toy replica guns in the manner outlined in the bill I have placed before the House.

To initiate and develop controls, I have placed the issue in the realm of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have placed it in the realm of the sale of replica guns. It is the minister or his or her agent who will determine whether or not a particular gun can be described as a gun replica and also will issue the appropriate certificate which would allow a toy gun to be on sale. The bill will allow toy guns to be continued to be sold as long as, in the judgement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, it does not closely resemble or cannot be reasonably mistaken for a firearm. The bill allows for penalties to be imposed on those who would contravene the proposed Gun Replica Sale Prohibition Act.

There is a responsibility on us to deal with this issue, but there is a responsibility on society because it is an issue that all of society must be concerned about. I would like to stress that I believe the responsibility is on those stores which carry this type of gun. The type of gun that was used in the Brantford incident, the Magnum Commando toy gun, was readily available at K mart and Woolco stores in Brantford.

All stores, small and large, have a responsibility, with or without legislation I believe, to withdraw these types of replica guns from the shelves. Parents have a responsibility to think through the type of toys they are purchasing; and I think that responsible action on the part of stores and on the part of parents can go some way towards solving this problem. Certainly if the public did not buy the manufacturers would not produce and the stores would not sell. Unfortunately, the public buys, the manufacturers produce, the stores sell and the consequences are immense.

It comes back to all of us. We are in a position to do something that can reduce the risk of death, that can reduce the risk of severe injury to the person of individuals who might carry this toy gun in the circumstance of a robbery and also that can reduce the risk of death and injury to police officers who may be called out when indeed real guns may actually be in use.

I would ask for the support of members in all parties, on both sides of the House, for this legislation. There may be refinements that we could look at down the road, but I think the principle is intact. I think it falls suitably under the appropriate ministry and I think the effects of this legislation could be extremely beneficial. It could be a lead for the rest of Canada.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will reserve the rest of the time to wind up.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to start by saying that I strongly support the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) on Bill 145. I feel quite strongly about it because I had a tragic example in my own riding of a police officer who paid the ultimate price because he did not have those couple of seconds.

Bill 145 prohibits the sale of gun replicas, and the key phrase in the explanatory note says, “guns that might reasonably be mistaken for real guns in the commission of a crime.” I think that is the whole essence of the bill.

I would also like to make reference to the Globe and Mail article of October 27, 1987. This will be repetitious of some of the comments made by the member for Cambridge, but it highlights the incident that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. This article from the Globe and Mail pertains to the coroner’s jury:

“The coroner’s jury recommended that the sale of realistic toy handguns should be prohibited in Ontario.

“The inquest looked into the death of Hubert Corbett ... who was shot by Brantford police constable David Sloop on October 3, while he was pointing a realistic imitation of a revolver at the officer.”

In the hearing, Constable Sloop is quoted as saying, “I was really scared. I didn’t know which gun went off. I was afraid for my life.” The point is that he was concerned that he might be shot if he did not make the right decision within a matter of a few seconds.

The Hamilton Spectator of May 20 stated:

“The Brantford Police Commission appears to have hit a dead end in its efforts to have the manufacture and sale of replica handguns banned.

“The commission has received letters from both the federal and provincial governments saying no action will be taken on the request.”

Alderman Max Sherman, chairman of the police commission, is quoted as saying:

“I think it’s going to be lost.... Replica guns are a dangerous toy and as a result, people have been killed. It’s been proven in Brantford and elsewhere across the United States and Canada.

“Policemen have only a couple of seconds to react when confronted by a person with a gun and don’t have time to assess whether it’s real or fake.

“As far as the policeman is concerned, it is a real gun.... Unfortunately, the decision can be very tragic.”

It is tragic. It was tragic in the case in Brantford; it was tragic in the case in the small village of Arthur. We empower the police forces in Ontario to protect us from criminal assaults. If we expect their support and protection, then we, in turn, have an obligation to support them to perform their duties in the safest manner possible.

1110

Some people will say, “How can a toy gun endanger a police officer?” Well, I submit the case that it could cost a police officer his life. As testimony in the coroner’s jury hearing in Brantford indicated, an individual was shot to death because a police officer feared for his life, and rightly so. Police officers, when confronted with an individual armed with a weapon, have only a few seconds to react. I would like to use the tragic example that occurred a few years ago in my riding. A young police officer investigating a break-in and arson late one night was confronted by an armed man. This individual pointed a shotgun at the officer and, without hesitation, shot the officer at point-blank range. The blast from the shotgun tore the throat out of the police officer and killed him instantly.

That is tragic. Remember police Constable David Sloop saying that he feared for his life? When confronted by an individual with a weapon, how can one determine whether it is a fake or a real weapon? If one guesses wrong, it is all over. Should we place our police officers with the added dilemma of having to make that decision, a split-second decision whether a gun is real or not? If they guess wrong, they could be killed. In the Brantford case the individual with the imitation gun was killed.

If we pass Bill 145, it could be a major step towards resolving this problem. If it does nothing else than demonstrate to our police forces in Ontario that this Legislature is concerned for their safety and is totally committed to supporting their efforts to protect us, then it will be worth while. I would encourage the members to consider this aspect of protection and support to our police forces as a major argument in passing this legislation.

If the Attorney General feels that the legislation is not exactly as required, I would submit that the bill does not have to be called but can form the basis for a piece of legislation of his own that can achieve the same purpose. Pressure can be exerted on the federal government to follow through if federal legislation is needed.

But by not doing anything, we will not be supporting the police forces that we ask to protect us; we will be failing in our responsibilities. So I urge the members, even if they do not consider that the bill is a perfect piece of drafted legislation, to allow it to be passed. As I mentioned, it does not have to be called, but it can certainly form the basis for something that will achieve the same effects that our colleague the member for Cambridge has promoted.

Mr. Neumann: It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Cambridge for presenting this topic of discussion before the Legislature. He and I do have something in common. We both represent communities of approximately equal size in the beautiful Grand River Valley. He and I were both elected to the 34th Parliament as new members last September.

This issue formed the topic of the very first question that I asked as a member of this Legislature in the very first question period that I sat in on last November 4. It is the subject of the first private member’s bill by the member for Cambridge. We do share these things in common. I would like to congratulate the member in raising this issue for debate today.

I did, as I mentioned, pose a question to the Attorney General last November 4 with respect to this tragedy which had occurred in our community. The coroner’s inquest recommended the banning of gun replicas because of the danger they pose through the inability of a police officer to determine quickly whether or not the toy gun being brandished is a real gun.

As previous members have stated, the number of seconds that an officer has to make this judgement is very, very limited. This is a matter which was taken up by the coroner’s jury. Also, the banning of such guns has the support of the Brantford Police Commission. I would encourage the members to give favourable consideration to this bill.

I would like to point out that, following the question in the House, I wrote a letter to the Attorney General and another letter to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) urging action with respect to this matter. I remind the House that the initial response I got from the Attorney General was that he believed, in his considered opinion, the matter should be dealt with at the federal level. Indeed, the Attorney General has brought this to the attention of Mr. Hnatyshyn. It was reviewed by the ministers from across Canada, the provincial ministers, and other provinces have also pressured the federal government to take action on this matter. There is some question of the constitutionality of action in this regard. However, the issue is a pressing one and should be dealt with. I would also point out that the federal government has initiated a review of this particular issue on the request of Ontario and several of the other provinces that share this concern.

I would like to read parts of a letter which was sent by the Solicitor General of Ontario to the Honourable Harvie Andre, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in which she recommends that action be taken on this matter under the Hazardous Products Act.

Before I read the quote from the letter, I would point out that there is some precedent for dealing with this at the federal level under the Hazardous Products Act. Indeed, in the Brantford Expositor story of October 30, the reporter who investigated this indicated that there was an issue raised regarding replica bombs that looked so realistic that the bomb squads were sent in and they were not at all amused to find that these toy bombs looked exactly like real bombs and caused quite a concern, with evacuations of buildings and so on, when they were left in the wrong place. The federal government felt so concerned about this particular issue that, and I quote from the story:

“The toy bombs presented product safety officials with a special case, one which metro police argued needed the immediate attention of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Officials found the arguments persuasive. Following a study of the toy, they rushed through legislation in about a month in order to add the toy bomb to the list of banned products under the Hazardous Products Act. If a product is on the list, the sale, manufacture or import of that product is prohibited anywhere in Canada.”

I believe it is far preferable for this matter to be dealt with at the federal level, and I think our ministries have investigated this and share that view, and it is being looked into by the federal officials. However, we are not getting very far.

On first review, the minister, the Honourable Harvie Andre, has indicated that he does not feel it is a matter for discussion or for amendment to the Hazardous Products Act.

I would simply point out that the Solicitor General did write to him and said:

“What I am seeking is the control over the manufacture and sale of replica handguns pursuant to the Hazardous Products Act. It is felt that replica handguns fall within the definition of those products that are subject to control under the act.”

Later in the letter she says:

“The danger posed to the health or safety of the public is as a result of the improper use of these toys, however, it is their design and construction that permits their misuse. If they were designed or constructed differently, they would pose a far less significant danger to public safety.”

This letter from our Solicitor General was sent on April 12 to the Honourable Harvie Andre.

The response received was not at all encouraging, and it indicates: “The Hazardous Product Act is not intended to regulate products which become hazardous through accidental or intentional misuse.” Yet they did act in the case of the replica bombs; they did act to ban them right across Canada.

I feel that there is precedent here. While the bill does have some difficulties, I think, in terms of its wording and whether it might be better to handle it at the federal or the provincial level, I believe this House should support the bill in second reading, because second reading is support in principle and we can use the passing of this bill this morning as a way of helping to lever the federal government to provide support for the initiatives already taken by our ministers in presenting this case to federal officials. I think even the member presenting it would feel it would be preferable if these types of guns could be banned Canada-wide rather than just in Ontario. Perhaps my raising it in the House in a question and his presenting this bill, both of these actions, can help to pressure the federal government to act.

1120

I would simply say that the matter has been of some concern in our community. As I said, the banning of these toy guns has the support of the Brantford Police Commission. In addition to the tragedy, the tragic death of the person who brandished the toy gun, there is the very difficult matter of a police officer having to live with having killed a fellow human being. Police officers put their own lives on the line. It is not so much their own lives, but the psychological after-effect of having to live with the fact of having shot another man, even if it is in the line of duty. I think we in the public who are not part of the police force should respect the difficult, split-second decisions they have to make.

The federal government has taken action to ban toy bombs because of similar kinds of effects. I think these toy replica guns are so exact one cannot tell the difference between the toy gun and the real gun; in fact, the officer concerned did not know until several hours later that the gun he was facing was a toy gun.

In conclusion, I would again compliment the member for raising this issue. My ballot item is item 95. I would not be able to get on with a private bill or resolution for some time, so I was pleased when I heard that the member for Cambridge, my colleague from the Grand River Valley, raised this important issue. I urge members to give support at second reading, to show support in principle for this action.

Mr. Philip: It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and also to indicate my support of the previous bill under debate this morning.

As has been pointed out so many times in the newspapers, by the police chiefs and by various other groups, the fact is that gun replicas can result in death just as much as the real guns can. Replicas have often been used in robberies. They have been used to intimidate other people during times of altercation. Looking into the tragic death of Hubert Corbett, the Brantford coroner’s jury took its responsibility seriously, and I think its recommendations, as reflected in this bill, should be taken seriously.

Testimony at the coroner’s jury was rather interesting. I just want to read a section of it to you, Madam Speaker, and then ask you a question concerning it, because I know you would be interested in making up your mind concerning this bill. One section said, “The ‘Magnum Commando’ toy gun, which was available in K mart and Woolco stores in Brantford, has a red plastic plug in the tip of its barrel so that people can distinguish it from the real gun.” That was the testimony.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, if I were to pull out this pen and point it at you, could you tell me immediately in the wave of the pen whether it had a blue tip or a black tip, whether it was a real pen or simply a replica or a shell of a pen? I suggest to you, as the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has pointed out, that with your trained eagle eye, as a person who can even identify when one member is a few inches out of where he should be seated, as a person with that kind of astute perception, you cannot tell me the colour of the tip of the pen I just showed you or whether it was a real pen or not.

If you were in the situation that the constable was in, a situation where a robbery was taking place, where he was under stress, I ask you whether you would be able to distinguish this from a real gun, this replica which was only distinguishable from the real gun by a red tip at the end of it.

Indeed, the officer said: “I thought I was going to get shot. I was scared to death.” When his partner, Constable Sloop, and Mr. Corbett faced each other and he heard a shot, Mr. Bush, in his seventh year as an auxiliary officer, said that his fear stayed with him. “I was really scared because I didn’t know which gun had gone first.” So here is a police officer observing the situation and he cannot tell whether the gun is real or not.

We in Canada have a different tradition from our neighbours to the south. We already regulate weapons. My colleague the member for Cambridge has quoted one estimate that about 100 times a year toy or replica guns are used in holdups of various kinds. I do not know whether that estimate is correct or not. I do not know whether there are 100 incidents where police are actually faced with a replica that looks like a real gun and where they really feel they are facing down the barrel of one. Maybe 100 is high, maybe it is an underestimate; but the fact that it can happen even once and the fact that we can have incidents of people being killed is surely enough for us to say that maybe something should be done. If we are regulating guns already, if regulations in themselves are worth while, then why not regulate something like this, which most assuredly has ended up in tragic death?

I ask the members to speak to some of the police officers in their own ridings, some of those who go to calls of family violence, where passions are high and where police officers face a greater risk, I am told, than even in the case of robberies and professional criminals. I ask members to ask them how they feel about the contents of this bill. They are the people who know what it is like to be out there. They are the people who know what kinds of situations they can get into. They know the tensions, the emotions, and they know what these things look like, because they are asking for this kind of change.

For some time I acted as a facilitator at an institution called the Creative Education Foundation in Buffalo, in which we taught various types of creative thinking, writing and so forth. We used to have the children of the people who were on workshops come in and we would also work with them. I am convinced that the creativity of children is unlimited and I ask members, do they really think that somehow children are going to be creatively deprived, that their growth is somehow going to be stunted because they are going to have to play, if their parents want them to play with these things, with imitations of guns rather than replicas of the real thing?

Some might argue that this kind of legislation can best be handled by the federal government, but if you look at the history of changes in this country, that is an argument that is constantly made. People will say, “No, it can best be handled by the federal government, because surely all provinces should be alike; there should be some uniformity.” But if we look at what happens, invariably some province has the foresight to move certain legislation. That legislation passes and acts as a lever on the federal government and, eventually, the legislation becomes universal and fairly consistent across the country.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) has just pointed out that the federal government appears to be moving very slowly on this issue. Surely the greatest way of bringing about changes is to move on them before people die, before there are more unnecessary, tragic coroners’ juries dealing with the tragic death of people where it need not have happened. Surely the time to move is now.

If we get this bill passed, eventually it will spread to the other provinces and eventually the federal government will be on side. In the meantime, I say to members that one more person should not die unnecessarily when this legislation can be passed today.

1130

Mr. Pollock: I want to say to the member for Cambridge that I am certainly in support of this private bill in principle. There are a few things that are not in the bill that I think should be. I join with him and all members of this House in saying it is most unfortunate that a man was shot back on October 3 by a policeman who thought his assailant had a real gun. Of course, it turned out to be a replica gun.

There is not in this particular private members’ bill something I feel should be there, and I think we all agree. Most guns are either black or brown. I feel that replica guns or toy guns should be coloured some bright colour so that they would easily be distinguished as a toy gun. I know there is no quick fix, because if you coloured these toy guns orange then criminals could paint their guns one particular colour in order to slip by security in certain places. As I say, there is certainly no quick fix, but I believe that the theory the member for Cambridge advances in this bill is correct. He wants to cut down on any deaths that might occur by people using these gun replicas.

It has been mentioned, too, that this should fall under the federal government’s Hazardous Products Act. I thought the member for Brantford made a reasonably good case in mentioning that imitation bombs have been placed under that act. However, I think it is a thin line. Toy guns are just what they are -- toy guns. It is reasonably hard to place something under that act that is just a toy. In a case like that, either the federal government or this provincial government should have a whole new bill, or at least pass this bill, and ban some of these replica guns.

There is also the situation where -- like this incident about the man getting killed last October -- there have been a lot of people killed because guns are left loaded or left around the house so kids can get hold of them, and ammunition has been left around too. There have been, I would imagine, more people killed that way than through replica gun incidents. We need a better education plan actually, to act on the safety of both the replica guns and also guns lying around the house where kids can get hold of them.

The member for Brantford said that this should be handled by the federal government. I would like to point out that several years ago when we were the government, we were lobbied continually by volunteer fire departments. They wanted a green light to be made available for the top of their cars and trucks when they went to a fire, to warn the general public that there were firemen going to a fire and that sort of thing.

Our government at that time resisted that, I believe, basically because of the fact that most warning lights here are red. Therefore, they avoided ever bringing any legislation in to allow the volunteer firemen to have a green light. However, when the present government took over, it allowed this. It can do things like that, so I do not think there is any problem for it to maintain or make it mandatory that toy guns should be coloured a certain colour or that all replicas that are identical to guns should be banned.

We all know youngsters like to play cowboys and Indians. Maybe I am a little guilty of playing at this sort of thing. One day my son came to me and he said some friends were coming over and they wanted that old .22 that was down in the drive house to play with. There was no firing pin in that .22, but I thought I had better be just a little bit more on the safe side. I can weld, so I took the gun and I put a little bronze in the barrel end of it. Then I filled the chamber where the bullet goes with bronze. Of course, it had no firing pin, so that gun was rendered pretty well useless. Nevertheless, it could be used in the same situation as the member for Cambridge has mentioned.

These situations occur. I do not believe there is any quick fix as far as these replica guns are concerned, but I think that anything we can do would be appreciated by the general public. If we can save some lives, that is our job. I say to the member for Cambridge that I support his private members’ bill.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to rise and debate the bill proposed. I would like to indicate at the outset that I speak in support of the principle of the proposed legislation. I also understand, as has probably already been mentioned, that really the impetus for this bill was the incident in Brantford, the fatal shooting of a gentleman and the following recommendation through a coroner’s inquest. The jury indicated that a ban should be placed on the manufacture and sale of replica guns. I think it has been stated and is important to state again, that a ban on the manufacture and sale of replica guns could very well have prevented this particular tragedy and may also prevent further tragedies in the future.

I note that this piece of legislation is not without precedents in other areas. In Los Angeles, in Burbank, there has been a ban of sales of replica guns. In Michigan, as well as in Massachusetts and California, legislation is currently being worked through the legislature. In Detroit, there is an ordinance prohibiting the possession, sale and advertising of replica or facsimile firearms. What we are talking about today is something which is not carving new ground; it is in this province and it could prove to be an example for other provinces to follow. In other jurisdictions, in other countries, this type of legislation has been proposed and has been passed and is now in effect.

I think that we have to make a further point; that is, the abuse of the replica guns, as occurred in the Brantford incident, is currently proscribed by the Criminal Code. We are not without our own provisions. Section 85 does create an indictable offence which is punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for having in one’s possession an imitation weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. “Weapon,” as one would expect, is defined in the Criminal Code to mean anything used or intended for use for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.

I imagine it is somewhat hard to conceive of a situation where an abuse of a replica gun would not be covered by this section. Also, an amendment could be made to section 84, which refers to the pointing of a firearm, to include imitation firearms, so that this is not the only jurisdiction which can be seized of this matter, but also the federal jurisdiction. I dare say that some would suggest that that is the proper jurisdiction for this matter to be addressed in a more fundamental way than we can do provincially.

1140

It could also be argued that any criminal offence simply provides an abstract deterrent that may minimize but cannot conclusively rule out the abuse of replica guns. This can be achieved only by a complete ban on their manufacture and sale.

It must be mentioned that imitation firearms have been made with other types of equipment, such as metal pipes, other materials, soap, shoes. One cannot prevent such behaviour no matter how much one tries. But once again, and notwithstanding that, it comes down to the fundamental consideration of whether the social benefits of allowing replica guns outweigh the social costs of abusing them.

I believe that those costs do dictate support in principle of this bill, and that is why I support the bill in principle, but it does not mean that I do not have some serious reservations with respect to the particular legislation before us.

The definition of “gun replica” includes an object which “closely resembles” a firearm, and I believe that this question of close resemblance is one that is somewhat vague and does require some further investigation and analysis. We have to make the distinction between banning the manufacture and sale of replica guns and regulating the sale of toy guns by licensing. The object of the bill, as indicated in the explanatory note, is “to prohibit the sale of replicas of guns that might reasonably be mistaken for real guns in the commission of a crime.”

The bill nevertheless prohibits the sale of replica guns and requires those who sell toy guns to obtain licences to do so. It does not seem that the requirement of a licence to sell guns runs in line with the purpose for which the bill has been designed, because if there is a prohibition of the sale of replica guns, anyone who sells such a gun commits a provincial offence. Why, then, is it necessary to have toy stores obtain licences before they can sell toy guns? I think there is some work to be done in making the bill more readable and flowing with respect to the purpose for which it was designed.

I guess one has to ask a further fundamental question as to why the bill prohibits only the sale of replicas and is silent as to their manufacture. That is something that demands some very serious thought.

I am going to give up some time for the remainder. I would like to indicate once more my support in principle of this legislation, but also to indicate that I do have some serious reservations with respect to some of the provisions contained within the bill and also to indicate that there is another jurisdiction, the federal jurisdiction to be specific, that I believe might be a more proper jurisdiction for such regulation in dealing not only with replica guns but also with firearms in general.

Mr. Hampton: I rise in support of this bill and I want to delineate my reasons, because I think we have had mentioned here today some arguments which I would call, “If it is not perfect, it can’t be good.” I want to deal with those kinds of arguments very briefly. There is no doubt that in our society the problem of firearms and, in this case, the problem of replicas of firearms are very serious problems and problems which I think have to be dealt with on a multijurisdictional level.

It has been pointed out by the previous speaker that there in fact may be a more appropriate jurisdiction to deal with the problem of replica guns; I emphasize the words “may be.” I also would like to say, in addressing the possibility of a more appropriate jurisdiction, that some of our most serious social problems, some of our most serious economic problems, have bounced around for 20, 30 or 40 years while a decision has been made as to which jurisdiction of government should attempt to handle them.

I would not like to see that happen with this situation. The fact of the matter is that the member has placed before the House a bill which would go a long way towards dealing with the problem of replica guns, a problem which police forces and many community groups and community associations have recognized as being a serious problem in our society. The fact that the bill cannot deal with all firearms and has not dealt with the manufacture of firearms is not, I submit, a reason to vote against or not support this bill.

In his earlier comments, the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) has indicated that by passing this bill we might in fact hasten the necessity of this level of government or the federal level of government dealing with this very serious problem. I think we should approach this bill from that perspective. There is a very serious problem out there.

There is some possibility that it might be better dealt with at the federal level; however, if this bill were passed here today it would go a long way towards bringing the issue more clearly before the public and also hastening further discussions between this level of government and the federal level of government and, as I say, hastening the ultimate solution to this kind of problem.

For those reasons, I think it is important that everyone today support this bill. As I say, it deals with one of the issues of gun control in our country. As other speakers have pointed out, it is not just a problem of controlling firearms; it is also a problem of controlling replicas of firearms.

I need not mention that in terms of controlling firearms, there are some very strong lobbies out there which would need to be dealt with. We would rely upon the motivation of the federal government to move in that direction. But this is something we can deal with here and now. By passing this bill, we can have some effect on one of the firearm problems, namely, the problem of replica firearms. So I would urge all members to support this bill.

1150

Mr. Callahan: I would like to commend the member for the intent or the object behind this bill. I suppose if we checked with our local police forces we would find that, more often than not, many robberies both in milk stores and banks are probably carried out with the use of replica guns. I think we have all seen some of these replicas and just how real they can look. They probably look even more real when one is staring down the end of the barrel of one of them and being told to hand over the money.

I applaud the member for the intent. I think he will be aware of the fact that the Criminal Code provides that persons can be convicted of robbery even if they use an imitation weapon. So there is already clearly within the federal legislation a penalty for using an imitation gun.

I think the member goes a bit further than that in producing his bill. Actually what he is attempting to do could very possibly have the cross-over of a federal jurisdiction, in my humble opinion. But more important than that, it is a matter which would really interfere in an area that might have proportions far beyond what the bill itself at first blush seems to indicate. It could wind up with a manufacturer, before he was to prepare any GI Joe type of thing, having to go to the minister and get a permit. I think that perhaps would not be as well received.

I did suggest to the member, although I am going to vote against the measure, that this is something that should certainly be made known to the Attorney General of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada, because it is a very significant problem that exists today. In a very real sense, an assault is an assault, particularly when it is with a weapon, be it a replica or a real weapon. It is one that causes great consternation and fright, not just for the moment, but perhaps a continuing concern and fear to those people.

In terms of the intent, I applaud the member for his efforts in that regard. There is no doubt there is a problem, but I regrettably have to vote against it because I do not believe this bill itself meets that particular problem. I think it should be dealt with by the federal government, but I certainly hope that a message will go forth to tell the federal government we are concerned about it and to have them look at the issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West for a short period.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A short period of time, unfortunately, but I also wish to register my opposition to this private member’s action, although again I agree with the previous speaker that it has been brought in for good motives. I really do worry when we bring in legislation which will outlaw the sale of a replica while at the same time in Ontario we license the real thing. It seems to be slightly Alice-in-Wonderlandish to have that kind of an emphasis.

I have real concerns about just what the definition is going to be of these replicas. I think of pellet guns and starter pistols. Are we going to ban blanks now? It would be an interesting notion to follow this particular theme a little further. The federal law is clear on when a weapon or a replica is used. The punishments are there. The kind of ideas that are placed here I think are very dangerous.

Are we going to start banning replica rubber knives as well, if they look like they are throwing knives? Do we not understand that in fact this is a very dangerous kind of infringement on civil liberties by the state and that the carrier of a weapon, whether it is a real one or a replica, who involves himself in a crime bears some responsibility at that time?

Yes, there are unfortunate circumstances which take place and deaths of people such as the example that has been used as the cause for this particular piece of legislation. But, my goodness, in the end I really do wonder about this kind of emphasis and I would ask at least some members of the House to join me in opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cambridge had reserved, I believe, a little more than five minutes for a windup.

Mr. Farnan: I would like to emphasize, as was pointed out earlier, that there are states in the United States that have taken a stand and have legislation that bans the sale of such replicas. If we are looking at a situation, we do not wait and say, “We will wash our hands of responsibility because we are waiting for this other level to act.” If California, Michigan or Massachusetts had that kind of situation, there would be no legislation in those states.

I think the important thing that comes out of the vote on this particular legislation this morning is the message that we will send. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) talked about manufacture. We are not talking about manufacture. We cannot control manufacture. Manufacture can come from outside of Canada, outside of Ontario. But we can control sale and, if people cannot sell, they will not be manufactured for an Ontario market.

The important thing is the message that we send out today. I think the member for Brantford clearly defined this. The passage of this bill says that this House is vitally concerned about replica guns and the danger in which they place our police officers. We will never know the number of crimes that have been committed using replica guns. We have an opportunity, my friends, to establish some controls on the availability of these types of replica guns.

The history of legislation throughout Canada is based on the fact that maybe an initiative is taken at a provincial level and it works. Other provinces look at that and say: “Yes, it works. We’ll try it”; or the federal jurisdiction looks at the idea and says: “It works. We’ll introduce legislation that affects the country as a whole.”

I think that the public of Ontario will look at us today and ask what message we are sending out. I think the way members vote on this is the way they vote that message. I hear members say they agree with this bill in principle. Passage of this bill in principle has various options. One option is that it can go to the federal government. It can also go to our own provincial government. But it does say something, that there is a concern, there is an isssue.

Hopefully our provincial government -- that would be my preference -- will show leadership and provide legislation. But certainly it could be used as an argument in the ongoing dialogue between the provincial and federal levels.

We cannot stand idly by and not support our police officers if by our actions there is any chance at all that, as a result of our legislation or as a result of passage of this bill this morning, but hopefully as a result of some practical legislation at the provincial or federal level, we are decreasing the opportunities for these types of circumstances to arise.

We have heard of the instances, the split-second decisions; and police officers cannot second-guess. They should not second-guess, in my estimation, because their own lives are at stake. We heard from my colleague who mentioned where a police officer lost his life in a circumstance when faced with a gun, a real gun in that particular case.

This bill, I think, does come under provincial jurisdiction. It does give us a control. We cannot control the manufacture, but we can control the sales. Manufacture can come from way beyond Canada. But I think all members will agree people do not manufacture for a foreign market if they know in advance that market has a ban on the sale of their particular product. I think the arguments that have been put forward by the member for Mississauga North do not stand in this regard.

Finally, I would like to thank all members who participated in the debate, both pro and con. I think all the words were well meant, and I would ask for members’ support in the vote that is about to take place.

1200

DEAF PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Stoner has moved second reading of Bill 143.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

1206

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

The House divided on Mr. Farnan’s motion for second reading of Bill 145, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Ballinger, Bryden, Carrothers, Charlton, Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Daigeler, Dietsch, Epp, Farnan, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., LeBourdais, Lipsett, Mahoney, Martel, Matrundola, McCague, Morin-Strom, Neumann, Nicholas, Philip, E., Poirier, Pollock, Pouliot, Ray, M. C., Roberts, Sterling, Stoner, Villeneuve.

Nays

Callahan, Elliot, Fleet, Johnston, R. F., Kozyra, Laughren, Mancini, Miller, Nixon, J. B., Polsinelli, Reville, Reycraft, Smith, D. W., Tatham, Velshi.

Ayes 38; nays 15.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 1987-88. Members will find their copies placed in the desks in the chamber.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am rising on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday during question period, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) directed an important question to me in my capacity as minister responsible for women’s issues. The substance of his question was to ask that the government consider adding to its interministerial committee on sexual assault representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

After being recognized by the Speaker and before replying to the substance of the question, I interjected on a matter wholly unrelated to the issue at hand. The remark carried with it a lightness and a frivolity that has no place within any forum that is considering the serious issue of sexual assault against women in Ontario.

It was wholly inappropriate to preface my response as I did. I want to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every member of this House, and in a special way to the member for Burlington South, who, I know, has made this issue an important part of his political commitment.

I also want to publicly apologize to those thousands of men and women who are working with such complete commitment, often through long hours, as volunteers to reshape our society in such a way that sexual assault becomes just a sad and dark aspect of our past. The freedom and equality of women depend so much on the success of their collective efforts, as they do also upon the support they have through effective government programs.

Finally, I want to reiterate the substance of my reply to the member for Burlington South. I will take seriously the member’s suggestion to expand the interministerial committee and I will continue to welcome his suggestions as to how the committee might deal with all aspects of the sexual assault problem. I know how deeply he is committed to those objectives.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Pouliot: I want to take this opportunity to bring the members of this House up to date on the very grave situation that has been allowed to develop at the Kimberly-Clark mill in the township of Terrace Bay.

The government, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), I should add, is only too well aware that between 600 and 700 workers, members of the International Woodworkers of America, Local 2693, have been in a legal work stoppage, have been on strike in the communities of Longlac, Nakina, Geraldton and Terrace Bay. All they are really asking for is job security.

The Minister of Labour in particular should remind himself that negotiations reached an impasse more than five weeks ago and very little has been achieved in terms of trying to bring both parties back to the negotiating table.

Picket line reports indicate that pulpwood is being delivered by Canadian Pacific into the Terrace Bay mill yard on United States rail cars entering Canada through the point of Emerson. I therefore call upon the government to exercise its mandate and immediately review this abusive, systematic and deliberate labour practice.

CARAVAN

Mr. Cousens: Tomorrow, June 17, marks the 20th anniversary of the collective salute to our provincial diversity known as Caravan. This nine-day event revolves around 40 different pavilions in the city of Toronto, reflecting the cosmopolitan nature of the province of Ontario. The original pavilions of Blue Danube, Budapest, Kiev, Manila, Shannon, Vienna and Volga are celebrating a special 20th anniversary, and this year they will be joined by 33 others and the memories of the 992 that have gone before.

Metro International Caravan is not simply important as a tourist attraction; more important, it is a tremendous exercise in co-operation and education. Cultural boundaries are dissolved and understanding grows as each visitor uses his passport to literally travel the world from one pavilion to another. This inexpensive, family-oriented festival develops cross-cultural ties which carry on long after Caravan is finished for the year. The nonpolitical activities of Caravan are now part of a tradition which could not continue without the hard work of hundreds of volunteers from throughout the province. Their efforts deserve our support and the recognition of the members of this House.

It is my party’s hope that once again Caravan will enjoy the success it has always known and that it will continue to foster understanding and pride in the many cultural communities of our province.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Faubert: Members of this House may recall, shall we say, a not-so-supportive newspaper article in the Toronto Sun last fall which questioned the courage of this government’s Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and criticized him for a lack of action. In retrospect, that article could be no further from the truth.

This government has demonstrated progressive leadership and courage in reforming our local governments to make them more responsive, effective and accountable. Having experienced the up and down sides of local government for almost 20 years as a member of Scarborough and Metro councils, I now take pride in commending the government for its timely and necessary actions.

Three major pieces of legislation have been brought before the Legislature this spring to reform Ontario’s system of local government. Direct election to Metropolitan Toronto council was approved in February, which makes Metro government more responsible, accountable and comprehensible to the citizens.

Legislation was passed in April establishing a new system of enumeration which could be carried out through the mail. Despite the doubts of the opposition, 75 per cent of the citizens of the province have already responded to this notice.

Let’s not forget Bill 106, passed last week, which, among a number of required reforms, sets limits that require disclosure of campaign contributions and expenses. The reforms inherent in this legislation and the two previously mentioned initiatives will open up our system of local government here in Metropolitan Toronto and throughout the province.

Once again, this minister and this government have tackled contentious issues and provided effective and progressive solutions to meet the needs of the people of Ontario.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wish to bring to the attention of members of the House a clash between the civil rights of the average citizen of the city of Toronto and the security of the leaders of the free world who are here for the summit in the next number of days. While we would all want to make sure that those people are secure and that they are free from acts of terrorism, there are a number of excesses which I really think members should know about.

Canadian Union of Public Employees members in the city of Toronto who do garbage pickup in the centre of the city were asked by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be fingerprinted. As of today, they have been asked actually to do bomb checks in the sewers of the city and rightfully have said that is the job of the police, not them.

There will be a mass gathering of a coalition of groups on Sunday. They have been told by security here that they cannot have tables or chairs because they could be used as weapons. There will be no access for the St. John Ambulance to this site, even if somebody is injured or hurt during that period, because of security reasons as well.

This is all happening at the same time as University Avenue will be open all the way down to Dundas. At the same time, the members of the summit will be in my riding, at the Toronto Hunt club. They will not even be in this district, but members of the Fallingbrook Presbyterian Church, a known coven for great terrorists, will not be allowed to drive their cars to their church this weekend.

I would suggest to members of the House that sometimes we need to be a little louder about protecting the civil rights of our citizens.

1340

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LABOUR DISPUTES

Mrs. Marland: There comes a time when somebody has to speak up for the thousands of people in this province who are being held hostage by a very small minority. I am speaking today about the construction workers’ strikes that have been dragging on now for weeks. Most people in this province believe in fairness. Most people believe that workers deserve fair settlements. However, most people are sick and tired of having to pay, pay, pay for the unresolved strike action that is going on in the construction industry today.

In my riding, I am hearing daily from families who have sold their homes to move into a house that is supposed to be completed by August and have not even had the foundation poured. These people suffer. They have no place to live.

Mortgage rates go up. The price of their new homes will probably increase, leaving many families which can barely afford a new home in real financial straits.

But who seems to care? Not this group of Liberal do-nothings. Small business suffers. Many of the suppliers and contractors are at the point of packing it all in. This is the bread-and-butter time of the year for the construction industry. And we tax the workers of this province to death, taking away money from the working people.

The Minister of Labour is doing nothing. He is short of cowardly in dealing with these issues. We saw how the disabled had to suffer earlier this year when they were used as pawns in a labour dispute.

Sometimes we seem to forget that the people who end up paying for all of this are the constituents in our ridings. It is time somebody stood up for the small business person, the new home owner and the constituents. They are tired of being ignored, and I think it is not fair.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY SENIOR GAMES

Mrs. Fawcett: Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to open the Northumberland County Senior Games at the Haldimand Township Recreational Centre. Seniors throughout our county participated in a great number and variety of events. Through their participation, they again showed us that age is no barrier to the enjoyment of life. All of those who participated were winners.

However, I would like to make special mention of some of those who will go on to represent Northumberland at district events in Peterborough. They are Margaret Mercer, Clint Branning, Tom Bland, Ruth Gordon, Bessie Leadbeater, Muriel Moore, Gunter Pahl, Barnie Sorensen, Sylvia Cowan, Eileen Kinsey, Ann Donnelly, Margaret Rowland, Ronnie Meades, Lillian Thain, Jan Clarke, Gerry Ireland, Joyce Lees, Winnifred McCracken and Charles Cragg.

Recognizing that June has been proclaimed Senior Citizens Month, I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these individuals who have shown us that opportunity truly is ageless.

LOTTERY TICKET FRANCHISES

Mr. McLean: My statement is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil). It is my understanding that Lottario ticket franchises are automatically awarded to new Becker stores whenever they open for business.

However, the minister is leaving the small independent store owners out in the cold by freezing them out of the Lottario ticket business. Store owners, large or small, undoubtedly appreciate the opportunity to participate in the sale of lottery tickets because customers who come into the store to buy them will undoubtedly purchase other products while they are buying their lottery tickets.

The policy for awarding lottery ticket franchises to the stores is doing wonders for their businesses, but it appears that the independents are not recognized, not appreciated and not supported by this government under the minister’s current policy for awarding lottery ticket franchises. I have to wonder why he is bypassing the independent store owners in favour of the large chains when it comes to awarding these franchises.

The resignation requested of Mr. Morris is unacceptable in my opinion. Why was the minister not looking at Mr. Stothers, the chairman of the Ontario Lottery Corp. Maybe he is the one at fault. I say to the minister it is a shame.

MOTION ON SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to read a motion on South Africa.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if I might, we discussed this matter earlier today at a House leaders’ meeting and I indicated, through his good offices, to the New Democratic Party House leader that the motion is not one that we could deal with today because of its impact on both the government and our caucus which have not had the opportunity to deal with it.

As I indicated about an hour ago to the office of the House leader of the official opposition, we would be quite happy to take that to our caucus and have it dealt with there at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, we could not give unanimous consent to deal with it today.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The leader of the official opposition has made what I think is a very serious request for unanimous consent on a matter which, the government knows full well, if it is not dealt with immediately, is too late to deal with next Tuesday. Our party believes it is of sufficient importance that we think unanimous consent should be given, particularly when the request and the suggestion were that it not take more than, I believe, six minutes of House time to deal with the resolution.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is very clear to my friends in the opposition that this motion was shown to us at a House leaders’ meeting a couple of hours ago. It is a matter of some significant import, not just for Ontario but certainly for the government of Canada.

We have a very large caucus that has an interest in these matters. I am saying to my colleagues in the opposition that I am certainly quite prepared to take that resolution to our caucus and report back at an early time, perhaps before the summit has concluded next week.

I do not want in any way to minimize the importance of the issue -- that is granted on all sides -- but I respectfully ask my friends in the opposition to understand that a matter of this nature is one which I, as government House leader, would like to share with my colleagues in the caucus which is, after all, representative of a majority of members in this assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: As we do not have unanimous consent, we shall now revert to statements from the ministry.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PARALEGALS

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to announce today, the establishment of a study of paralegals in Ontario. Dr. Ron Ianni, the president of the University of Windsor, will undertake a study of their role and function in Ontario’s legal system with a view to making recommendations as to which services they should be permitted to deliver and, if they are permitted to deliver any legal services, how they should be regulated, if at all.

Dr. Ianni will be assisted by an advisory committee and will consult with representatives of the legal profession, paralegals, the public and government.

The study is essential for a number of reasons, as I think the history of the issue will make clear. First, the Ontario Court of Appeal in its decision in the POINTTS (Provincial Offences Information and Traffic Ticket Services) case has determined that under current Ontario law, agents who are not lawyers may act on behalf of parties before certain courts and tribunals. Statutes such as the Provincial Offences Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Coroners Act are exceptions to the general prohibition contained in the Law Society Act, and the Law Society of Upper Canada has accepted this decision and has not undertaken an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Second, in 1980, the Professional Organizations Committee examined the licensing of law in Ontario. That committee examined the possibility of allowing certain routine legal services to be delivered by nonlawyers. In 1980, it concluded that such an exercise was, as it said, impossible and undesirable. Notwithstanding that conclusion, there are estimates that now as many as 1,000 paralegals are operating and carrying on business in Ontario. Why this has occurred, what they are actually doing and the consequences are not known.

Third, Bill 42, a private members’ bill, was before the standing committee on administration of justice in May and June of 1987. The bill, it should be noted, proposed that the Law Society of Upper Canada, through a subcommittee, should regulate paralegals in Ontario. It would appear that the solution proposed by Bill 42 is not the appropriate answer to the paralegal question in Ontario at this time, but it also appears that there is a consensus among interested groups in this area, including the paralegals who appeared before the legislative committee, that further study of the larger issues is needed because we are, especially if their position is correct, on the frontier of what may be a profound change in the marketplace of legal services.

I am therefore pleased to announce the establishment of this project. During his deliberations, Dr. Ianni will be able to address the Court of Appeal decision in POINTTS. He will be able to update the findings and recommendations of the Professional Organizations Committee in the light of current realities and he will be able to take into account the very thoughtful submissions that have been made by interested groups to the ministry and the standing committee, which indicated its desire to have a study of this type.

I have asked Dr. Ianni to report to me in the spring of 1989 and indeed, if possible, before that time. I look forward to the receipt of this report.

Let me conclude by reminding all members that Ontario is at the forefront of the consideration of this very complex but very important issue, and Dr. Ianni’s report should have a profound effect upon the province.

1350

RESPONSES

PARALEGALS

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the government are certainly keeping Dr. Ianni busy these days. We congratulate him on this appointment. I just want to say a few words on it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Keeping some of your friends busy, too.

Mrs. Grier: Not enough.

Mr. B. Rae: Touchy, touchy.

It is obviously a subject of legitimate concern. Since I will not be asking a question of the Attorney General about this today, by way of general inquiry I would simply ask whether it is his intention to ask Dr. Ianni to look into the question of what nonlawyers do generally apart from the act of representation.

I refer the Attorney General in particular to questions of conveyancing and real estate transactions. I myself for a number of years have questioned why it is that lawyers need to have a monopoly on such simple legal transactions as the sale of a house, for example; whether it is essential, in fact, to have a lawyer’s fee for that kind of transaction when it is, from a legal standpoint, a relatively simple transaction. Indeed, with computerized land tenure registries, it seems to me less and less necessary for the full panoply -- and, I might add, cost -- of the legal profession to be borne by the poor old consumer.

We look forward to discussing this question with Dr. Ianni. I know my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and I have some ideas on this subject. Both of us have been involved in the legal aid and legal clinic movement for some time. Also, we have some very strong views on the question of nonlawyers’ rights to represent clients with respect to clients’ protection from people who really are not qualified to provide advice and who in fact are overcharging for that advice.

Perhaps I can refer specifically, above the rather substantial din which is now in front of me, to the question of the rights of recent immigrants to this country, who are frequently taken advantage of by those not in a position to know; who claim that they are, for example, able to give special advice in the field of immigration or whatever the field may be and who charge a very heavy sum for that but are not particularly regulated by any acts of this province in that regard.

I welcome this study by Dr. Ianni and look forward to discussing it with him.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Is there any other response from the official opposition? If not, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Eves: I also would like to respond to the statement made today by the Attorney General.

This issue was first brought to the forefront by Brian Lawrie, president of POINTTS. He is also president of the Paralegal Association of Ontario. Mr. Lawrie is present in the members’ gallery today.

Mr. Lawrie was charged by the Law Society of Upper Canada in 1985 for unlawfully acting as a barrister or solicitor. Following three separate court decisions, all in favour of POINTTS, the Court of Appeal decision in March 1987 was unanimous in establishing the right of independent paralegal agents to offer representation in the lower court systems for a fee.

As early as May 1986, with the introduction of Bill 42, the former member for Oakville championed the right of consumers to a choice in representation available, while also recognizing the need for appropriate regulatory legislation for paralegals.

This is a long-overdue announcement, especially in the light of the commitment by the Attorney General early in 1987 to introduce legislation immediately following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. I say it is overdue because I note by the statement today that this report is not expected until the spring of 1989.

I presume from that it will be late 1989 or 1990 before we have any legislation drafted by the Ministry of the Attorney General. It has taken the ministry some three years even to come to this point. It has been two years since Bill 42 was first introduced in the House, and it has been over a year since the Court of Appeal decision and a commitment from the Attorney General to do something about it. I hope that they get on with this task and that this is not just another delaying tactic on something that could have been in the works for the last three years.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Eves: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise on a point of order under standing order 88(d). You will recall that this is the standing order which deals with response time for questions in Orders and Notices. Since the election of this government, it has become more and more difficult to get information on a wide variety of matters. In addition to the difficulties we have been experiencing with the timeliness of responses to order paper questions, we have had serious concerns about the quality of those responses.

However, the difficulty in obtaining information from this government is not limited to order paper questions. We have brought to the Speaker’s attention the difficulties members have experienced under freedom of information legislation, our frustration with this government’s reluctance to deal with estimates and our concern with various ministers using translation delays to withhold reports. Yesterday we asked questions about delays in ministers tabling annual reports.

Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that standing order 88(d) states: “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days... .” As of six o’clock last night, this government has failed to meet the deadline for responses under standing order 88(d) for my order paper questions dealing with the capital budgeting for the ministries which I critique. These order paper questions deal specifically with the financial administration of this government. They deal with ministry budgets of this government for the past two years. I will not read the whole of these order paper questions into the record at this time, but I do have copies of them here. They are order paper questions 283, 294 and 303.

This government has failed to provide adequate opportunity for opposition parties to scrutinize ministry budgets under the estimates process for the last two years, as outlined in the standing orders. Now they have failed to respond to what I believe are very responsible and legitimate questions about this government’s financial administration. This government’s disregard for the importance of the estimates process and its now blatant disregard of our legitimate requests under standing order 88 indicate to me that this government is either not interested in being accountable for its expenditures or is deliberately avoiding accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I know you cannot force ministers to give quality responses to order paper questions, you cannot force them to table reports and you cannot force them to answer freedom of information requests. But you must have some power which will force members to abide by the standing orders. Will you or will you not enforce standing order 88(d)?

The Deputy Speaker: I note your objections.

As we all know, the standing orders have been prepared by and for all the members of this House. I can only encourage the ministers to help everybody respond and to respect all standing orders, including 88(d). I think it has been noted before that I personally cannot, as Speaker, make sure and guarantee that this will be done. I can only encourage the government to respect standing order 88(d).

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am anxious to comment briefly on the intervention of the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), who knows perfectly well that it is, for example, the intention of myself later this afternoon to refer the matter that is troubling a number of members in this Legislature, as to the relationship between the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and members of this assembly, to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. He knows that. He will be happy to hear me repeat that in the presence of his colleagues.

He will know that we have responded, I think very effectively, to the vast majority of the increasingly numerous requests, particularly from the third party, in so far as order paper questions are concerned. I think there are a few occasions where we have in fact even resorted to the language used by the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague), who, in an earlier role, served as Chairman of the Management Board and, in dealing with a flurry of requests from ourselves while we were in that place, indicated -- and I think quite properly -- that there were a number of avenues open to honourable members in terms of securing information.

The evidence that I have put before this chamber in recent times as to the compliance of the government with respect to the order paper requests, I think, is quite good, although admittedly not perfect. I will redouble my efforts respecting the time-honoured tradition and the standing orders that all honourable members are entitled to as much information as we can possibly provide, although I would indicate to my friend from Parry Sound that it is certainly his understanding and the practice of this assembly that members have a wide range of opportunities to elicit information from the executive council.

1400

I would say in conclusion that his request and the one often put, in sometimes more vigorous tones, by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) that we get on with estimates is something that we are quite prepared to honour, notwithstanding the concerns that other members in the opposition have identified as to how we might do that.

I am quite prepared to do everything I can to ensure that the compliance is 100 per cent, and I encourage my friends, particularly in the third party, to chat perhaps with the member for Simcoe West and to look at the wide range of possibilities they have for the extraction of information, not the least of which, of course, is question period.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think that you, as one of the presiding officers, must understand the frustration that the opposition parties are experiencing. We have the opportunity to put questions on the order paper and expect replies, which is not happening. We have the opportunity to do estimates in committee, which is not happening. It did not happen last year, because of the election, and then it did not happen because of the legislation that had to be referred out to committee.

Then we had a commitment from the government that this time it would seriously review the aspects of the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly on changing the rules, which had not been implemented in the last go-round. The House leaders met, and that whole report has been put aside and has not been dealt with in this session of the Legislature. That report, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, made suggestions on how estimates and budgets and policies of ministries could be more adequately and more thoroughly dealt with, as has been recommended by the auditor of this province as well.

None of the avenues that the opposition parties have attempted to take to do their job appropriately and to hold this government accountable have worked. The government completely stalls and does not give answers to the opposition parties. All I can say is, we will be adjourning this place in a couple of weeks, but come the fall, when we come back to this place, if there are no changes in the rules to deal more adequately with estimates and to get answers to these questions, then I expect that every hour of estimates will be dealt with in committee and we will get answers, one way or the other, out of the government. We are not going to continue to do government legislation in committees and in the House and not get real answers to legitimate questions. It just cannot continue to operate this way.

The Deputy Speaker: As the Speaker, I can only reiterate that I cannot guarantee that any or all of the members will respect all of the standing orders at any time. I think I am very well placed to be able to state this. I can only repeat the invitation to all members, but in this particular case to the ministers, to make sure that the provisions of the standing orders as we have them right now are fully respected.

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise on a point of order under standing order 88(d). I appreciate the honourable mention I keep getting from the government House leader about how I responded to questions when I was Chairman of Management Board. I feel sorry for the people over there, because they accepted the way I did it. The problem I have now is that my colleagues on this side will not accept the way the Liberals are doing it. That is the message we want to get across to them.

The text of my point is exactly the same as that read into the record by the member for Parry Sound. The two questions that we are talking about in my case are questions 280 and 300. I will send copies of those to you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we will get better treatment from this large majority government.

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to rise as well on a point of order under standing order 88(d). I too have had three specific order paper questions standing in my name under numbers 302, 287 and 282. These are substantive matters dealing with the budget.

In light of the fact that we have not been meeting to discuss estimates, in particular those of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the reluctance to provide that information to the opposition in this House has made our job next to impossible at a critical juncture with respect to university funding in this province, and we would ask the Speaker to be sensitive to the point that is being raised in the House today. On behalf of the Council of Ontario Universities, I too wish to get that on the record.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Also under standing order 88(d), with reference to questions 313, 311, 296 and 293, which I will table with you right now, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I think we have to be clear under 88(d) that what we are raising concerns about is not the quality of the answer, although we have grave concerns about the quality. What we are talking about specifically is that some form of acknowledgement that the question existed has to be given in 14 days.

It does not have to be answered. An interim answer can be filed saying: “Thank you, we got your question. We will answer it in 35 years.” That meets the standing order. That is not acceptable to me and I do not think it would be acceptable for the government to answer that way in other forums, but the standing orders are the standing orders.

Quite frankly, we have brought the 14 days to your attention a number of times. We have had the response from you, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot enforce the standing orders.

We elect you to enforce the standing orders. If you cannot enforce 88(d), are you abdicating all responsibility for all the rest of the standing orders?

I understand that the Speaker’s role is one whereby a number of people assume the Speaker’s chair, but I ask you to review our comments today. I ask you to review my comments and seriously come back to us with a response about whether you think, as Speaker, you can in any way enforce the standing orders, because if you cannot enforce 88(d), then you are going to have tremendous difficulty enforcing any of the standing orders.

Mr. Speaker, we have put on the record, and I would ask you to review it as well, the information that was put on the record today by the member for Parry Sound about all the other methods that the government has used to frustrate the availability of information to members of this House, to the media and to the public. They are closing in. The net is closing on accessibility, on availability of information.

I ask you not to treat this matter lightly. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you may want to consult with others, but I do expect you to report back on whether you in fact think you are any longer capable of enforcing any of the standing orders.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I feel obligated to rise and respond in this respect on the point of order. I have listened very carefully to my friends in the opposition and I appreciate fully their concern for the information. I ask all honourable members to look at the questions that the honourable members draw our attention to.

Let me just say that as they look at those questions and as you, Mr. Speaker, reflect upon the information sought, if honourable members opposite want me, as government House leader, to afford time very, very quickly and very fully to examine the issues that those questions speak to, be assured, I say to my friends, that I will respond immediately and positively to a full examination of many of those issues that they seek.

If that is the request opposite, if they want an accommodation -- for example, immediate estimates time -- I am more than pleased here and now, on behalf of this government, in the spirit of accommodating their desire for information, to give them an immediate, full and positive response.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to assure all members of this House that the Speaker is always sensitive to respect for all standing orders, regardless of which one it is, regardless of the circumstances.

I would like to tell the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) that I shall reserve judgement and shall give him an answer later on.

This dossier being closed, as we had finished members’ statements and responses, it is now time for oral questions.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. We have a rather dramatic difference of opinion between the federal member for York West, Sergio Marchi, who was quoted as saying recently that Toronto has become an exclusive backyard for the well-to-do, and the views that have been expressed by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) and, indeed, the Premier: the Treasurer saying that Toronto is a world-class city, it is a great place to live and there is no problem with speculation, and the Premier’s own view that it is nothing but a sweet headache.

We now have the city council in Toronto and we have members, in fact of all three parties who represent Toronto ridings federally and provincially, talking about the need for a speculation tax. We have growing evidence of the impact that speculation is having on the market, evidence from experts whom I have quoted in this House showing that there is as much as $1 billion in a five-month period of purely speculative activity in the marketplace taking place.

I would like to ask the Premier what kind of evidence it is going to take for him to understand that the only effective way to take the heat out of the housing market right now is to introduce a speculation tax which will directly take money out of the pockets of those who are profiting, not from supplying a housing need but simply from flipping homes in which they never have any intention of living themselves?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I gather the honourable member has been raising this identical question every day this week with the Treasurer, and I am not sure I can enlighten the member opposite any further than the Treasurer has in the past. We have a number of housing initiatives undertaken at the present time and we think they are going to yield results. We do not think the member’s approach to the question would solve the matter.

Mr. B. Rae: It is hard to know what one can do with a government which has got a capital city in the province where you have to have over $80,000 in family income to be able to purchase a home and the entire personnel of the government seems to think that is OK, there is no problem.

What does the Premier intend to do? For example, let me give him two cases, two units. This is evidence from his own log book of the rent review agency, which shows that the building, for example, at 110 Maitland Street, which sold in May for $850,000, was resold a year later for $1.2 million. Another case at 599 St. Clair Avenue West, which was sold in July 1986 for $442,000, sold in August for $528,000 and resold in December for $925,000, an increase of 109 per cent. Both of these -- and we can pile them up; we have been piling them up for months on end -- all of these are resulting in applications to the rental review agency for increases as high as 40 or 50 per cent in one year. There is a backlog of 24,000 cases that have not even been heard.

Does the Premier not think it is time he changed the rent review law to kill the backlog and to make it impossible for people to claim the kind of economic loss and financial loss which is simply encouraging this kind of speculation in the marketplace when it comes to other people’s homes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think there is protection in there from those flips; that is in a section of the act, and I can say to my honourable friend that we are prepared to review any piece of legislation to make it more efficient.

Mr. B. Rae: All I can say is that if the Premier thinks that an act which guarantees a rate of return of 10 per cent just starting out for the indefinite future, a 10 per cent increase in rent for people, many of whom are on fixed incomes, is a fair system, then he has a very different definition of fairness from mine and that of members of my party.

I have a letter addressed to a member of my research department from a Mrs. Helen Farkas, who lives in Don Mills at 135 Fenelon Drive, apartment 1603, in which she describes her life in the apartment. She says:

“Speaking from my standpoint, I already pay two weeks of wages after taxes for rent and it is impossible to give any more, since somehow I have to survive. I am 55 years old and if I need a pair of shoes then I am forced to work overtime for it.”

That is going on at precisely the same time as some others in our community are debating about whether you can live on $327,000 a year. That is what is happening in the Ontario for which the Premier is responsible.

I would like to ask the Premier just what is he going to do to make sure that affordable housing is a reality for people who choose to live in this city?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend may want to focus on some of the positive initiatives undertaken by the ministry. We recognize that there is a problem, there is no question about that. That is why it has had the attention it has had from this government -- the Ontario home ownership savings program of the Treasurer and the use of government lands to build housing, 55,000 nonprofit units; there have been a number of announcements in that regard.

Although I regret to tell my friend I cannot deliver it in one day, I think that our program will bear a real dividend and, with any luck, will help people like the person he mentioned.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. B. Rae: I want to ask a question to the champion of civil liberties, who does not need any lectures from this party on this question because of his lifelong membership in the Civil Liberties Association of Canada.

The Deputy Speaker: Who may that be, please?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That’s me.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General. Together with many other people, I can express my profound concern that from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, the major impact of the summit conference being held in this city is to diminish his or her right to assemble and his or her right to participate in a peaceable demonstration.

I wonder if the Attorney General can explain why one of Ontario’s major expenditures and contributions to the summit is to plan two special bail courts, which will be sitting on a Sunday, in order to deal with a demonstration that is not allowed to take place on University Avenue because demonstrators are not being allowed to go down University Avenue? Can the defender of civil liberties explain why this is one of Ontario’s major expenditures during the time of the summit?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I very much doubt that I can explain anything that will please the honourable the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be out of sorts almost every single day we meet him, but I will do the very best I can, and if there is a supplementary I will be glad to try to respond to it.

The fact is that the summit, which is not being run by this government but by the federal government, has attracted a large contingent of federal security forces which are supplementing the efforts of our own local police to perform their duties as they do every day.

We are advised by the federal contingents that they anticipate that there will be a number of people who will commit breaches of the law. We do not know whether that is so, and it would certainly be most unlike life in Ontario to have it so.

The chief judge of the criminal court, confronted by that reality, said that in the event arrests took place he believed it was appropriate that a bail hearing should be held immediately, even on Sunday if necessary, so that such persons, if arrested by the federal or other forces, would be out on bail at the earliest possible opportunity and would not have to wait overnight until Monday when the cases would normally be dealt with.

He asked us if we could provide additional resources so that those bail hearings could take place on Sunday, and we did so. I believe it is important, as I know the honourable the Leader of the Opposition does, that if people are arrested by security forces, they should have an opportunity at the earliest possible moment to appeal to a judge for bail so that they can be released.

That may be -- I know the honourable member will not want to be cynical about it -- a civil liberties consideration. It is one I have, and I believe he has, squarely at heart: bail should be available at the earliest possible moment to anybody arrested.

Mr. B. Rae: It is a rather curious statement of this province’s priorities that its two major expenditures during this summit are for a fashion show on a Sunday night and for special courtroom facilities being made available in order to deal with demonstrations that are expected. This is the contribution of this government to the sense of the world that is available here.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And won’t do anything on South Africa.

Mr. B. Rae: And at the same time will not allow us to debate a resolution on South Africa where people are now imprisoned and threatened with capital punishment rather imminently.

I would like to ask the Attorney General, how does he feel personally about the fact that people are not being allowed to assemble down University Avenue on Sunday and are being prevented from carrying on a demonstration which at any other time of the year, and I would suspect, in London, Paris, or indeed any of the other capitals where these people are normally, demonstrations would be permitted. Why is it that when these guys get together, all of the basic rights which we are supposed to be celebrating in the western world suddenly disappear, all in the name of security? Why is that happening?

1420

Hon. Mr. Scott: The first part of the question has to do with what my honourable friend calls the major investment that my ministry has made with respect to the summit. The major investment to which he is referring is, of course, that we have responded to the request of the chief judge for extra funds so that we can ensure that bail opportunities will be available if anybody is arrested on Sunday.

I think that is important. I regard it as of major importance to ensure that if anybody is arrested, he or she be presumed innocent until he is tried and convicted and that he be allowed out on bail as quickly as possible.

In Ontario, we have traditionally provided that response on every Sunday of the year. What we are told by federal security forces is that the demand may be greater this Sunday. I hope it is not, but if it is, we want to be able to respond. I do not want any citizen of this country arrested, presumed innocent, and kept in jail overnight if he is entitled to bail under our law. I am not at all ashamed of doing everything we can to make sure that happens.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In my members’ statement, which the minister applauded, raising some of the similar concerns about the infringement on civil liberties, I raised some of the matters which are happening here on this front lawn on Sunday and on which we are putting in more restrictions than we have ever put on an assembly of people who wish to express a point of view.

We are saying that St. John Ambulance is not going to be allowed on the property. They may not have tables and chairs to put out their literature, etc., for people to see, because these could be used as weapons. That is what I was told, even though they will be miles away from the summit leaders, who will be in my riding harassing the Presbyterian population of the Fallingbrook Presbyterian Church, who will have to walk several blocks to church rather than park their cars there.

I wonder if I can ask the minister if he will please investigate the steps that are being taken around security in this place on Sunday to see if they cannot be loosened a little bit to make sure that the right to assembly is not infringed by the extra steps that we are taking.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very sensitive to the honourable member’s concerns, which are entirely appropriate and well-intentioned.

The properties that he is talking about are, of course, either owned or managed by the city of Toronto, in respect of the parks around this building, or the University of Toronto adjacent.

The honourable member will have seen yesterday that the University of Toronto complained to the municipal police, as it is entitled to do under our law, about interlopers or so-called trespassers in a tent city on the playing field adjacent to Hart House. As a result, the university made a complaint that led to a charge. All that, they are all entitled to do, and I will certainly inquire to see what circumstances the city decides to impose with respect to the property it owns.

The good news, if there be any for my honourable friend, is that the bill I had the honour to introduce last week, which was the amendment to the Trespass to Property Act, would, in effect, reduce the incidence in a significant way of the kind of matter that he is now concerned with.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE BARRIERS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier, and it relates to the ongoing matter of interprovincial trade barriers. The Premier may recall his statement to the first ministers’ conference back in November 1985 where he said: “It is well past time that all of us joined in a real commitment to reduce barriers in our domestic market. The first trade walls that must come down are those inside this country.”

I might state, by way of an aside, that I agree with the Premier’s statement as it relates to the reduction and removal of interprovincial trade barriers, but can the Premier perhaps reconcile that statement with the report in today’s Globe and Mail that Ontario is in fact refusing to remove interprovincial trade barriers in the pricing of wine?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not believe that is the case at all. What we are making sure of is a number of things: One, that this is not sort of a back door way of getting at the wine industry through the free trade agreement; and two, that we are completely prepared to work with anybody who is prepared to work with us.

My honourable friend will understand that -- and I assume he is referring to the Quebec wine industry -- that the Quebec wine industry is not an industry. The Quebec wine industry takes large bottles of wine from France, puts it in small bottles and calls it Quebec wine. It is really French wine. We do not do that. We have a large growing population here and production facilities here. The member may want to inquire why the Quebec wine industry, or the business of putting it from large bottles into small bottles, was exempted from the free trade agreement, but ours was not. That is an interesting question for speculation.

We are prepared to play absolutely fair with everybody who is prepared to treat us reciprocally.

Mr. Brandt: If everyone considered the removal of all of these barriers fair, by whatever criteria he might want to employ, we would not have any difficulty in convincing Quebec that construction workers from Ontario should be allowed to work in that province. We would not have any difficulties with respect to some of the problems of government purchasing, which, as the Premier well knows, is under very strict limitations in some provinces.

I want to say to the Premier that someone is going to have to break the logjam on this issue if, in fact, this is a priority for him and his government. He has indicated this in the context of his statements, indicating that to reduce trade barriers between Canada and the United States is, perhaps, of lesser importance and significance to him, and that his priorities really would be to reduce trade barriers across Canada. I happen to agree with that, as I stated earlier, but I want to know what steps the Premier is taking to make that reality possible in this country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think, probably, my honourable friend and I agree on most aspects of the question that he has raised. He points out a number of things that are worrisome to us. Other provinces have restrictive labour mobility legislation, we do not. I have gone to parts of this province and said: “Good Lord, look at all the people from other provinces moving in and taking our jobs!” We go to other provinces and our people cannot go there. I think it is not in the interests of the country. We have not responded to that and we do not have any restrictive legislation in that regard.

The member also talked about preferential purchasing policies. I know my friend is familiar with that. We do not have an Ontario preferential purchasing policy; we have a Canadian preferential purchasing policy that favours other provinces as well. We are one of the few provinces that has that, and we will continue. We have not responded in kind to some of the things that other provinces have done.

I think, if the member looks at the broad range -- and I am not suggesting that Ontario is perfect -- part of it is government and part of it is the systems we have developed, union systems and certain other institutions in society. But I think, on balance, we have far fewer than any other province. We have been pushing those discussions, as has the member, as one of the previous ministers and another of your predecessors. We have always believed in that from Ontario’s point of view

Are you asking me to give up something with no return right now? We are certainly prepared to provide leadership, but, on the other hand, it is a trifle naïve just to provide leadership when no one else is following along. I am trying to persuade my colleagues in other provinces that it is in the national interest to do this. We are prepared to work with them. We have been taking the lead and, indeed, have been doing so in a wide number of areas.

If my honourable friend has specific ideas that he is recommending, then I take them very seriously.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier is well aware that Ontario does not come to the table with entirely clean hands as it relates to this issue. That is not to say that we are the worst of the 10 provinces. Perhaps we are not the best, but I think Ontario, because of its size, because of the very pervasive kind of import that Ontario has with respect to all of the provincial economies, must show leadership.

I am asking the Premier: Since he has found considerable flaw in the free trade arrangement between Canada and the United States and has indicated that is not a doable deal because of problems, we now ask the Premier to show some leadership with respect to the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. I want to know what solutions he has come up with, what he is prepared to put on the table, recognizing that, in every negotiation since the beginning of mankind, people have had to give up something to get something. What is Ontario prepared to negotiate with? What is Ontario prepared to do? Is it the wine industry? Is it some other matter of concern that the other provinces have that he is prepared to negotiate with?

I ask by way of question, what leadership is Ontario going to show on this vital, critical issue? It is important to national unity. It is important, certainly, to Ontario.

1430

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s question. I always find it somewhat interesting how members of parliament get these dramatic changes in heart from that side of the House. Where was the leadership when he was in a position to provide it? I say to my honourable friend that we have provided leadership in that regard.

Ontario is prepared to treat every other province with complete reciprocity. We have not responded to a number of barriers that they have raised in the past, nor will we in the future. We want to see a dismantling of that. As the honourable member himself acknowledged, we have far fewer internal barriers than any other province, and we are prepared to show leadership in that regard, but I think we have to have some reciprocity in that regard.

With respect to the wine industry, we are prepared to treat any other province in the wine industry the same way it treats us. There is no problem in that regard. We are prepared to look at many other industries as well in that regard.

I can tell the member that he is quite right. For a number of reasons, largely inherited, Ontario does not come to the table with clean hands. But I can tell him that we have shown a great deal of leadership in pressing the national case, and we are trying to build a case for removal of internal barriers.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. By our calculations, the 2,400 redundant managers and others at Ontario Hydro identified by the Cresap report are costing the consumers of this province at least $140 million a year in higher rates. I am sure the minister will agree that this is an almost unprecedented waste of consumers’ money and must be stopped as quickly as possible.

Has the minister given Ontario Hydro a timetable to eliminate this massive haemorrhage of our dollars? When can we expect this waste to be down to zero dollars per year?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, in answer to the honourable member’s question, the Cresap report did not quote a figure of 2,400 excess managers. In fact, there are only 700 managers in all of Hydro. What the study did was examine one large branch -- the production branch -- and give, at the same time, an overview of the other branches.

What the study concluded was that there are some branches that are overstaffed and there are some branches that are understaffed. In the case of the production branch, the excess staff was approximately 450, and these people would be best deployed in the understaffed branches and areas.

There is a plan, which would take between one and three years to implement, depending on the nature of the backgrounds of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Runciman: The minister has chosen to play word games. This report says 10 per cent of the corporation’s staff. The corporation’s staff is 24,000.

The Ontario Energy Board, in its 1987 report, expressed concerns along similar lines. His comment is really reinforcing a growing perception that the minister is no more than a spokesman for Ontario Hydro. The clock is ticking at $140 million a year, and we need some firm goals and some firm dates now.

Does the minister have a specific plan to eliminate the massive waste at Ontario Hydro of our dollars, and what is it?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The honourable member has asked several questions in his supplementary. First of all, the Cresap report: These are people who are in the consulting business, who specialize in looking at utilities. They simply said that, based on their previous experience of looking at other utilities, this utility could have as much as 10 per cent of its total workforce that might have to be moved.

The other question that the honourable member asked was with respect to a specific timetable, a specific plan. I have seen some plans that, as I indicate, map out a procedure whereby these people can be deployed.

Let me say, finally, that the government has been asking Hydro to improve its productivity for a while now. The opposition members have also done the same thing, and I am pleased that Hydro, in its own internal studies, has recognized the possibility that it could improve its productivity. This study simply confirms that. There is a plan in place.

Mr. Runciman: This is a classic case where a qualified, independent outsider is needed to clean up the situation. I guess as a former chairman of the standing committee on public accounts I would tend to suggest the Provincial Auditor as someone we could have come in and determine whether the plan or plans that the minister is talking about to cut waste are the best possible and to make sure they are implemented effectively.

Would the minister support the Provincial Auditor’s evaluating Hydro’s plans to eliminate this waste?

Hon. Mr. Wong: In view of the fact that the Ontario Energy Board is currently reviewing the Cresap productivity plan and in view of the fact that the board allows for public input and special interest input, I feel that the matter is being adequately aired.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Mr. Farnan: It appears to me that the forced resignation --

The Deputy Speaker: To whom are you asking your question, sir? To whom is the question addressed?

Mr. Farnan: The Minister for Tourism and Recreation. It appears to me that the forced resignation of Mr. Morris as president of the Ontario Lottery Corp. is just another measure of damage control on the part of OLC and the Liberal government.

The minister will agree that it totally undermines the public confidence in the lottery system in Ontario when tickets have to be withdrawn because of flaws in the system. Will the minister attempt to restore public confidence in the OLC by immediately announcing a public inquiry into the management, procedures and operations of OLC?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: First of all, may I say to the member for Cambridge that I appreciate the fact that both he and the reporters from the Sun newspaper brought this matter to our attention so that it could be resolved and, I feel, solved.

I will say that the resignation of Mr. Morris was asked for this morning, and that will be proceeding. But I can tell the member that it is our intent to maintain the confidence that should be with the Ontario Lottery Corp. It is a very important corporation, which generates a lot of income for a lot of very worthy causes that this government supports, and we will continue to go forward with the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Mr. Farnan: It is reported in the Sun newspaper today that the American company that tests lottery tickets for OLC could not replicate the X-ray tests that found the Money Match and Double Dollars tickets to be flawed. Now we find that OLC may be going outside the province for the printing of Wintario tickets, and Lucky Match instant lottery tickets are being printed in the United States. Indeed, other instant tickets, in time, will be cracked, because now people know that it is possible.

Given the track record of OLC’s experience with the failure of US testing methods and the questions being raised by the public about the overall credibility of the OLC lotteries, to ensure that confidence remains it is not sufficient simply to accept the resignation of the president. The only way to do this, I put to the minister, is through a public inquiry. I would ask the minister again, will he please restore the confidence of the public of Ontario in the OLC by having a public inquiry and clearing the air once and for all?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, I feel that the confidence of the public is there and will remain. I might mention to the member that when he was talking about the two games that were withdrawn and the one that was not, the Lucky Match instant game tickets, which are still on the market, are printed using a nonmetallic dye, unlike the Money Match and Double Dollars tickets, which used a metallic dye; that is why the numbers could be recognized.

Ongoing sophisticated testing indicates that Lucky Match tickets are secure and that the instant game products are significant contributors to lottery profits.

1440

CONDOMINIUM REGISTRATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Condominium owners face six months to a year before they can register their units; or in fact, if they own their own units, they are forced to be tenants until registration occurs. Could the minister tell this House what the current backlog is of owners awaiting registration and what measures his ministry is taking to speed up this process?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am just checking. I do not have quickly at hand the level of the current backlog. I do not believe that any delays are necessarily being created by our ministry. If my friend is suggesting that, I am sure he will give me some specifics in a supplementary and I will be happy to look into them.

Mr. Cousens: First, it would be good if the minister could give us what he thinks the backlog is. Certainly those people who are part of the backlog are in a very helpless situation, especially when their units have not been fully completed.

A committee of owners from the Observatory condo complex in Richmond Hill has requested the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada to look at the needed repairs and the completion of items in their condominiums. But HUDAC officials are refusing to do anything for them until there is a copy of the land transfer title before they will investigate it and before they will follow up on it.

How does this procedure, with owners having to have the land transfer title in their hands and on the other hand HUDAC having to wait for that before it will do anything, begin to solve their problems? Is this not something that is inequitable and something he could do something to correct?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the honourable member raises a good point. I will look into the specific situation and get back to him on it. But the member should know, and I am sure he does, that the Condominium Act is one of a number of pieces of legislation we have been reviewing on quite a high-priority basis.

There is no doubt that there has been a veritable explosion all over the province, but particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, of condominium units over the last few years. It is our estimate that we will have some 300,000 by the end of the decade. That being said, certainly our legislation does not reflect some of today’s present realities. The member raises a point on which consumers do not appear to be adequately protected. Certainly that is among a number of issues which we are addressing and seeking answers to.

HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As the minister will recall, last year was not a good year for the sour-cherry growers in Niagara.

In view of the concerns of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association over the free trade agreement, could the minister provide this House with an update on the status of the long-promised amendments to the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, otherwise knows as the CAPS Act, that are needed to safeguard Canada’s horticultural industry?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. From the alleged $30 million that the federal government will spend to sell the free trade agreement across Canada, it has made many promises. One of these promises was to redraft federal regulations on bulk containers and consignment selling in order to maintain Canada’s orderly marketing arrangements for the horticultural industry.

I regret to say that no action has been taken to this point in time on behalf of the federal government to address the very real concern that the horticultural industry has about the reinstatement of the CAPS Act. So as it now stands, the horticultural industry in this province and throughout the country is left undefended by the federal government, despite the many pleas that have been made by the industry and by this minister that these pieces of legislation be passed and enforced.

Mr. Dietsch: Growers cannot continue to withstand the federal government’s lack of concern in the Niagara area. Would the minister indicate what he will do if there is no further action on these federal legislative changes before July?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the honourable member knows, the authority for these specific pieces of legislation rests solely with the federal government. I wish it were otherwise. I wish the provincial government would be able to pass legislation to protect the industry but, unfortunately, we cannot. About all we can do, and it is what we and the industry have been doing for some time now, is to make as much contact as possible, by way of telephone and correspondence, with the federal government to make sure that it does put in place this kind of legislation and that it does enforce it.

As a matter of fact, I just recently sent a telegram to my federal counterpart, again encouraging him to fulfil his promise to Canadian horticultural producers. Indeed, I will see that this matter is raised at the agricultural ministers’ conference which will be held in Toronto in July. I hope to have a full-blown discussion on this issue as well as on free-trade-related issues. We will certainly be doing our part to make sure that the federal government protects the horticultural industry as well as other supply-managed commodities, as it promised to do when its members went around this country trying to sell the free trade agreement.

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

Mr. Mackenzie: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to go back to the Treasurer. The Treasurer and the Premier received correspondence yesterday from the Canadian Auto Workers which informed them that the press release it had just received from Peat Marwick confirmed what the union was told by a confidential source: The Park Corp. offer to purchase and operate Massey Combines in favour of breaking it up had been turned down.

The union pointed out the tragedy this was for hundreds of Massey workers and specifically asked the Premier and the Treasurer: “I would request of your government, a meeting be set up immediately with the representatives of the receiver, the federal government, our union and Park Corp., who to the best of our knowledge has submitted the only bid which would keep the facility intact, manufacturing combines, balers and other farm equipment in Brantford and providing jobs for long-service Massey workers. We request your immediate attention and await your reply.”

They have been trying to get a response since this was sent yesterday. Can the minister tell us whether or not he is going to arrange such a meeting?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is aware that the receiver is appointed by the court and his recommendation is to the court. That recommendation, as far as I know, has not been delivered to the Supreme Court, and it will not be for a few days. It would be open, presumably, for those people interested in this particular matter to make recommendations to the court at the time. I think that is the suitable time in which these discussions might go forward.

I want to make it clear that as far as this government or the government of Canada or anyone else in the Brantford community is concerned, we want to do everything we can to see that the property is put back into productive utilization as soon as possible. Certainly any offers would have to be considered by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I believe that is the case.

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not think that precludes the minister from calling some of these interested parties together. It is urgent, and they are asking him specifically to do that, as I did two days ago. They would like to know whether or not he is prepared to do that.

As I am sure the minister is aware, there is a large demonstration occurring now outside the office of the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann), and at that demonstration, some of the retirees, as well as the employees, are going to be calling for a judicial review. Is the minister prepared to get the parties together to save this facility while there is still a possibility?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Myself, the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and obviously the member for Brantford are prepared to meet citizens’ representatives of any group whenever it is mutually convenient. But I also want to make it clear that the elected member for Brantford has put his views publicly and before myself as Treasurer, and has passed them on to other members of the cabinet. We will certainly review those recommendations, as all members would hope.

ROAD CULVERTS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. The question relates to the increasing danger posed by deteriorating pipe-arch road culverts. The minister may know that there were injuries in the Oxford-Middlesex area where a pipe arch collapsed under two cars and that in my own riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry we have had to spend almost $500,000 to repair pipe-arch culverts that could be a possible danger. Can the minister report on that?

1450

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member would be aware that with our supplementary program over the last couple of years, bridges -- and bridges are defined as culverts or any other structure of that calibre -- have been of primary importance. We have some 15,000 of those structures throughout the province. I would venture to say that a number in eastern Ontario, certainly in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the riding of Prescott and Russell, have been addressed in the past two years. I would be happy to provide the member with exact details, both of the locations and the dollars spent. It is an area of priority that we consider number one, that is public safety where bridges and bridge structures are in disrepair.

Mr. Villeneuve: I appreciate that answer. However, the minister will be aware of the existence of a report, and I will quote from this report, “At least 180 pipe-arch culverts in Ontario are so seriously in distress they could fail within a three-year period.”

Will the minister agree to ensure that his officials contact municipalities, particularly the smaller municipalities, establish where the hazards are and report to both the municipalities and this Legislature where the problems really are?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We have asked for federal assistance in a number of areas, including the rebuilding in the country of this provincial infrastructure.

I can recall my last visit. I visited, I think, 39 municipalities in the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry on one particular trip. Those things were brought to our attention, and we are working on them. We consider them of paramount priority in this ministry.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have risen many times to confront the minister with the ongoing crisis in visiting homemaking for our seniors and disabled citizens.

Today, the minister has released a report of the interministerial committee on visiting homemaker services which says it all over again. A critical table in the document makes it plain that in the evaluation of key-job compensations, visiting homemakers are the lowest paid of all of those who serve in key-job sectors.

The major conclusion, if I might read it, is that “increasing homemakers’ wages” -- and the committee suggests at least $7 per hour plus 20 per cent benefits, agency scale and regional variations – “is the single most important factor in ensuring the ongoing viability of the visiting homemaking system.”

Will the minister, in the light of this report and its clear recommendations, immediately implement its recommendations and make them retroactive to the fall of 1987, the date originally targeted for the implementation of the recommendations of this committee’s work?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, we have had this report for several months and have been reviewing ways of trying to address the major recommendations, and certainly the major recommendation with respect to wages. I do not quarrel with that recommendation. I have indicated to the honourable member, as he has just indicated, through several previous questions that we are attempting to find ways to find the resources to meet it.

The honourable member will be aware of the fact that my colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is responsible for about 60 per cent of the homemakers who are used in the province, primarily through the home care program, and my ministry about 40 per cent. We have had ongoing joint negotiations between the two of us as to how we find within our current ministry budgets the necessary resources to do this. I expect that within one month we will be able to make a public announcement with respect to that.

Mr. Allen: I do hope that means action will follow and not just some other kind of response. The minister is soliciting responses from the field at this point in time. Of course, the visiting homemakers have been responding and responding, not only over the length of this committee but also over the previous period of time, in order to get some action from the ministry.

If I might take one example from the observations of the report with respect to why action is so urgent, namely, that there is no training going on for visiting homemakers despite the urgency of and the key function that they perform. In that regard, the study says quite clearly and frankly that the homemakers lost their training status under the Canadian Jobs Strategy because the low wages afforded by the ministry funding levels made it “an undesirable profession.”

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Allen: I repeat my question. When the minister stands to respond in, say, a month’s time, as he seems to indicate, will he in fact be acting on the principal recommendation in this report, which will be to clear the logjam with respect to wages in the system and to peg them at the levels that are indicated in this study?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is correct that our distributing this document to the people who are most affected by it, particularly the agencies in our various communities, is not intended to clarify the recommendations. They are very clear.

I do have one responsibility, however. As he will note in the first two or three pages, there were considerable numbers of individuals who contributed to it. They have not had an opportunity to see the entire document, and if they wanted to make some input within 30 days, I felt I had a responsibility to permit them to do so.

The difficulty we have with the training component is in the report itself, and I am referring to page 29. The report indicates that the range of activities most frequently carried out includes personal care, housekeeping, meal preparation and laundry ironing. We have some disagreement with our agencies and ourselves as to how much further training is required to carry out those kinds of tasks. Someone has suggested, for example, that the providers need a community college training program. We do not think that is necessary.

What we have to agree on, though, is what is required. Until there is an agreement on that, we are not prepared to launch that training program. We accept our responsibility to work with our providers to do that. It is unfortunate that the federal government has backed out. I understand their reasons. We will try to get them involved again. If they are not, we will accept the responsibility.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister explain what he meant when he told the Orillia Packet and Times newspaper on June 10 that his ministry is willing to help Catulpa-Tamarac Child and Family Services reassess its budget allocations but cannot provide more funding to meet the 25 per cent wage increase worked out last year before the offer was withdrawn by the social service agency’s management?

Apparently, management and the ministry officials have been meeting. Can the minister bring us up to date on what is taking place in those negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is fairly obvious that what management and staff at Catulpa-Tamarac would require from this ministry is simply more money in the pot. I have indicated very clearly that my budget limitations provide me with an opportunity to increase the budgets of all 1,800 agencies across this province that we work with by the rate of inflation. I simply do not have more money than that.

What I indicated we would be prepared to do, however, is to sit down with management to go over their budget with them to see if there is some way we could work with them to reallocate some of the elements within that budget if it would be of some benefit in their negotiation process. That is not to say that we are going to put more money into it, but can we work with them to see whether or not reallocation is possible. I do not know whether it is. We are simply offering that service.

Mr. McLean: I thank the minister very much. I am curious to know if he will take the time to have his staff sit down and discuss it with them to try to draw this dispute to a conclusion. Over 600 units are being affected there, and it is all right to say that we are willing to do it, but I would like to know, and I know they would love to know, when the minister will direct his staff to make sure this dispute is settled.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I concur with the honourable member that the 600 people who were served by Catulpa-Tamarac are the most important in this whole discussion. Even the staff who are currently on strike would agree with that.

I am also very pleased at the responsible attitude that Catulpa-Tamarac has taken in terms of providing in other ways a range of alternative services for many of those people. Certainly we in our Barrie area office are prepared to do what the member asks. I will contact my officials there again to determine what has already been done and to determine what else we are able to do. We will help in any way we can to try to settle this one.

1500

AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the recent Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development report which indicated that Canadian agriculture subsidies are comparable to those of the European Community and that both Canada and the EC are supporting their farmers more than the United States, will the minister comment on this report and clarify the OECD estimates of government subsidies to agriculture?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: These questions by my colleagues, the earlier question by the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) and this question by the member for Essex-Kent, are excellent questions. It makes me wonder just who the real Agriculture critics are.

Mr. Villeneuve: So was mine yesterday, and you didn’t answer it, Jack. So where’s the minister?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I answered the member’s question three or four times.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would dearly love to respond to the interjection by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) who has a mindset on one question.

As the member for Essex-Kent knows and as many farmers in this province know, world farm subsidies are plaguing international trade in agriculture, and I was very interested to read the estimates by the OECD. While there are some similarities in the levels of subsidies to agriculture in Canada and the European Community, it is incorrect to say that Canada spends as much as Europe.

I had anticipated that this kind of question might come from my opposition critics across the way, so I came here with some facts. Mr. Speaker, you might be alarmed to hear some of these facts.

In total, Europe spent roughly C$37.3 billion in 1987 compared to $22 billion for the United States and only $3.4 billion for Canada. This does not include transfers from European consumers in the form of higher prices for consumer products. The EC subsidies result in a metric tonne of soybeans being priced at $760 in Europe, compared to only $254 in Canada; and for corn, the European price tops $261 per metric tonne compared to about $85 per tonne in Canada.

This is one of the key reasons Canada must insist that the world’s leading nations address the agriculture subsidy dilemma at the upcoming economic summit here in Toronto.

Mr. McGuigan: I thank the minister for those details. Can he comment on the effect on Canadian agriculture, and more specifically confirm that the nature of the support to agriculture in Europe has led to severe capitalization and other high increases to input costs?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I will try to respond to that in six minutes.

The member is absolutely correct that there are numerous differences between Canadian and European farm subsidies. Our subsidies are less harmful than the subsidies in the European Community and they are very different. For example, the European Community subsidized its exports to the tune of $15 billion in 1987, almost 40 per cent of the community’s agricultural budget.

These subsidies, without a question of a doubt, distort trading patterns. Most important, I have to say that these subsidies do not necessarily benefit European farmers. In Europe, the benefits of price support have been directly capitalized into land values, making land gradually more expensive. In contrast --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Let me say that, in contrast, Ontario agricultural policies are designed to stabilize farm incomes over the long term through such programs as tripartite stabilization, which is not capitalized into land values. There is where the differences in our programs are.

Our programs are also designed to address short-term and long-term and intermediate-term problems. Canadian and Ontario programs are generally designed to limit the risk of benefits being capitalized into land, prices of technology and other input costs. There are the differences.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the Minister of Agriculture and Food wants to make a statement with respect to his portfolio, there is a time and a place for that in this House. To have a setup question and a setup answer that he reads out of his briefing book is an insult to this Legislature during question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: It took him five minutes to complete that little exchange.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the leader of the third party that I do not believe the time involved was nearly of the kind that he mentioned; but I just do make the point in speaking to the point of order, I say to the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague), that we notice on this side that lengthy preambles are certainly not entirely foreign to the opposition either.

The Deputy Speaker: New question, the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: It is always difficult to follow a clown act.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Will you tell the clown to sit down, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Point of order?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yes, speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to say that the truth sometimes hurts.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will we proceed with the next question?

Mr. Laughren: You are a jackass, my friend.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the member withdraw that?

Mr. Laughren: I will withdraw the statement. I should have used the word “clown.”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is unparliamentary. Will you withdraw that statement, please?

Mr. Laughren: I will withdraw it until I can think of a better, more appropriate insult.

PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development, and I gave him a day’s notice on this, so I expect a decent answer. Two years ago, the Minister of Northern Development commissioned a study into the viability of a fertilizer plant in northern Ontario using the sulphur dioxide from the smelters in the phosphate deposits near Cargill township.

The report that was commissioned indicated that it was a viable project but that a further study needed to be done. Would the minister bring us up to date on how much money he has spent on that second study and give us a progress report on that second study which has clearly been asked for by that commission?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Monsieur le Président, je tiens à remercier le député de Nickel Belt de sa question.

First of all, I would like to say that this report came in officially in September 1987. It was deposited and studied and then after that we had some public meetings on it in Kapuskasing and in Timmins, and the people from Sudbury were invited.

At that point, when the study was made of using the Cargill phosphate deposits in the Timmins area, this will cost about $80 million if we produce phosphate in Timmins, which will be a return of 15 per cent on the investment for the mine and 13.5 per cent on the plant.

At this point, after we had some public meetings, I am waiting. I have not spent any money yet on the other study, because the government has to work with private industry for the second study. I am waiting for this. Timmins was ruled out at the Timmins meeting because the sulphuric acid is sold for the next 10 years. I told the people from the ministry to update the report and to look at Sudbury too. The consultant said that the other place should be looked at, and I guess they were talking about Sudbury in that report.

1510

The Deputy Speaker: The time allocated for question period has expired.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate to add a couple of minutes to question period, given the prattling and rattling, and obviously things that were not points of order? Perhaps a couple of minutes might be appropriate. If you do not think that it is, I would ask for unanimous consent.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have no difficulty with another round of questions.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s Polsinelli for you.

An hon. member: Who said that?

An hon. member: I said it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Polsinelli.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Put it on the record clearly that he doesn’t want questions in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: We do not have unanimous consent.

Mr. Harris: I recognize that we did not get unanimous consent, which is one of the ways to add time. If, in your opinion, sir, as Speaker, you felt the question period time ought to be extended for some abuse, you have the authority to add two minutes to question period yourself. I suggest that you reflect on it.

The Deputy Speaker: The tradition is that I would ask for unanimous consent. If I do not have unanimous consent, I cannot go forward with that. I asked for unanimous consent and I did not get it.

Mr. Harris: I respect your advice, as always. You are saying you do not have the authority to do it. There have been occasions, probably 15 or 20 times in the past year, where the current speaker has taken it upon himself, when he felt there was an abuse of the rules of the place, to add time. I am suggesting to you that you do have the authority. If you do not agree with the one member who does not think there was an abuse, if you agree with the 129 who thought there was, I suggest you exercise that authority.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to make it easy for the House and repeat to all here gathered, that if honourable members would like to add two minutes to this question period, I would be happy to encourage that being done.

The Deputy Speaker: Therefore, let us add two minutes to the question period. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: My supplementary question to the Minister of Northern Development is: Given the fact that it was such a clear direction in that report that there be a further study done to determine the markets that would be available for the fertilizer, given the fact that Inco has to reduce its emissions by 265,000 tons by 1994, and given the fact that there is going to be demand for fertilizer and phosphate products by the year 1992, can the minister tell us why in the world he is sitting on this report and not progressing with a second report as requested?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I am not sitting on the report. It was made public at three meetings. We tried to get people interested in that report and we have not got any response yet. Still, I am not sitting on it, not like the member is sitting there. I am not sitting on that report and the member knows that.

Second, there is $80 million to $100 million involved. This government has no money to put in of that amount. If we are going to do it, we are going to do it with the companies in private enterprise. The government cannot do it alone because there were other plants before that which closed down. The member knows that himself. In the report -- it is marked on page 214 -- when we look at the other side, the owner said it may be attractive when all socioeconomic factors have been considered, and we are doing so.

OMAF NEWS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the minister who abused the House rules, the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Since I am going to have an opportunity for only the original question, I would like to ask him about the OMAF News.

I have looked over some of the Hansards of his comments in 1984 in respect of the OMAF News and his concerns about its being used as a propaganda vehicle for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am just wondering what his views are now. If members look at all issues in the recent past, we see the minister’s picture front and centre and the minister’s views on free trade. We do not see the positions of the official opposition or the critic from this party

Will the minister tell us now what his position is in respect of the OMAF News and how much it is costing the taxpayers to run this propaganda machine for his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As usual, the opposition members are incorrect. I read the OMAF News and I do not see my picture on the OMAF News all that often, mainly because I have asked that my picture not go on the OMAF News.

There has been a review done of the OMAF News. In other words, they surveyed a number of farmers to see if they wanted the OMAF News continued, and a large percentage of the farmers said they found the information very current and important to the farmers. They actually asked that the OMAF News be continued.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The two extra minutes allocated to the question period have now expired.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose Sunday openings, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

This petition is signed by 260 residents of Etobicoke and by me.

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

Mr. Henderson: I have another petition, which reads as follows:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario and urge speedy passage of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act. We believe that the emotional wellbeing of children with divorced parents will be significantly improved with the passing of this bill.”

That is signed by 90 citizens of Ontario and by me.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a whole bunch of petitions here from residents of the city of London, Ontario. I would like to read at least a good part of it into the record, because it is a new petition. It reads as follows:

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

“We the undersigned, citizens of London, Ontario, and surrounding area forward this petition to the provincial government of Ontario.

“This petition is a demand for an increase in the minimum wage to $6 per hour. Attached to this petition is a list of expenses for a single person without children who now earns wages at a poverty level.

“The provincial government increased the minimum wage by 20 cents an hour.

“There are no benefits for people who earn the minimum wage. You could, if you qualify, obtain OHIP assistance but that makes very little difference when it comes to buying food and clothing.

“The increase of 20 cents is almost insignificant and indicates that the government lacks compassion towards the working poor. These people who have chosen to work for minimum wage rather than collect welfare must have a great deal of respect for themselves and the people around them to do so.

“If you, as members of the government, cannot live on $4.55 an hour, how can you expect the people who pay your wages to do so? The people who sign this petition employ each and every government member with their tax dollars. You were elected to help the people of Ontario. We must provide people on minimum wage with the human dignity they deserve.

“By resolving this most important issue, there would be a significant decrease in the number of welfare and unemployment insurance recipients.

“At this time, some people on welfare and unemployment insurance receive more money than people who work for minimum wage. This provides them with no incentive to accept employment.

“I would like to quote our Governor General of Canada, who said in her annual New Year’s message, ‘Our land is rich; its future holds no bounds. Together we strive to consolidate our forces. Together we press on towards our objective, that of the common good.’

1520

“To increase the minimum wage to $6 per hour would be a big part of that common good. People earning minimum wage or just above minimum wage have lost all hope and faith in their government.

“We ask that you, as government officials, figure out how you could survive on $4.55 an hour. If it is impossible for you, as government officials, to afford the necessities of life on such a low income, then again, don’t expect the people who help pay your wages to do so.

“We look forward to a prompt and significant resolution to this most important issue. When will the poverty of working people end? Thank you.”

This petition has been signed by approximately 500 residents of London. I endorse it, I have signed my name on it and I present it to the government.

The Deputy Speaker: May I take this opportunity to remind members again that simply a brief statement of the nature of the petition would be more than sufficient.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor which says, in part:

“I would like to add my voice to the growing concern over Sunday shopping. I strongly oppose Sunday openings. My concern is not Sunday shopping; I am concerned about working on Sundays. I believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day. The decision to remain closed and to enforce closings must be made at the provincial level.” It is signed by Mr. Hammel at 1096 Welwyn Drive, Mississauga.

I have a second petition on the same subject, which I will not read in detail, in opposition to Sunday openings, over the name of Judy Beals at 1055 Shawnmarr Road. The same opposition to Sunday shopping is being expressed by Edna Fuller at 480 Lakeshore Road East.

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario against Sunday work. It is signed by 20 employees of Gardner Motors (Sudbury) Inc.

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

I agree with them and I have signed my name to this petition as well.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by nine people who are residents of the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale.

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

I have a similar, but much longer, petition which I have signed. It basically deals with the concerns about the possible erosion of family life as a result of the legislation introduced by the Liberal government and calls for the implementation of the report of the select committee on retail store hours. I have signed it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented the following report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Philip: I take pleasure, as the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, in introducing what I think is an excellent report.

On February 22, 1988, the standing committee on public accounts questioned officials of the Ministry of the Environment on the auditor’s findings of weaknesses in pollution control procedures and on the operations and deficiencies in administrative practices. After extensive questioning of the ministry officials, the committee has written this report which makes a number of recommendations.

The committee recommended that the ministry provide a comprehensive response within 120 days of the tabling of this report today outlining its acid rain monitoring activities; develop a formal system and criteria to analyse and prioritize complaints; integrate its inspection activities into this system; review the allocation of its staff to ensure that an estimated minimum portion of its resources are devoted to proactive environmental control activities; and give the highest priority to the implementation of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement; and in the interim strengthen its enforcement activities using existing regulatory instruments.

The committee also noted the ministry’s commitments to improve its administrative practices and requested that the Provincial Auditor review performance in this area as part of his next review of the ministry.

On motion by Mr. Philip. the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Miss Nicholas from the standing committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee’s first report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Miss Nicholas: I will take note that you said “brief,” Mr. Speaker. This is the first report of a new committee and I am pleased to present it today. I think I can say we worked well in a very nonpartisan nature and were very productive. We have a number of recommendations in the report, 16 in all, but a number of them are adopted from previous reports -- the 13th, 14th and 15th reports of the committee.

In fact, some of the recommendations have already been adopted by the government agencies, which have implemented them already. We have two outstanding cases that have to be dealt with by debate in the Legislative Assembly before they can be acted upon, so we hope it will be dealt with and proceeded with very quickly. I think I can say on behalf of all the committee members that we enjoyed our opportunity to present this report, to debate it and we look forward to its being debated in the House.

On motion by Miss Nicholas, the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Monday, June 20, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on energy be authorized to meet in the morning of and following routine proceedings on Wednesday, June 22, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

STATUS OF BILL PR49

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the order of the House of May 4, 1988, adopting the report of the standing committee on regulations and private bills with respect to Bill Pr49, An Act to revive Lebon Gold Mines Ltd., be rescinded and that Bill Pr49, An Act to revive Lebon Gold Mines Ltd., be recommended to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the House not meet in this chamber on Thursday, June 23, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) we will expect her and all of us to be here Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the matter of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its application to members of the Legislative Assembly be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for review and report.

Motion agreed to.

1530

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 159, An Act to provide for Municipal Taxes in Territory without Municipal Organization.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The purpose of this bill is to authorize the townships of Marathon and Manitouwadge to collect property taxes from the mining properties located in Hemlo.

The municipalities act as dormitory communities for the mines and, as a result, have experienced increased operating and capital costs. As members may know, these particular mines are located beyond the municipalities’ boundaries and do not currently contribute any municipal taxes.

The proposal contained in the bill has been discussed with both the municipalities and the mining companies. I think this legislation will resolve the relatively unusual situation which exists at Hemlo.

CHARLOTTE ELEANOR ENGLEHART HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I would like to bring the members of the Legislature up to date on what it is the House leaders have decided. As I indicated in today’s business schedule, there would be perhaps a change in the schedule. I would just simply like to report, and the table will circulate, the consensus arrived at in this morning’s House leaders’ meeting.

This afternoon we will conclude the debate on the second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, then proceed to second reading of Bill 114, the companion legislation, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act. The debate on the second reading of Bill 114 is expected to conclude this afternoon, but divisions related to these two matters will be deferred until Monday, June 20 at 5:45 p.m.

Then this afternoon, as time permits, we will proceed with second reading of Bill 138, An Act to revise the Weed Control Act, then on to committee of the whole on Bill 100, An Act to amend the Education Act, with any divisions there deferred again to Monday of next week at 5:45 p.m. Again, as time permits, this afternoon we will proceed to second reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Mining Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

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 I recall, yesterday we did not finish with the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), who was in the process of making his speech. He has indicated to me that we should consider that he has terminated his speech. There are no questions and comments, from what I can understand, so by the normal rotation process we would be going to --

The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt)?

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate the member for Mississauga West terminating and allowing me to have the floor at this time with respect to Bill 113, introduced by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) relative to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

I have listened to the debate very carefully in this House. For those moments that I was unable to be here I have, in fact, taken the time to read most, if not all, of the Hansard reports concerning the respective positions being taken by the various members of this House, and it appears quite obvious in listening to the position that is being taken by the government members that they feel, if you will, that the solution to the problem of controlling Sundays is what they have referred to as the local option, or local autonomy.

It is interesting that they should take that way out as it relates to Bill 113, because there is a vast body of opinion in Ontario, I say with respect to the Solicitor General and to her parliamentary assistant, that vehemently disagrees that the local option is the answer or the solution to what I agree is a very complicated and, I might say as well, a very controversial issue.

The Liberal position of passing on the option to make a decision in connection with whether or not a municipality will remain open on Sundays begs the question of what is the provincial responsibility in the overall maintenance, the overall retention of a certain style of life, a certain quality of life, a certain way of life that we have here in this province. It has been accepted in the past that the provincial government had both the responsibility and the authority to maintain control of Sunday as a particularly special day. That was confirmed by the courts and it has, in fact, been reinforced by the opinions and by the positions taken by a very large body of spokesmen from right across this province who are well known to virtually all members of this House.

It is interesting that, prior to the election on September 10, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made a statement -- of course, we did not have an election pending at that particular time, I do not believe -- I recall very clearly that the Premier made a commitment with respect to the whole question of Sundays in which he indicated that Ontario should continue to have a day of pause, a day of rest. We agree with that position, and I think if one were to ask the members on the government side individually what their positions are, a very large majority of them would agree with that position as well.

The question that we have between us, I say to my friends opposite, and the issue at hand is, what is the best way of handling this? I would remind the Solicitor General again -- and I will use it only once -- of an occasion when this option was proposed to her, prior to her being given this responsibility for this particular bill. She indicated without any equivocation whatever that to pass on to the municipalities the responsibility for controlling store hours and Sunday openings --

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: You know full well what I am going to say, because it is deeply embedded in the murky depths of your heart, sir, and you have great difficulty in answering away a rather precipitate remark on the part of the Solicitor General when she perhaps had just come out of those committee hearings, when she was very well entrenched in the view and in the opinion that Sundays should be preserved, and said, “Well, for the province to pass this on would be the chicken way out.” Now, all of a sudden, 94 of the members opposite no longer agree; 94 of them are consistent in the view that the Solicitor General was wrong then and is right now.

We happen to take the view -- and I believe I can speak, at least on this issue and relative to this particular point, for all of the members of the opposition -- that the Solicitor General was right before and is wrong now -- a complete reversal of positions. But I might add that the Solicitor General --

Mr. Ballinger: And you have never done that.

Mr. Brandt: There has been no reversal of position, I might add, in connection with our party’s position on preserving a day of rest and a day of pause on Sundays.

1540

What we have Madam Speaker then, is a very fundamental disagreement on how government carries out its responsibilities in connection with a matter that we think is of very critical importance to this province: namely, what happens to our Sundays in the future.

The government takes the position that the municipal option will solve all problems because it effectively washes its hands of the entire issue. The government does not know what is going to happen after the municipalities are given the responsibility for making this decision.

Mr. Haggerty: You don’t trust them.

Mr. Brandt: I trust the municipalities without any question. That is not at issue here. What is at issue is a province that says on one hand: “Yes, we agree Sunday should be preserved and should be in fact maintained for families and as a special, noncommercial day. We agree with that, but we are going to pass this on to the municipalities. Then in the future we’ll have absolutely no control over it, and we don’t really know what’s going to happen in the days to come as it relates to their decisions.”

Many of the members opposite who were municipal politicians -- councillors, mayors and members of school boards -- know full well that at a given moment in time, for various and sundry reasons that may come forward in terms of the pressure of the moment, perhaps because of economic interest, I do not know, but whatever those interests might be, these municipalities may well cave in.

Then we have the concern, which has been expressed by the municipal people themselves, and that is the domino effect will impact on this province.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What is the domino effect?

Mr. Brandt: What is the domino effect, the member asks, did he not?

Mr. Ballinger: We didn’t ask that at all.

Mr. Brandt: It was asked from this side of the House.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Brandt: Those who are interested in getting to the core of this question have asked me perhaps to amplify if I could, very briefly, the whole question of what the domino effect is. The domino effect, very simply, is that the pressure brought about by one municipality in deciding to open on Sunday will certainly have an influence on a neighbouring municipality.

Members opposite may not want to take my word for that, and that may well be the position they want to put forward as it relates to why they are defending the municipal option as the solution, but I want to tell them they are wrong. Maybe it will change their minds, although I doubt it, because they are so ironclad in their belief that in some way this municipal option is going to do the trick in terms of preserving Sundays in this province. They are absolutely wrong on that.

They are so firmly fixed in the belief that if they vote for this legislation, Bill 113, in some way the Premier will recognize their acquiescence, if you will, to party policy in toeing the party line, that they are not prepared to break ranks when they know full well they are wrong on this issue.

They are wrong because even the municipalities --

Mr. Ballinger: Who said?

Mr. Brandt: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Here is the hypocrisy of the government’s position. Listen to this hypocrisy.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia has the floor. Would the member please continue?

Mr. Brandt: I am so delighted we have a reincarnation of the federal rat pack here with us, those members opposite who have frozen minds on this issue who insist on interrupting any element of logic shared by this side of the House.

The question was asked, why I am right on this and who has said in fact that the municipal option will not work? The municipalities themselves have very directly said to the minister and to her government, “We don’t want the municipal option.”

Here is the hypocrisy of the position the minister is putting before this House today. The hypocrisy is very simply this: The minister would like to stand up and state, and many of her members have stated on numerous occasions, that the municipalities should have some local autonomy, that the municipalities should have the opportunity to make local decisions, and we on this side of the House agree.

But they did not ask for this particular responsibility: they did not ask for Bill 113; they did not ask to be put on the hotseat as it relates to making a decision on Sunday shopping, but the government has passed it on to them under the guise, if you will, of some form of local autonomy. I believe that to be a position which is hardly defensible in any way, shape or form.

Let me give you an idea, Madam Speaker, of the groups and the organizations which have stated very clearly their opposition to what the government is proposing to do.

First, we have organized labour, which has indicated it does not want the government to take this bill, pass it on in terms of responsibility to municipalities and then ultimately have open Sundays in this province which will force labour to work. It does not want that.

We have major church groups which feel that the very nature of our Sundays, the very quality of life we now enjoy in this province on a Sunday, is going to be very severely affected as a result of Bill 113.

Well, one can shake one’s head and say, “That’s not true,” but it is interesting that almost every major church organization of every religious denomination has come forward and indicated it is in opposition to what the government is proposing to do. Include them with organized labour, include them with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, include them, if you will, when --

Mr. Mahoney: They are not opposed to the bill; they are opposed to Sunday shopping.

Mr. Brandt: They have indicated they are opposed to this bill. I beg to correct the member on that.

I might add that those members who have any conscience whatsoever about the impact of this bill on small business may be interested to know that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has come out against what the government is proposing to do.

The government may be interested to know that the business groups in this province are virtually unanimous in their view that this particular bill is going to erode what we now enjoy as Sunday, a day of rest and a day of pause. That is what is happening.

In addition to all of those groups --

Mr. Fleet: Nonsense. You’re spouting nonsense.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: The members across shout “nonsense.” I want them to know that it is not nonsense when literally thousands upon thousands of petitions were presented to this House virtually every week over the past number of months from people stating they do not want the government to do what it is proposing relative to this particular bill. They do not want the government to do it.

What they have asked the government to do is to go about it a different way. If I may suggest this, I think it is irresponsible for an opposition just to stand up and say what it is against; I also think, in that context, it has to give the government some indication of what it is in favour of.

We happen to be in favour of treating this whole matter in a considerably different fashion from what the government is proposing to do. Certainly the present laws as they exist in this province are not as effective as they were perhaps one decade ago or two decades ago. There have been a number of individuals, a number of independent business interests which have challenged the current laws and have made them virtually unworkable in some instances.

On this side of the House, we have said: Do not throw out the law because some people are trying to find loopholes around the particular law which is in place at this time. Do not just reject the law entirely and throw it away. Find ways to strengthen the existing laws of this province. Find ways to maintain Sunday as we would like to see it maintained and as government members have stated and are telling their constituents they would like to see Sunday maintained: as a day of rest and a day of pause.

They continually go around the province preaching that particular gospel, yet they come back into this House knowing full well, my friends, that once this bill is passed, they have no control whatever over what is going to happen tomorrow. That then becomes the responsibility of another elected body: namely, a municipal council. They know that. What guarantee, what promises can they give to their constituents that they are going to fight for a Sunday that is not commercial? Absolutely none.

1550

That is the kind of guarantee they can give, because they have taken the easy way out on this whole matter and they have simply passed it onto another level of government. Well, I say shame. That kind of reckless behaviour, that kind of irresponsible decision-making on the part of this government is simply unacceptable to us on this side of the House. That is not the solution to the problem and it is not the way to solve the kind of difficulties that we are currently having with respect to open Sundays.

There are ways where an all-party committee could in fact co-operatively sit down and work out ways to strengthen --

Mr. Fleet: You haven’t got any proposals.

Mr. Brandt: We could strengthen the tourist exemption section of the current act. We could do that very simply. There are all kinds of retailers --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order, order. I would ask all members to recall that this is a time when there should be no interjections. The member for Sarnia has the floor. I would request that the member for Sarnia make his comments through the Speaker.

Mr. Brandt: The government has proposed now that this whole matter be sent to an all-party committee of the Legislature. By the way, we will agree with that, just so that they know that we do not oppose every silly thing they do over there. There are times when we agree that the government makes a reasonably good decision with respect to some matters, and this is one of them.

They have, in fact, taken the advice of the opposition and have indicated that they will go to the people of this province to hear their views. I want to say that I support the government’s decision with respect to that matter. I compliment them on doing the right thing in at least going to the people.

I want to predict, in advance of members touring in this particular committee and meeting with the people of the province of Ontario. I predict what will happen: They will have organizations, groups and individuals from across this province say very directly, first, that they disagree with the municipal option, second, that they feel that the provincial government is abdicating its responsibilities as it relates to controlling Sundays and the activities that go on on a Sunday and, third, that they want a day of rest and a day of pause. They are going to tell the committee that.

Working families, people from across this province, will come before that committee and will make it very clear that they disagree with what the government is doing. Government members can stand up and rant and rave and yell at those citizen groups when they come before the committee. That, of course, is their decision to make.

I only suggest that, when the committee starts travelling and when it does meet with the people of this province, I hope that it does not simply go through some form of window-dressing, some form of a sham of a committee, without listening carefully to what the people of this province want and without listening carefully to the input it is going to have with respect to what they want to preserve in terms of Sundays.

If the members of that all-party committee will listen carefully, the report that they will file back to this House will indicate that Bill 113 should be scrapped. That is what they will indicate. They will make it very clear that it is unworkable, it is the wrong way to go and it will, in fact, weaken the kinds of controls that we have over Sundays at the moment in this province.

So I would ask -- plead, if I might -- with the members of the government, when they are on that all-party committee, to listen, absorb, hear and respond as elected members of this chamber who were put here by their constituents to reflect their views. I say to the government that the people’s views are going to be very consistent, they are going to be very direct and they may even be somewhat harsh in terms of what they say. But they will make it very clear that they do not want Sunday shopping and that they do not want the municipal option in this province.

I want to say, on behalf of our party, that we intend to oppose Bill 113.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What?

Mr. Brandt: This may come as a shock, but after careful discussion within our caucus, evaluating the merits of the bill very, very carefully and looking at what we consider to be the sensitivities on this particular issue, our caucus has been totally unanimous in its objection to what the government is proposing to do. It is our intention to fight this particular bill and vote against it, obviously, when it comes before this chamber for final resolution. We intend to do that because we believe they are going about it the wrong way.

It is interesting to note that the author of this bill and the minister who has been charged with the responsibility is in fact the same minister who sat on the original all-party committee and heard a number of deputations and delegations come before that committee with respect to this very matter. At the end of all those hearings, at the end of all that input, this minister -- at the time a lowly back-bencher waiting for the call from the Premier’s office, waiting patiently by the telephone, walking in lockstep with all the members of the government, making sure she did not vote against the government on any sensitive issues, even though her constituents wanted something else -- this minister, at that time totally unshackled, totally unfettered with respect to any controls, and being a very bright, a very capable and a very able back-bencher, what did she do with respect to that report?

She signed a report that said -- are you ready for this, Madam Speaker? -- the same minister, I want to re-emphasize, the very same minister, now the Solicitor General but while she was more of a private citizen and reflecting the views of her constituents somewhat more accurately than perhaps she is today, signed a report that said we should retain a day of rest and a day of pause in Ontario. That was the bottom line, if one can believe that, of that committee’s report.

Mr. Philip: I was there when she signed it.

Mr. Brandt: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) says that he was there when that member signed it, so he is prepared to undertake to verify the signature of the minister.

Now, I see nothing inconsistent about that, I say to the minister’s parliamentary assistant, who is smiling in the back row, waiting for the opportunity to lunge forward and grab a chair that is a little closer to the front. There is nothing inconsistent about the position taken by that private member at that point, because it was her Premier who said he too wanted to preserve a day of pause and a day of rest in this province, and we all shouted with one voice: Alleluia! He in fact is going to carry the banner and he will go through the election on September 10 and he will fight, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) knows, as he has fought against free trade. He will fight to preserve Sundays in this province as a day of pause and a day of rest.

There happened to be some very fundamental change that took place in the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), a very fundamental change that took place with respect to the Premier’s position and, of course, now we have 94 members who are all marching to the tune of that one drummer, the man who sits in the front row directly opposite me and who serves as Premier of this province, who has said, and I am sure this has gone through his mind:

“This is a hot potato we cannot win with, because there are some people who would like to open up on Sundays and break the rules as they relate to provincial laws at the moment. We cannot appease that group. Yet there is a group over here that says it wants to preserve Sundays. How do we extricate ourselves from this dilemma? What do we do in order to keep the popularity of the current government? What do we do to get off the hot seat on this issue?”

Then the light went on in Hershell Ezrin’s office. Late one night Hershell Ezrin walked in and said:

“Premier, I have an idea. What we can do is to talk about the importance of a municipal option. We can talk about local autonomy and tell the municipalities what a favour we are doing for them. We will give them the responsibility and then what will happen, you see, is that all those local citizens, all those people who reside in those communities will say, ‘Mayor, why did you decide to open on a Sunday?’ and ‘Members of council, why did you allow the Sundays that we have enjoyed traditionally and historically in this province simply to be frittered away in some fashion without concern for what that will do for the quality of life in Ontario?’”

1600

Where will the provincial government be in all of this? They will be standing with their noses firmly pressed to the window, looking in and saying: “It is not our responsibility. We passed that on to the local municipalities.” I say to them that is not good enough; it simply is not.

The minister is abdicating her responsibilities as they relate to this issue, and she knows in her heart of hearts that either she is wrong now or she was wrong when she signed the committee report. She cannot have it both ways. She had to go through some kind of a metamorphosis. She had to go through some kind of change.

Mr. Eves: It was called appointment to cabinet, I think.

Mr. Brandt: My colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) reminds me this may have had something to do with an appointment to cabinet. I would not link it in that way. I do not think that is fair or reasonable, because I have nothing but the highest regard for the integrity of the minister. But I would like to say that something changed. Something changed in the position of both the Premier and the minister, and I would say that this something changed in the wrong direction.

Our party -- and I want to say this in a very serious way -- feels strongly about, first, the responsibility of the province in controlling the whole issue of Sunday activities. Second, we oppose the local option that the government suggests is the way out of this particular dilemma.

Third, we feel that this government, in whatever fashion it cares to bring forward some alternative legislation, has a responsibility to bring before this House workable legislation that will preserve Sundays as we have known them and as we intend to maintain them, if we can, as members of the opposition, since we plan to continue to fight what we believe is the wrong direction and the wrong decision on the part of this government.

I ask the minister, I plead with her, to review that legislation carefully, to go back and talk to her constituents, and not to simply tell them that this legislation does not force them to open on Sunday, not to look at it from the standpoint of belittling the intelligence of the people whom she was elected to serve.

I am not saying to her that because of Bill 113 any municipality is forced to open on a Sunday. I am not putting that proposition to her at all. I do say this, however: The government loses control as a provincial body. It loses control when Bill 113 is passed. Once having lost control, it then becomes a municipal option to make a decision.

Forget what I have said for the moment. Listen to the voice of the municipalities that have said very clearly that the domino effect will set in and the pressures will be on, economically and otherwise, to open up across this province.

The government will be helpless to do anything about it at that time, and that is the part that concerns us, I guess: not only that they are abdicating their responsibilities but also that they will be helpless to do anything about it. The province will have simply shunted this thing on to another level of government as though that level of government would be in a better position to make a decision with respect to Sundays than the government of Ontario.

I do not accept that argument, I do not accept that position, and our party does not accept that position. That is why we feel that we are speaking for the majority of the citizens of this province when we say very clearly and very directly that Bill 113 is wrong. The direction in which they are heading is wrong, and I just suggest to them, well in advance, that we intend to fight the direction that this bill is taking every single step of the way.

The Acting Speaker: My understanding is that there has been agreement with respect to the government House leader and all House leaders that there will be no 10-minute period for questions or replies. The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to participate in this debate. I want to say that it has been a long time coming and I very much appreciate the chance to speak once again in the House and to summarize the views that I hold on this issue and that my party holds on this question and to deal as well with at least some of the arguments that have been made in the course of the debate and to try to summarize them and respond to them.

Of course, they arise not only out of this particular debate but indeed out of many of the arguments that have been made. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) has been particularly energetic on this question in putting forward some views which I will deal with. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has been making his views known for a number of years on this question and, of course, we have had the views of the Solicitor General.

I am referring now to the 1988 version of the views of the Solicitor General because, frankly, one would need to have a complete case of amnesia not to recognize that the views of the Solicitor General have changed rather dramatically as her rise to power in the Liberal Party has evolved. There was a time when the Solicitor General had a very different view from the one that she is expressing today.

We all respect the right of members to change their minds. This is a long-honoured right among members of the Legislature, as it is among individuals. I think we are also allowed to point out precisely when these changes occur in the life of an honourable member.

I do disagree with one point that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party made. That is his attribution of the change of heart on the part of the Liberal Party to Mr. Ezrin. My analysis is somewhat different, because I can recall, not full-blown speeches, but small asides from the Attorney General, such as he is wont to make from time to time in the House, the occasional heckle or jibe or slight expression of unhappiness with a particular problem.

I do not say this in order to make members of the Conservative Party feel uncomfortable, but I can recall when there was some question as to what the position of the Conservative Party was going to be. The former member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, Mr. Grossman, raised, as leaders do from time to time, a small flag on this question of Sunday openings, which he had to pull down almost as quickly as he put it up. This happened to me more than once, so I do not mind it. I gather he lost the last election. I think he is doing a lot better, in some senses, than many of us. However, these things are all relative, depending on one’s definition of winning and losing.

But I can recall the Attorney General’s saying as long as three years ago, “Why do we have the same law in Toronto that we have in Orillia?” He raised the question of the local option, I think, in conversation with me but also in the House.

I say to the leader of the Conservative Party that my reading of what has happened is simply this. The Attorney General has, throughout the piece, had a view of what eventually should transpire. Other members of the government may have shared this view. I understand the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is one of the people who expressed this view in cabinet. I think one of the things that also happened is that apparently the officials went to the government after the last round of dealing with the question of the reform of the act and, in what I would regard as a rather haphazard manner, the government spokesman said: “Is this the best you can do? Can we get out of this? What is to be done?”

The answer was: “Well, if you can’t redefine or change the tourist option, then we’ve got to go to the local option. It’s the only way to do it.” Suddenly it became public policy. It was sprung on us as a well-thought-out position of the government of Ontario.

It was not well thought out. It is not a thoughtful approach and it is not going to work in the province, unless you really believe, as some members of the Liberal Party really believe, that in fact stores should be open on Sunday. What I want to suggest to the members of the Liberal Party is that they are not being very straightforward with themselves or the public in refusing to debate this issue as a question of what they think should happen.

I happen to know that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is obviously one who believes that it is a natural evolution of events from taking a streetcar on a Sunday in 1927, or whenever the hell it was, to going to a movie on a Sunday in 1943 -- and we had the long list of things that he read -- to now. In 1988, it is the modern and contemporary thing to do to have stores open on Sunday. It is what the modern yuppie family wants. It is what the trendy way of the world should be. This is what should transpire and this is what should happen.

If the government of the day had the courage to say that, I would say, fine, let’s have a debate on the question of whether Sunday should be a day which is a commercial day like any other day or whether we should recognize that one day of the week should be a day of common rest and common pause as much as is humanly and practically possible.

1610

I want to say very clearly that I will speak personally and also on behalf of my caucus because we are all of more or less the same view on this question with some varieties of opinion, as they are expressed from time to time within a caucus. I can say quite honestly I am not an ideologue on this question, nor do I come to it from a sense that Sunday is a common day of religious expression and that is the reason it should be preserved.

I have a much more practical sense as to why this issue is important and why it has assumed the importance that it has. It is simply this. We live in a world where more and more people are having to work longer and longer hours in order to make ends meet. Many of my constituents who 10 or 15 years ago would not have had to work are working now. Many of them are working longer hours than they were working 10 or 15 years ago. For that reason, the pressure to work on a Sunday and the pressure to be away from the family is growing all the time.

There is much sentimentality expressed in our culture about the family. I do not intend to engage in more of that than I absolutely have to. But I do think that if any of us were to ask ourselves what is the one institution in our society that we would want to try to sustain, as well as the rights of the individual, it would be the family. It would be our right and our chance or opportunity to be together, to spend time together and to spend time free from the pressures of the marketplace and free from the pressures of the commercial world, a time when we can be together. It is not only a value in our culture as Canadians. It is a value in the cultures from which many of us come. It is a value which has profound importance in a great many communities which make up the Canadian community.

If I can speak personally again, on a Sunday afternoon I can go and visit my constituents whose homes may have been in Italy or in Portugal or in many, many other parts of the world, but I will mention those two cultures particularly, and know full well that if I go there on a Sunday at 12 o’clock the whole family will be there. It is a family event. People come at 12. They stay until six or seven in the afternoon. The kids come. The grandparents are there. The whole family is together.

This is not a Norman Rockwell picture I am painting. It is the picture that I see in my constituency with my own eyes. They invite a person in. We have a glass of wine. We take some time. We discuss problems. If I am there to work out a particular problem, if I am lucky, I will get away in half an hour or an hour because the hospitality is extended and because it is a wonder to see the family come together on that day.

I am not suggesting for a moment that, were this law to pass, those events would no longer take place. What I am suggesting is that they would be made more difficult and restricted. Some members would be away because they were working, because they had to work, as is the case now. If one of them is a policeman or one of them works in a hospital or one of them works somewhere else, he does go away and is away.

Let’s not pretend for a moment that is not a burden. Let’s not pretend that is some common good that needs to be shared throughout our society. Let’s at least have the honesty to recognize that in our society people who have to work on a Sunday are giving up something a little different from people who have to work on a Thursday or Friday.

I believe that is a fact of contemporary life. The first argument I hear is made in defence not of some monstrosity or some joke called a local option, because it is a joke -- I am going to come to that in terms of my second argument -- but simply in favour of the principle of Sunday opening, that it is modern, that it is contemporary, that it is commercially successful, that it is the way to go and that it is the way the world is working seven days a week, 24 hours a day. “Let’s keep the stores going. Let’s keep them open. Let’s keep all those options available. Let’s give that right to the individual to shop whenever he or she wants.”

I must confess I do not regard that as a contemporary or a particularly modern notion. There is nothing contemporary or modern about it. It is, if I may say so, a very old-fashioned, commercial Victorian idea that people should be working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is not a modern doctrine at all. It is a very old-fashioned doctrine and a very vicious doctrine.

Surely, if one genuinely wanted to be modern or contemporary, one would be talking about ways we can ensure that people should be working less. I believe profoundly that people should not be working for as long, for as many hours as they are being required to work today. I believe profoundly that we should not only be talking about making Sunday a day of rest; we should be talking about making Saturday a day of rest.

We should be talking about reducing the number of people who have to work at night, the number of people who have to work shifts, the number of people who have to work difficult hours and the number of people who have to work 50 and 55 hours in order to make ends meet. As a modern, industrial society, we should be addressing the fact that if we are serious about maintaining a sense of freedom and decency we have to deal with this question of working time and working hours.

One of the first questions I asked in this House six years ago dealt with this question of working time, the fact that families are being forced to work longer and harder hours in order to make ends meet in our society. More and more people are working overtime. More and more people are working part-time, because that is the only kind of work they can get. They add on, they work and they work and they moonlight. They do work here and they do work there. Why? Because they do not get paid enough.

It is not because of some Calvinist urge, that they think it is good for their souls, that they have to get out there and sweat 12 hours a day. It is because they have to, because they have no bloody choice, because they make $4.50 or $5 an hour, because they have a family, because they have to pay a rent that is going up faster than they can keep up with and, if they have a house, so that they can keep up with the mortgage. It is impossible.

The first thing I want to say is when members of the Liberal Party talk about modernity, all I can say is if that is their vision of the noble city, they can have it, it is theirs. They can flog that commercial doctrine, that it is somehow trendy and contemporary to work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. I will say quite frankly I do not regard it as restful to go shopping with my family.

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

If we can provide convenience for people, great, let’s provide convenience, but not at the expense of this notion, this idea of a common day of rest, of a common day of pause. That is the first thing I want to say. I would ask members to think about what modernity is all about, think about what it really means to be contemporary. Sometimes passing trends and fads are not really what it is all about. Sometimes there are values which are even more contemporary than that, such as the value of spending time with family.

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

The second argument that is made is it is a local option, it is only a local option. This is, if you like, the weasel section, which is used by those members of the Liberal Party who, as the leader of the third party has been saying, have been going around saying to their constituents:

“I’m not in favour of Sunday shopping. If I thought this bill was going to introduce Sunday shopping to Guelph or to Orillia” -- or wherever it may happen to be, wherever they are on that particular day – “I wouldn’t be in favour of it. All I’m in favour of is the local option. All I’m in favour of is the municipality making up its mind in its own way.”

The first argument against that, I want to suggest, is that this is not a totally honest description of the position of members. In fact, many of the members of the Liberal Party are in favour of openings on Sunday and are in favour of wider commercial practices on Sunday and that is why they are in favour of this legislation. As I say, if that is what their position is, let them come out and say that is what they are in favour of. There is nothing wrong with it.

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

1620

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

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

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

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

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

The point I am making is this. You cannot pretend that a commercial decision of this magnitude is simply a local decision. I say, as a social democrat who looks at the marketplace sometimes askance, that is not the way the marketplace works. That is not the pressure of the market. The pressure of the market is that people are going to say: “We can shop here, but we cannot shop there. What is the logic of your closing when this place is opening?” So we will have steadily across the province, in response to this market pressure, a demand for more and more openings for longer and longer hours, for wider and wider access to Sunday shopping and to Sunday working.

I say to the members opposite that there will be no stopping it. Again, people say, “If the majority of people want it, why shouldn’t they?” The whole point is that the majority will not necessarily want it, and the pressure to have it will grow not because it is an expression of individual or community wants, but simply because it is what the marketplace dictates and what the marketplace will demand.

If I may say so, and I say this without wanting to be critical of another level of government, I think it is fair to say, as a matter of sociological fact, that municipal governments have been less successful in resisting the pressures of the marketplace on their political systems than other levels have been. I think that is just a fact of life. If large shopping plaza owners decide that they are going to exercise tremendous pressure on a municipality, if they say, for example, “We will open here only on condition that you develop a different policy on Sunday shopping,” that is an extraordinary pressure to put on a municipality.

The weakest points in the chain will always be broken by those who have a benefit to be gained by opening on Sunday. Once that chain is broken, it will become more and more difficult to stop the flow.

If we are going to stop the flow, the best and most effective way to do it is for this House to determine how much activity of a commercial kind do we want on a Sunday and to say that, as a group in this province, these are the rules of the game and these are the rules we expect to be lived up to.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: I thought you were dead back there.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: The third point I want to make, and this is the final point --

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: I thought it was a good speech.

This is even going to get applause from Liberals. The third point I want to make is that the Liberals have argued that this law is more rational and that the current law cannot be enforced. That is the argument that I think is the key to the position the Attorney General has taken.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Even though he says there is no change.

Mr. B. Rae: My colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside, who has come to life, says it is a law that cannot be changed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: His lips were moving, anyway.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: No, they were not. It was just voice

Mr. B. Rae: Just voice, voice over.

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

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

I might add that this law, in its entire stupidity, also allows the municipalities to set the level of the fine for stores that are going to be deciding whether or not to comply with this legislation. If they want to make it a scofflaw in Mississauga, they can make it a scofflaw in Mississauga. If they do not want to make it a scofflaw in Metro, they need not make it a scofflaw in Metro. The idea that somehow a store owner who is bound and determined to break whatever law is there, whether it is a municipal bylaw or a law of this province, is somehow going to say: “Now that this option is being exercised by Metro, it makes sense to me entirely and, of course, I will comply with whatever Metro says” is an absolutely ludicrous argument.

What makes it even more ludicrous is that people who are now opening in Metro will say: “Look, it’s silly, because if I were in York region, I would be able to open. But I am not in York region; I am in Metro.” That is another reason the law is unfair, and we will have another set of Charter of Rights arguments going up the scale. The lawyers will make a killing out of this thing, but it sure is not going to do anything for the enforceability of the law. It is going to make the law a joke.

The Attorney General has done more already to make the law a joke than any other civilian in this entire province because of his unwillingness to enforce the law as it was and as it is now.

The argument that somehow this monstrosity of illogic, this patchwork put together here, is somehow going to be more enforceable than what we have now is simply false. It is so obviously false that I am sorry I have to spend time dealing with the argument, but I feel I do.

What the government has put forward is as unenforceable as any law imaginable in this province. I say that because it is based on the premise that there will always be some store owners in our society who think they have this fundamental right to operate whenever they want to operate.

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

1630

If the Supreme Court of Canada had said to us, “There’s a problem with this law, you’re going to have to deal with it,” I could understand the panic. If the Supreme Court of Canada had said it was not fair or was not going to operate correctly, I could understand the panic.

What I do not understand -- it seems to me that my describing the law as stupid has had some problems in translation. I do not know whether that is the case.

But that is not what has happened. The Supreme Court decision said that it was OK, said that it was in order, said that there was no need to respond in that way.

What I want to suggest is that the arguments that have been put forward by those in favour of this legislation just do not hold water if one is sincere in wanting to maintain a common day of rest in this province. For those who do not think that such a common day of rest is important, all I can say is that we have a very real difference of opinion and I think if we were to have a totally blind vote of members in this House on the question of whether there should be a common day of rest, I do not think there is any question; we would win. I do not think there is any question about that.

I suspect that when the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) goes back to his constituency and talks to people about whether Sunday should be treated the same way as Friday, they would tell him that is not the way things are done, that is not the way it should be, that is not their commonsense judgement. I suspect that most members of the House, when they go back to their ridings, are confronted with the same reality of how people feel on this question.

I think the Solicitor General, the Premier and the Attorney General have made a mistake. I really do. I think they have a big majority and we fought very hard to get this out to committee and all the foofaraw that went on before with the petitions was simply because it was our view, as a caucus, not that we wanted to simply obstruct the business of the House, but that we really do feel the government is making a big mistake and that, having made this mistake, it is going to be difficult to undo -- not impossible, but difficult -- for the simple, practical reason that once a commercial activity is present in the marketplace, it is more difficult to close it than it is to stop it from opening in the first place. That is just a commercial reality in terms of the way, again, the world works.

I think they are making a mistake. We intend to fight them on this issue. We intend to give the people an opportunity, through the hearings process which will be going on this summer, to express themselves and to take those views to the committee.

I am a realist. We know that when a Premier has in a sense said, “This is it, this is my position, I don’t want to be humiliated or embarrassed by having to change my mind,” all I can say is that I hope the government listens to what it is being told by the community. It is not a unanimous view and it certainly is not a view that one can say is one that is shared by every single person in this province, but I would suggest to the government it is a view held by a majority of people in terms of what public policy makes sense for this province in 1988.

That public policy is a law that says that, as much as possible, Sunday should be a common day of rest, a common day of pause for the working people of this province, and the provincial laws should be designed to implement that desire and that goal of public policy. That means that our labour laws, our commercial laws and our retail shopping laws should all reflect that view.

I hope very much that in fact will be the view which ultimately prevails.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am happy to be here today to do the windup speech on behalf of the government.

Recently, I was attending dinner with the firefighters’ association and a professor of economics was there. They presented him with a plaque which had engraved on it a saying he used in helping the firefighters’ association in drawing up its laws and so on. He apparently used it all the time, so they had it engraved on the plaque because it was so illustrative to him of what was necessary for good legislation.

As I listened to the members opposite, and to my own party’s members, I often thought back to his comments and have decided to share these with the House, and to look at the comments that have been made with these guidelines, that he has given, in mind.

He said the three things one has to ask about legislation are: first, whether it is morally acceptable; second, whether it is legally defensible, and, third, whether it is realistically pragmatic. I would like to deal with the comments and the bill itself with these three guidelines.

First, is it morally acceptable? We can look here at a long history that relates to commercialism and retail shopping on Sunday that goes down through the ages. In the last part of the last century there were, indeed, such strict laws put in place that a person could not take trains, streetcars or boats. One was expected to live life in a very confined and narrow way. This was their view, at that time, of family values and family lifestyles. In fact, the courts in 1905 said they had gone too far, that they could not enforce, legally, such a strict lifestyle in the whole of a province because some held these views. So they did away with all those rules.

In a retrenching, then, the groups that felt very strongly about the legislating of these kinds of values put together the federal Lord’s Day Act, in which, once again they put forth the view that nobody could attend upon anything where a fee or a sum of money was charged, except going to church. This, indeed, became the rule for quite a long time.

By 1922 there began to be a bit of a breakdown in these interpretations of how a state or a province must enforce lifestyle regulations on to its people. There was one day’s rest in seven and we began to see changes coming about. Of course, for better or for worse, depending on one’s point of view, the biggest changes occurred during the Second World War. The war presented our society with a completely new set of circumstances and exemptions were made. Soldiers, sailors and airmen were allowed to go to movies.

Now, one could say that this was because they were away from their homes and, therefore, the home values were not there. That may or may not have been the feeling. One way or another, it was a very, very popular move and one that left its mark on those people.

Industry, of course, started going at a seven-day-a-week pace because of the need to provide tools for the war. This, indeed, is still with us in many industries today.

Through all of these changes, gradual or more sudden, and through all of the present changes, there has always been this same constant crying out from church groups and more rigid groups: “You are destroying the morals of our people. You are destroying our values. You are destroying our way of life.” This is nothing new. This has happened with every change that has come about.

So, these gradual changes came, and more rapidly after the war. I think we know them all. They have been well outlined here. As they came there was the constant battle against change. I am saying that these were honestly held views about family values, about what were considered moral issues. In fact, they were not necessarily about legal matters.

The members opposite speak constantly about the breaking down of moral values and lifestyles. I question whether the changes that have gradually occurred in society are necessarily a reflection of these kinds of breakdowns. In fact, paralleling this change, the increased openness which has come since the turn of the century, we have had a society which cared a lot more about its morals and more fundamental things, such as decent pay, such as care for children. We had the children’s aid societies come along; we have had health care; we have had a society which very strongly puts forward its moral values through its laws, and its moral values of sharing and making life good for those in our society who need the assistance of others.

1640

I do not see this change in our society, those changes we have talked about, as being a falling apart of society; I wish to say that very strongly here. We had, even today, the member for Sarnia saying, “Please, please preserve our Sundays,” but I would ask that member whose Sundays we are to preserve: The moral values or the Sunday that presents itself in Temagami, the Sunday we could be preserving in Sault Ste. Marie, or the Sunday in London? These are different Sundays, and this, as I will point out, is the essence of the problem. We do not have a province which has one face and one Sunday.

It is my intention to address the changes at another time; I will cover these things. I would point out that changes, to some extent, have come upon us in gradual degrees over a long period of time. In 1950, Les Kingdon, who was the head of the Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada of that time, said the coming of professional sports was “a gravestone for church Sunday observation.” In fact, though people have looked for it and have tried to measure it, we can find no statistics which prove that Sunday opening or nonopening has an effect on church attendance in any way whatsoever. We have the opportunity to see that, because we presently do have places that are open and places that are closed. Church attendance does not seem to be affected.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is not the point.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I agree that is not the point, but many people have made it. The member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) raised it; the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) is concerned that we are cutting into the traditional religious values of our society. The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) pointed out that his area has been open for a good while and that he strongly resents any suggestion that family values, morality, ways of living are any different in Temagami from what they are anywhere else. In fact, because many of our open areas, our tourist areas, are somewhat less affected by modern stresses on society, you might say, you might find that family values and church attendance and lack of crime are stronger in these areas than in the closed city, where stores are not allowed to open.

For myself, I can remember, as probably others can, the closed days of my childhood. I can remember my father saying to me, “On Sunday, you go for a walk,” and I went for a walk with him. I cannot say it was a soul-lifting, family, enjoyable event. I think he thought it was his duty to take us and we knew it was our duty to go, and it was a very miserable family experience all around. At a later time, I was privileged to go to Loretto Abbey, where the nuns lined us up in black uniforms and white collars and we took a Sunday walk through the neighbourhood. It may have been wonderful in their view; I do not know that it did much for my moral edification.

My husband recalls that at that time, in the name of family values, in the name of proper standards within a community, we were not allowed to play ball in the park. No tennis nets could be put up in the parks of this city, because, somehow or other, it would eat away at family values.

There are some things that come closer to moral values that I will touch on in this bill. First, I really did at the time of the select committee -- and the Premier shared this conviction -- have a good deal of concern, particularly for single-parent families, usually mother-led, single-parent families. This was an issue that did concern me -- and many of the members speaking opposite spoke to this issue -- that for them the problem was not so much the breaking down of values because people would go and shop on Sunday, the problem was really for those who had to work on Sunday.

It was for this reason and because of this concern for these people that my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will be introducing Bill 114, which will indeed protect this very group of people, not only those who will now be required to go to work on account of this bill but also it will protect, as well, all those who are currently working in the retail business. Therefore, it is a great step forward in fairness for them.

There are three aspects, however, in which I think, if we can talk about morality, this bill is much more moral than the present situation. First, it introduces new religious freedom and recognition of religious fairness for observation of religious days other than Sundays. An owner of a store of any religion may indeed close for the day of observation of his or her religion and then open on Sunday.

This is a broadened extension of the old bill. It is fairer. It covers not just the two groups that were looked to in the old bill, which were those groups that celebrate on Saturday, but recognizes that the courts will probably, in that case, soon be called upon to recognize the rights of other religious groups too. That is done in the bill. We extend more fairness to these groups by saying, “If, indeed, you have closed on your own Sabbath, then you can open on Sunday without size restrictions and without restrictions on numbers of employees. If a big store closes on Saturday, that big store, in justice, should be allowed to open on the Sunday just the same as the small store.

We have worked to achieve more fairness for merchants because many of the abuses were creating great unfairness for the merchants who did not abuse. People took advantage of the situation, so that we had big so-called drug stores opening up and selling hardware and clothing, whereas a store beside them could not open and sell those same things, be it a small boutique or what have you. We have recognized this and tried to make a fairer playing field so that everybody plays by the same rules.

Most especially though, I consider that this bill is morally honest. It takes away what looks like a protection which is not a protection. I will speak to this next. It takes away the so-called tourist exemption protection and says this, in fact, will not work, does not work and must be looked into.

It replaces this unrealistic and, really, nonexistent protection, with an opportunity for the local community to make their own rules in a way that will not be challenged in the courts and thrown out for reasons of being not defensible.

That brings us to the second issue. I have discussed whether the bill is morally acceptable. I say to members that it is a great improvement over what we had; but, basically, lifestyles and family values are largely not done by legislation, they are done by families, by individuals and by the lives that each one of us chooses to live. As I say, the close families today are as likely to be found in our open tourist areas as in our closed other areas.

1650

Getting, then, to the second point raised about legislation -- is it legally defensible? -- here is the important issue. I wish to say that this is the implicit difference between this bill and the other one. It is indeed fairer, as I have said, but it is also enforceable in a way that will stand up in the courts so that it can be meaningful for the people who have to live by these laws.

I want to read to members the tourist exemption that existed in the old law. It says:

“Where it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry, the council of a municipality may by bylaw provide that section 2 does not apply to any class of retail business establishment in respect of the sale by retail of such goods or services on such holidays, for such periods of time, in such parts of the municipality and under such conditions as are specified by the bylaw.”

What does this say if it does not say that a municipality indeed has a local option right now under this bill?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Oh, so we’re back to the other argument, that there’s no change.

Mr. Harris: What do we need the bill for? Why change it, then?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I will address that if the member will allow me to speak. We did not heckle when he was speaking. He could maybe give us the same courtesy.

Mr. Harris: Maybe you weren’t here when my leader was speaking, because all those yahoos were speaking during the whole thing.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, they have stopped. I am sorry.

Mr. Harris: Now it’s my turn. That’s how it works around here.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We’ll give it all up to you and then you’ll stop.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Attorney General will address her answers through the Speaker, of course.

Mr. Harris: The Solicitor General. She’d be a better Attorney General than the yahoo we’ve got in that place.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the member withdraw that remark, please?

Mr. Harris: Is there somewhere that says “yahoo” is unparliamentary?

The Deputy Speaker: I have decided that no members will call each other “yahoos” in this parliament.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, you have decided that “yahoo” is unparliamentary?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Harris: If you have decided, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask you to reflect on your bloody decision.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not allow unparliamentary language, and the Speaker decides what is parliamentary and what is not.

Mr. Harris: The Speaker also sets precedents in this place, and you had better reflect on it. That is what I said.

Mr. Morin: “Your bloody decision” is not proper.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Oh, come on.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the Solicitor General please continue?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I have read this definition out because of the importance of this. We have said from the beginning it is not possible to say exactly what is tourism and what is not.

If I, a Londoner, go to Grand Bend, I am a tourist. If someone from Grand Bend comes to London, he or she is a tourist. Under the court system we have, there is no way that this clause I have just read to you does not, in effect, say that any municipality anywhere can say, “This is a tourist area, because people are shopping here from elsewhere, and we will open.”

I defy you to try to defend that decision in the courts, and say they are not tourist areas. Clearly, if you want to take the case where it could be proved, because it was one of the most ridiculous, you take the case, once again, of Mississauga, where one store gets letters written in saying, “I came from the United States and shopped in this store and I very much enjoyed that nice Ontario food,” and therefore this store is a tourist attraction. The one next door to it is not a tourist attraction because somebody did not write a silly letter. That is the present tourist exemption in Mississauga, and if that makes any sense, then I tell you there is no way that anything cannot open under that tourist exemption.

Under the new law you have something that clearly says the municipalities have that opportunity. It comes to almost exactly the same thing.

They may apply to any parts of the municipality or territory. They may open on holidays to specific times or certain numbers of hours, on certain holidays and not on others, in specific periods of the year, by size, by numbers of persons employed, by character of business, by geographic location. We have said in this bill what is the clear reality of the former bill, because if we cannot define tourism, stores can open for all those reasons in the old bill, just as indeed we face the fact that they can open and we put that in the new bill. It is more honest. It is more up front.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is called passing the buck.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The buck is already there.

Any municipality simply has to call itself a tourist area. I have to remind the members --

Mr. Harris: So there’s no change.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Standing orders again today, repeated, that one person at a time shall address. Will the Solicitor General please continue?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Yes. The member for York South said today that if a vote were held today it would be clearly rejected. I tell you, if you go back to the old bill, what you have is the local option that they have been objecting to, so there you are. Then you say, legitimately, “Why the new bill?” I will tell you why the new bill: because we wanted very much --

The Deputy Speaker: Will the Solicitor General please address her remarks through the Speaker?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We wanted very much to get rid of all the obvious abuses in the old bill. We wanted to be more upfront with the communities so they could really understand that the point of control both in the old bill and the new bill is in the local municipality.

They have a right to know that. They have a right to understand that. It was there. We put it forward in a more honest way. We put into this new bill all the necessary clauses to do away with the abuses that had grown up under the old bill and made it a better bill for communities, particularly those communities that do not want wide-open Sundays.

In fact, if one wants to question whether the tourism exemption could stand up in court, whether in fact we are right in our assessment that the tourism exemption is not legally defensible, then why did someone not challenge some of these communities that opened up under the tourist exemption? Why indeed did CAOSS not, instead of doing the things it is doing, take these matters to court and say: “That fruit stand in Mississauga is not a tourist attraction. Close it down.” It knows that the tourist law will not work. That is what we are facing. That is what we are advising the members on.

We have given the members a clear bill, a clear understanding for people of where they go if they want to maintain Sunday as it is now with the status quo. The only place it will be changed is in the local community. They have the power to do it now and we are directing them the right way.

We are, as well as that, introducing clauses that do away with the abuses. First and most important, we are raising the possible fine from $10,000 to $50,000. This is very important because the present situation had deteriorated to one where the paying of fines had simply become part of the cost of doing business.

In Barrie we had one store that had 31 charges against it that it dealt with at one time. It was charged $11,500 in penalties. In Durham there was a store that had 25 charges laid against it. It got a $30,000 fine and has since gone on to have 25 more charges laid against it.

We have corrected this not only by increasing the fine but by saying that the courts must look at the profit made or the volume of business in order to determine the appropriate fine. None of the people opposite, in the course of the debate, have mentioned roping off, one of these abuses that has become so obvious and so unfair within our cities.

1700

Mr. Mackenzie: Why didn’t you act on it?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We have said there will be no more roping off, that the area in which you do business from Monday to Saturday is the same area in which you do business on Sunday.

We have said that when a case goes to court, advertising placed by that store, either a sign in the window or advertising in the media, may be used in the courts as evidence of breaking the law. This could not be done before.

As well, and probably more important from the legal point of view, we have put in an injunctive clause, namely, “An order under subsection (1) is in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed and may be made whether or not proceedings have been commenced in the provincial offences court for a contravention of section 2 or of a bylaw.”

In plain, nonlegal English, or French for those who are translating, this means that, indeed, if a store opens, the police can get an order from the courts and close that store now. It means that no longer do they have to stay in line for when, two years down the line, they may get to court and, as has happened in the past, be charged some ridiculously small fine. The injunctive power of this bill means that no longer will the stores be able to treat this law as just a cost of doing business.

Speaking as Solicitor General, I must speak as the person who has the responsibility for policing in this province, and I must say that these particular improvements and the cutting off of the abuses are very important to me because of the responsibilities of our police in our society. I want to say that the police are very hard worked, hard pressed in time.

The member for Sarnia was asking me yesterday, are we putting priority on drugs? Others, like the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), asked, are we putting priority on family violence? I am saying to them that I think it is very important that we improve this bill so we do not have policemen using up their time, using up their goodwill with the community and losing much of their respect by having to trail around placing charges that do not stick, do not bring proper fines and do not make the police look good within the community.

I want to relieve the police of this very onerous and unuseful task of trying to enforce an unenforceable and outdated law. As Solicitor General, I am particularly pleased to be replacing a law that is not at all legally defensible with a law that, indeed, will be easily defended not only by the police within our communities but by the courts within our system.

The final question, then, and of course a very important one, is: Is this law realistically pragmatic? I would remind members of what we have said so often, that the province is not a unilateral area. This province has many needs, many areas. What works in London does not necessarily work in Windsor; what works in Temagami does not necessarily work in Kingston.

We have been told that we are creating a patchwork. Indeed, we recognize that there should be a patchwork, that there are places which need to be open for their source of income, through tourism or in some cases other things, that indeed we have to give this elasticity so the various parts of this province can develop as they see fit. I do not think there is anybody here who would suggest we do not need to do that.

The only practical, pragmatic way to do this is through letting those local governments, which are where the people are and which see this local area and understand it, address within their geographic area the needs of that geographic group and within their economic area the economic needs of that group.

We recognized in a very practical way that, by and large, most of this province wants to have as much of the status quo as possible and therefore we have left in place the provincial framework. The provincial framework is exactly the same as in the old bill.

That means, quite clearly, that we are not talking in any way about a wide-open Sunday. It means that in any municipality which does nothing or chooses to do nothing, what they will have is exactly what we have now, a community with convenience stores open, with all those exceptions we have become used to over these last 15 years. These will be in place and nothing more. The loopholes are plugged; the fines are in place. The opening they are accustomed to, the status quo, is in place.

Along with this, we have had to recognize, because of the wide diversity within the province, that there may indeed be a need in certain communities for them to have the power to change. This we recognize up front.

We recognize that many of our very small communities really have hardly any commercialism at all. Of course, they fall into this same category. If all the small areas of our province which really do not worry too much about this do nothing, then the provincial framework is in effect and they do not need to do anything.

I wish the members opposite would read the bill so that they would know these things. They ask questions which indicate they do not understand these things. They ask: “What about the small communities? They’re going to have to hire all these fancy lawyers to write all their laws and everything.” The small communities need to do nothing. They have something handed to them. If they find it does not work for them -- they will know it; because it is not working for them -- they can make the changes they want to make.

For those who have or want to have tourism, we have to leave that gate open. It is important to the province and to many communities. Tourism is the second-biggest industry in this province. It counts tremendously to many, many areas, and they must have the opportunity to make the most use of it they can. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation gives away thousands upon thousands of dollars to communities to help them to develop their tourist industry and it will continue to do so. This is particularly true in some of the poorest parts of our province, the northern and eastern parts. They have tremendous tourism potential. We have given them a law that helps them have the opportunity to develop this.

We do recognize as well that there are many communities which wish to have stores open that are not honestly and realistically tourism areas. In inquiring for this bill we have found already -- and we are only part-way through this operation -- 110 municipalities which open for different reasons, most of them tourism, but open for different reasons or for periods longer than tourism would require.

These communities no longer have to pretend they are open for tourism, which they could do. If, indeed, they have a reason they want to open, they can open. We recognize that right across this province they are doing so: 110 exemptions now standing on the books and rising. This is recognized.

Therefore, the status quo is there within the provincial framework, but with it comes the flexibility, the fairness and the reality which make this a good bill for this province.

No longer will we have to hear, if you read the bill and understand it, that we are promoting wide-open Sundays. We are recognizing an existing situation and putting reasonable laws in place which can be understood, can be acted upon in the local municipality, where the average person has most access, where he can be heard, where he can express his will, where at the same time he knows and understands the local conditions he may want to have flexibility in. It is there that it will be addressed. It is in the municipality that people, in fact, have most access to the lawmakers.

I would like to address now, as I promised I would, the comments that have made about me personally, my change in position, about the domino theory and about, as we have heard over there in the last few minutes, the old passing-the-buck theory.

1710

I want to say that yes, indeed, I did change my mind. I had to change my mind for this reason: I was made to see that the tourism exemption has no reality in law and would have no reality before the courts. If members read the select committee’s recommendations, they were all based on that. If you take away the tourist exemption, you have local option, only you have it in a hidden, unfair way.

Once you accept, as I accepted, that we had hit a legal roadblock, that in fact the tourist exemption could not stand, then indeed you have to change. You have to say that the select committee report was based on an assumption that is not true, and therefore we have to start without that assumption and move away from that. So I am not ashamed to say that, having been presented with the fact and the reality that the tourist exemption would not stand up, we have gone on to draw up a bill that recognizes that.

The domino theory that we hear so much about is therefore already there. Every community in this province must now realize for certain that all its municipality needs to do is claim a tourist exemption and open. At the time this bill was first introduced, members may recall that North York was talking about calling itself a tourist area and introducing a tourist exemption. This is not something that was not about to happen. The openness and reality of what has happened now was upon them anyhow. For the members of the opposition and the members of the public in Ontario, like myself, the time had come that they had to face the reality that the tourist exemption was a local option and did exist.

The fact that you could use the tourist exemption is proved by the ever-increasing number of exceptions that are made under the tourist exemption to this bill -- as I say, 110 and growing. The only thing really that can stop the domino theory -- well, probably two things -- are the attitudes and the wishes of the people themselves. I hear the people in the opposition stressing these huge numbers of people, these huge blocs of people whom they represent who do not want open Sundays. I can tell them that if all the people in unions, if all the people who belong to churches do not shop on Sunday, that will present an attitude in this province that will assure, not only from the point of view of family attitudes but also from the point of view of economics, that indeed our province will stay with the present structures, the status quo, as they have a right to.

I had to be amused when the member for Sarnia, and I quote from Hansard, said the other day, “In light of the fact that a recent study in the United States undertaken by a consumers’ group has indicated that, in so far as the popularity of Sunday shopping is concerned, the only demand Sunday shopping appears to have with respect to consumers is that it has turned out to be the weakest shopping day of the week in the United States, that fewer people shop on that particular day” -- I am quoting the leader of the third party. I found it interesting.

We did not find statistics to support this one way or another, but if what he says is true, then that may account for the fact that in Alberta, where they have complete opening, stores are actually beginning to close now because it just does not make sense for them to open. The domino theory is not really shown to be true. In British Columbia there was a rash of stores that opened at the beginning, but it has not spread largely throughout BC. There is a certain group that wanted to have its opening; it has it and it has more or less stayed the same.

In Calgary and Alberta generally, there was a pulling back, maybe for the reasons that the member for Sarnia says.

I have been in New York, where the areas of New York City that tend to be open on Sunday are the areas where the tourists happen to be, a legitimate, practical expression of openness used for tourists. I am telling the House that in this province, that can be so too.

We hear that most people want the status quo. They can express that in their municipalities, and this indeed will be the surest way of preventing the domino theory: Prevent it in your own community, if that is the way your community feels. I can assure members as well that other communities that need tourism and need to be open have to be given that freedom.

The other comment that is often made is that we are passing the buck. Indeed, I would like to read some quotes with regard to this.

First, I will quote the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie. “Well,” he said on a radio program, “I’ll have to confess that my initial reaction was much like that taken by AMO and other mayors across the province, that it almost appeared to be a passing of the buck by the province. I’ll have to admit I’ve done a complete turnaround. We, as municipalities, have often said to senior levels and to the provincial government that most often what we want is a little more to say in what happens in our own communities. We have done that in areas of planning, in areas of fiscal planning, in areas of planning generally, and here is the province saying to us, ‘Here’s an opportunity for you to decide what’s right for Sault Ste. Marie without us in Toronto deciding what’s right for you.’ So, my position would now be that this is exactly the type of thing that we, from time to time, ask the province to permit us to do -- make legislation that is tailored to our specific communities.”

The mayor of Ottawa: “It is better that municipalities be able to decide on their own rather than the decision be imposed on them by their province.”

There are others, but I will give the House instead a final, interesting comment that comes indeed from AMO’s policy guidelines: “The Association of Municipalities of Ontario proposes that if the essence of our system of government is to keep government responsive to the wishes of the governed, municipal government should be left with as wide a scope of power as possible and be independent in the exercise of that power to the fullest practicable extent.”

I think this states very clearly how the municipalities ideally see themselves. I think it states very clearly how we see their role in this area. They know their communities. The people can address them, and we are proud to say that we believe that these local municipalities will respond to the proper needs of their people and give them what these people want, not necessarily an open Sunday; indeed, give them the kind of Sunday that serves their individual purposes.

To simply close on the note I mentioned earlier, speaking as Solicitor General, I quote a previous Solicitor General, George Taylor. In 1985, he said: “It is hard to sustain a law where there are more breaches of it than respect for it.”

I would add that to try to sustain such a law when indeed it does not work is not only to do disservice to the law itself within our democratic society but to put an unfair obligation on the police forces, for which I have responsibility, which are expected to enforce a law that the people themselves simply wish to thwart.

1720

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Mrs. Smith has moved second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would just like to indicate that, as stated earlier in the House, by consent, by discussion we are going to defer any vote on these matters till Monday at 5:45 p.m. I want to seek the unanimous consent of the Legislature to so do.

The Acting Speaker: Do I have the unanimous consent of the House then to stack the votes with respect to Bill 113 and Bill 114?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We haven’t done 114 yet.

The Acting Speaker: With respect to Bill 113 then. You have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour say aye.

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted to speak and begin what I understand is going to be a brief debate on second reading of Bill 114, debate on this bill in principle. This bill is an amendment to the Employment Standards Act. We have considered this matter in this House in conjunction with the debate on Bill 113, the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

In that regard, I want to take a moment to congratulate my colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), not only for her bill, but for the magnificent way in which she has shepherded this issue since it was first announced many months ago.

As Minister of Labour, my responsibility is to ensure that workers affected by Bill 113 and all retail workers have appropriate protections. Might I say, just in considering Bill 114, a few words on the context of Bill 113 as well?

There has been a great deal of debate on that topic. We have heard most members of this House express their view. I think it is safe to say most members in this House agree there should be a broad provincial framework in place and opportunities for local communities to vary somewhat. Really, the debate has been as to the nature of what that local option might be.

Having listened to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) about his views as to the extent to which families may be compromised if Bill 113 is passed, I just point out that in the communities he talked about -- the Italian community and the Portuguese community -- and how their family lives might be threatened, I recall that I myself heard a number of people say to me, “Why can’t we do this sort of regulation as we do in the European context, where so many of our citizens have come from?”

I notice a very interesting item. We did some research as to the way in which Sunday shopping is regulated in France, a very large jurisdiction. There is absolutely no national standard; they have a local option. We looked into how these things were regulated in Italy. We find that there is no national jurisdiction, that these things are regulated by municipalities. Family life has not been destroyed and the culture has not been destroyed.

I simply say to my friends opposite, who are opposing so vehemently Bill 113, that a realistic assessment of the nature of our families and the nature of our culture is based on principles beyond the regulation of store hours. Indeed, the very fact that we direct our attention to Sundays is based not on government having historically, years and years ago said thus and such about retail hours. It emerges out of our culture. Similarly, the values that we have in our notion of creating a common pause day will continue to emerge and ooze out of our culture. These things are in no way threatened by Bill 113.

When we introduced Bill 113 and when we said that we were going to bring forth major amendments to that law --

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: My understanding is that we have dealt with Bill 113 and we are now on Bill 114.

The Acting Speaker: I am sure the honourable minister is going on to Bill 114 and will make his remarks on that.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I know that during the debate on Bill 113 there was a discussion on Bill 114 as well. I simply made those remarks as a preface to my introductory comments on Bill 114.

When we announced that we were going to be bringing about changes to the Retail Business Holidays Act, we said that we would at the same time introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act to afford an appropriate protection to retail workers who may be called upon to work on Sundays. Bill 114 achieves that objective. I do not think its importance can be overestimated because for the first time in history we have provided meaningful, workable and enforceable protection for all employees in the retail sector.

For the first time workers will be able to refuse assignments of Sunday work that they consider unreasonable. The bill will augment protections already provided for employees under the Ontario Human Rights Code. That code, as members know, requires that all employers reasonably accommodate the needs of persons whose religious beliefs and practices limit their ability to work on a particular day, including Sunday, except where that result would provide undue hardship.

In addition, workers will continue to have the right to refuse work in retail businesses that open in violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act. This results from Bill 51, which was an amendment to the Employment Standards Act which took effect on December 1, 1987.

The government’s objective with Bill 114 is to create an environment in which Sunday work is, by and large, voluntary. In cases under the bill where employees and employers disagree about what constitutes unreasonable work, the government will provide mediation by an officer from the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour. In addition, an employee will be able to ask for mediation if he or she thinks that she has been punished or otherwise improperly treated by refusing work that the worker considers unreasonable on Sunday.

Might I just quote the section because I think it is terribly important. Subsection 39i(1) of the bill says very clearly, “No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall,

(a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee;

(b) discipline or suspend an employee;

(d) intimidate or coerce an employee... ”

I reiterate that the worker has a simple right to say to his or her employer, “No, I consider that assignment of Sunday work unreasonable.” If the employer hears that, he has no choice but to accept that, if he is not willing to go to mediation for that process.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And what if the next day they hire somebody else?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) interjects about what happens if the employee is dismissed or otherwise coerced. The law is very clear in that regard. That employee --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: So they fire him a week later. They say, “Do something else.”

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Because he often does not have the protection of a union or an organization acting on his behalf, the employee simply has to write a letter to the employment standards branch and say in that letter, “I feel that I have been disciplined as a result of my refusal of Sunday work,” and immediately the employment standards branch, on a priority basis, will provide mediation for that employee.

Let’s assume that the mediation process does not work and that the worker and the employer cannot work out a reasonable accommodation of what is reasonable for Sunday work in that business premise.

1730

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What’s reasonable? What’s unreasonable? You haven’t told us.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Under those circumstances, again, the bill is quite specific and clear. A referee will decide that. The referee can look at any criteria affecting that workplace. In addition to that, the statute provides a number of indicia to assist the referee in making that determination.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We believe the process we have put into place under Bill 114 is simple and expeditious as an administrative matter, based on the wording of the statute, which says that forthwith the employment standards branch will provide what we describe as fast-track resolution of these issues. As I said, if the dispute cannot be resolved by the mediation process, it will be referred to a referee.

My friends opposite ask, “What is reasonable and what is unreasonable?” That is a good question. Surely we cannot put in the statute every single indicium or criterion of reasonableness, but the statute does list a number of those indicia, including whether the terms of a collective agreement affecting that place of work specifically address Sunday work or whether there has been premium pay for Sunday work. It is very similar to some of the statutes we analysed in European jurisdictions. Indeed, the statute says the referee can look at whether there is a rotating schedule to accommodate, as much as possible, a worker’s desire not to have to work on Sunday.

It is important to recognize, as I said earlier, that the worker has the right to say no. We believe this will bring about a process where, by and large, throughout the entire province, whether a municipality has determined that it wants the local option or not, the workforce in the retail sector will have the option of deciding clearly whether it wants to work on Sunday.

The protection in this bill is not just against unjust dismissal for refusal to work on Sunday; it also provides protection against acts of discipline, acts of suspension, intimidation, coercion or any other penalty imposed by an employer. Any dismissal, any act of discipline, is provided for in the act and gives grounds to a referee to order reinstatement and compensation.

Not only do I believe this bill is worthy of support, obviously, by our party, but I would suggest to the members opposite, notwithstanding their view that they are going to fight Bill 113 until hell freezes over, that they consider this principle. Perhaps, in the view of the New Democratic Party, the right of the working community to refuse does not go as far as they want, but I say to them that they should consider this bill and the principle and consider assisting us in this House in putting this principle and this initial step into law. I tell my friends in the New Democratic Party that if they compare this right to refuse to the right to refuse in many pieces of labour legislation, it is worthy of their support.

I say to my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party, indeed, to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) -- to whose credit it was, when we were debating Bill 51 , that he suggested to me that the protections in Bill 51 should also afford protections for any kind of coercion, suspension or any other kind of reprisal action by an employer -- that he can find this in this bill and it would behoove him and his party to consider seriously -- again, notwithstanding that they will still fight Bill 113 until hell freezes over -- supporting this piece of legislation.

I suggest in this debate that the principles here are sound ones, that in a sense it is historic for Ontario for the first time to offer specific protection to a specific group of workers to refuse to work on a particular day for work which they consider, based on their lives and based on the organization of their working life, to be unreasonable on Sunday.

In addition to the protections offered here, as I have said, there is protection under Bill 51 and under the One Day’s Rest in Seven Act. I would like to say that the provisions under the One Day’s Rest in Seven Act provide protection for those workers in the hospitality industry, and I tell my friends during this debate, just before I finish, that I would anticipate that when Bill 114 is passed and becomes law, we would provide an exemption for workers in the hospitality industry by virtue of the fact that they are covered by the One Day’s Rest in Seven Act.

I am confident that many employees in retail establishments that open on Sunday stand to benefit by this legislation. Many workers obviously want to work on Sunday and will take advantage of opportunities to work on Sunday.

Notwithstanding that, workers in the retail work force who choose to say no to Sundays can look to this bill and the enforcement of the employment standards branch to exercise and fulfil their rights and their views as to how their Sunday should be, whether it is a work Sunday or not.

This bill gives new rights to hundreds of thousands of workers in this province for the very first time, and I am proud to urge its passage in this House by all parties.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the remarks made by the honourable minister?

Mr. Mackenzie: There are no comments, are there? I thought it was an agreement that we have only statements.

The Acting Speaker: Do I have the unanimous consent of the House that there will be no comments or questions with respect to the speeches on Bill 114?

Agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not intend to be very long on this, but I cannot resist the comment that it seems strange that we have to pass Bill 114 to protect us against Bill 113. It really is a ludicrous situation.

I also wonder, with all due respect to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), if he has ever worked in the real world -- I mean as an employee and for somebody else -- where he had no influence in the particular decisions that were made or not.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The answer is yes.

Mr. Mackenzie: I wonder what he would say. The workers certainly have tried it on a picket line I was at just at noon today, the Vietnamese women trying to say no to the Reichmanns, for example, or even to get anything out of them in the way of a first contract. How you would say no to them or to the Conrad Blacks in a situation like this I do not know.

I want to use just for a moment the statement that the minister made when he introduced the legislation in the House. He said, “When this bill is passed, retail employees will be able to refuse Sunday work the employee considers unreasonable.”

That is the weasel word right off the bat, as the minister should know if he had ever worked in the real world. I do not know when we have been comfortable or won in any consistent manner on almost any labour issue where you had to prove the reasonableness of it.

I would like to take a look at the next sentence, where he says, “the specific situations that may arise as a result of Bill 113, by providing workable protection for all employees in the retail sector.”

He goes on to say in the next paragraph, “Specifically, the effect of Bill 114, when passed, will be that all workers in the retail sector will have the right to refuse Sunday work if the worker considers it unreasonable.”

That is simply not true, and he almost admits it himself in the next paragraph, where he says, “However, in cases where the employee and employer disagree on what constitutes unreasonable Sunday work, the government will provide mediation by an officer of the employment standards branch.”

While in the first paragraph they have apparently absolute right to refuse, that is immediately contravened by the right of the employer to say, “Hey, you can’t,” in effect, and then you have to prove the reasonableness.

The minister goes on to say that he is going to have an employment standards officer deal with it. I wish he had mentioned, because we raised it in the debate on Bill 113, just how many additional employment standards officers he is going to hire; or is he figuring that this thing is so loose that nobody is going to take advantage of it anyway, because it is impossible to enforce? Right now, as I am sure the minister knows, it takes months to get an employment standards officer on a case and, as a matter of fact, it can take six or seven months and even longer to get a decision on it.

So what are we going to do in the way of employment standards officers to deal with this if it is ever used? I suspect he knows it is not going to be used, because it does not have any authority.

1740

I want to deal just briefly with the determinations that are taken into account in deciding whether or not it is a reasonable excuse: “The terms of a collective agreement, if any, that specifically address Sunday work.” Does this override them or not? What does that do in terms of the collective agreement? Have they any additional protection if the Sunday work is not of their choice? “The existence of any premium pay arrangement for Sunday work.” Now, that one is an insult.

I was at a rally in Hamilton Tuesday night with a good number of the ministers in town and a fairly large crowd, at which Bill Reno of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union was one of the speakers. He said that was one of the biggest insults of all. What they are saying to us here is, in effect, if they can pay us time and a half for Sunday, we should be willing to work. The issue of time and a half is not the issue whatsoever in this deal; it is the right of the workers not to have to work on a Sunday. Even to raise this time-and-a-half issue, I think, is an insult.

“The existence of any policy of rotating Sunday work assignments in the workplace”: Does that mean if that is the pattern, that is going to be a reason it is not reasonable to refuse to work? The minister certainly does not tell us in this, and he certainly gives lots of leeway for employers to say there has been a pattern here, or alternate or rotating Sunday work.

“The history of working relationships, including any previous requirements respecting Sunday work assignments.” Is that a way they can get around the reasonable right to refuse as well?

And finally: “The efforts of an employer to hire additional staff to permit reasonable scheduling of Sunday work.” Does that mean he is going to be able to do it? “Whether the employee was hired on a part-time basis specifically to permit reasonable scheduling of Sunday work by other employees.”

There are so many weasel words in there that I do not know anybody -- and I have talked to quite a few people in the last few weeks -- in the trade union movement who thinks it is worth, as I have said before, the powder to blow it to hell. That is not going to protect workers in Ontario. Workers know it. What the minister should be working for is more reasonable hours.

He has also not covered the one other issue that I mentioned to him in the debate on Bill 113, and that is how you stop an employer from gradually cutting back on hours of work, which is already the tactic used in the cutback in hours for part-time workers in the retail trade. We have been able to do absolutely nothing about it, nor has the union. There is no protection here for workers whatsoever, and it is dishonest to give the impression that this does protect workers. The minister should know it. This bill is worthless and we will be voting accordingly.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other people wish to debate? The member for Nipissing.

[Applause]

Mr. Harris: That is OK, members may applaud.

We, in our party, are opposed to this piece of legislation. I do not want to dwell on it at great length, but I do want to put a few things on the record. I do not want to get dragged into talking about Bill 113, but when we were talking about both of these particular bills, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Labour and, indeed, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) all talked about these two bills as: “This does not mean wide-open Sunday shopping; this means local option. This does not change the status quo; it tidies it up and makes it more enforceable.”

I think that stretches the credibility as to the reason these bills are here and what is really intended. I would have far more respect for the Premier -- who has shoved this down everybody’s throat really, let’s face it -- if he came out and said, “I am in favour of Sunday shopping” and just did it, because that is, in effect, what I believe the Premier believes in. He should just do it, be up front and be honest about it.

How can you have some labour protection if it is legal? How can you say to a little store owner, “It is legal for you to be open, but it might not be legal for you to have any staff”? I do not understand this bill at all.

Did we want protection for those stores that were open illegally? Of course we did. It was a sad day when we had to bring it in, because last year the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said, “Either I am not going to enforce this law or I am going to make a pronouncement that I am going to exempt Boxing Day from this law.” That is a little different, and we were after protection there. But to pretend that the protection in Bill 114 somehow makes it OK for wide-open Sunday shopping; that the government has covered it, really stretches credibility.

I started by saying that when you hear comments like this from the Solicitor General -- when she talked about her evolution, she talked about sporting events, she talked about how the nuns would not let her play tennis, she talked about how life has changed and has evolved -- that does not sound like an argument for the status quo. That sounds to me like an argument that it is time for Sunday shopping in Ontario. She is saying times have changed.

Then in the next breath she says: “Oh, but this is the status quo. This doesn’t mean wide-open Sunday shopping.” Let her be honest about it. If that is what she wants to put forward, let her be honest about it.

The Premier was quoted as saying: “I’m going to drag Ontario into the 21st century. Whether the citizens like it or not, I am going to drag them into the 21st century.” He too believes times have changed: It is time to open up Ontario on Sunday.

The member for Etobicoke West (Mrs. LeBourdais) nods her head, and I congratulate her for doing that because it is at least being honest. That is not what we are hearing from the Premier, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

The Solicitor General also said: “I do not believe you guys saying all these people are opposed. If they don’t believe in it, they won’t shop.”

All these arguments indicate to me that what the government really wants is wide-open Sunday shopping. I guess deep down inside that if this is its way of bringing it in, it agrees with us. It agrees with the domino theory, it agrees that this indeed will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping.

I would have a lot more respect for this government if it had said, after the election: “Look, we got elected. I know we didn’t say this before, but doggone it, we had to get elected, folks. I don’t think this would have sold too well. but now this is the agenda. We’re elected. Like it or lump it, this is my vision of Ontario in the 21st century and you can judge me in the next election if you remember that I said one thing and changed.”

Why does not the government just be honest about it and say, “I want wide-open Sunday shopping”?

Let me talk specifically about Bill 114 in a little detail. First of all, in my view, and I am not a lawyer -- and I refuse to consult lawyers because I get 50 different opinions and, in my view, my own gut reaction has usually served me much better -- this bill is unconstitutional, this bill cannot be constitutional.

How can the government say it is legal to open a store but illegal to have somebody staff it? How can it be illegal to have to work in a store that wants to be open and it is legal for it to be open on Sunday? How can that be illegal, or how can the government offer protection to that worker but no protection to the worker who works in any other business? How can the government say to the retail workers of the province of Ontario, “We’re going to give you protection from working on Sundays, something nobody else has”? How can that be legal, I say to myself. I do not think it can be.

I think it is challengeable. I understand the steelworkers are going to challenge it. I have heard rumours of a few others. It just is not, in my view, constitutional in Canada today. I do not see how the government can give protection to one segment and not to the other. How does that make sense? The only reason it may not be unconstitutional is that it is so meaningless it does not mean anything anyway.

1750

I guess if I were defending it, that is the way I would defend it. I would say: “Really, the bill is not protection at all. It is so wishy-washy that it does not mean any protection. Therefore, how can it be giving a right to a retail worker that is not there for a construction worker, a steelworker or any other worker? Because the bill is no good, anyway.” I think they might win that argument. But I am not sure that is what the minister is trying to sell to us today. I heard him say this particular legislation was “meaningful” and “workable” and a “historic occasion.”

Also, not being a legal expert, I wonder about the Sunday aspect. I wonder if it is constitutional to say to Christians who celebrate Sunday, “We have a bill that protects you and you don’t have to work on Sunday,” but to say to those of the Jewish faith and many other faiths: “We don’t have any protection for you. You have to work on Saturday. You have to work on Friday.”

I do not know if that is constitutional. Maybe somebody will look into it. It just does not make a lot of sense to me that you can offer protection to one faith on Sunday, and to one segment of workers, the retail workers, and not to others.

The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has pointed out the reality of the situation in the retail sector, and the pitfalls and the loopholes that are there from an employee point of view. I want to say I agree with him. They all exist.

But I also want to talk about the small retailers and the many employees who work for them. I guess if you add them all up across the country -- yes, you have your Eaton’s and you have your Simpsons stores -- I do not know what the percentage of workers is, but my guess is that the majority of workers probably work for the small retailers.

The relationship in that little dress shop where there is the owner, an assistant manager and two or three employees is really not the type of relationship that exists when Bob White of the Canadian Auto Workers sits across the table from General Motors. That is not the kind of relationship that normally exists in a small dress shop or in many of the small retail shops we have, where, in most of them, the owners work themselves.

That relationship with the employees is a special relationship. It is not the normal boss, general manager, manager, supervisory type of role. Generally, it is a pretty friendly, family-oriented type of role. There has been a history, usually, of a loyalty to that firm. I cannot imagine, in those situations, where I think most employees work, an employee saying:

“I’m not going to work on Sunday. I understand that Sturgeon Falls has opened on Sunday and I understand we are losing market share and I understand why North Bay city council did what it had to do and now we have to open on Sunday. I understand why you, Sally, have to open your shop on Sunday. I can see the sales going down and I can see the business we are losing.” Does the government expect that the employee in that type of family operation is going to say: “No, I’m not working Sunday”? It will not happen.

I think this bill is a charade. I do not think it does anything. I really do not think it is effective legislation. I have to be honest and say that I am not sure the government can, on one hand, say: “It’s legal to be open. Sunday shopping’s OK in Ontario. It’s OK, Mr. Businessman. You can build your little store. You can get your inventory. Sunday is a great day. It’s a wonderful day to be open. You’re welcome to do that here in Ontario.”

I am most concerned, I guess, about the small independent family store owner. I do not know how one can say to that person, “But you can’t have anybody to work,” because if it is effective, if it is meaningful, he cannot have anybody to work. I do not understand how they can do that. That does not make sense to me. I guess the only reason that it probably works is that the bill is no good, because it does not really say that.

I worry about friendly relationships, special relationships that exist in small stores now, with the employer in owner-run businesses where he works in there. I worry about the confrontation and I worry about the type of conflicts that it will put into that situation.

Again, we have agreed that we are not going to talk at great length on this, but I think I would be remiss if I did not comment on how the government expects to enforce this with the employment standards officers. I am told now that it takes four to six months to have simple complaints adjudicated.

The minister said in his statement that these will be dealt with immediately, on a priority basis. Does that mean that the waiting list that is now four to six months will go to a year or two years? Will it go the way of our rent review legislation? Is that what he considers immediate? If they are going to jam all these cases in there, why are they going to get priority?

It is great to stand up for the bills and say: “It’s going to be a priority. We’re going to deal with these right up front, first thing. Everything else goes on the back burner.” I do not think that is being fair to those who are having difficulty with the system right now.

Does it mean they are going to hire another 1,000 civil servants to mediate all these things? What kind of training are they going to give these people who have no expertise, really, in understanding that type of relationship, particularly in the small shops?

I know there is expertise in the ministry in dealing with big companies and with big-company bargaining and with those types of problems. Some of them perhaps get involved with some of the smaller companies under wrongful dismissal, but I do not think the employment standards officers have the training or the experience to make those kinds of rulings right now.

I do not know how many more they are planning to hire; I do not know what training or what experience they are planning to give them, or whether that indeed is possible, and then I do not know what is going to happen to the waiting list that already exists there.

When we started to hear that the government was going to go the local-option route, I actually was surprised that this bill was brought in. I understood Bill 51. I understand the One Day’s Rest in Seven Act in the tourism industry. But I really do not understand and I was surprised that the government thought it could come up with a bill that was (a) constitutional, (b) meaningful and had force and (c) workable. Indeed, I have not seen anything that has changed my view.

I guess, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to wrap it up, Mike.

Mr. Harris: Does the minister want to wrap up?

On motion by Mr. Harris, the debate we adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: As called for by standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

Earlier today the House leaders and whips met, as is our custom, and we decided on proceeding with the business of the week following in this fashion: On Monday, June 20, we will -- and I think it has to be said now -- continue the adjourned debate on Bill 114. Later in the day we will have the votes, assuming our agreement holds, and I believe it will, on Bill 113 and Bill 114.

On Monday as well, as time permits, we will then deal with Bill 86, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Bill 87, the Ontario Highway Transport Board Amendment Act, and Bill 88, the Truck Transportation Act.

Mr. Philip: The Liberal free trade bills.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who seems to be excited, that we will then move on, in an order that time and agreement permit, to deal with Bill 148, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act, where we expect some divisions, and on to other legislation, including second reading in committee of the whole House with bills 148, 133, 26, 52, 128, the weed act, the mining act and Bill 100, which had been agreed to for possible discussion today.

It is quite obvious we have a lot to do. There will be a lot of discussion, and I want to ask the honourable members to bear with the House leaders as we try to work our way through these sunny days of June.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

16 juin 1988