Journal des débats 1989-janv-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Farnan: Ontario optometrists broke off negotiations with the government when they were denied fee parity with ophthalmologists for vision diagnosis. Professor Wesley Rayner, dean of law, University of Western Ontario, in his fact-finder report had recommended that optometrists receive the same fee as is paid to ophthalmologists for the same diagnostic services, pointing out that granting the same fee would be simple fairness.

The government has since rejected Professor Rayner’s recommendation and advised the optometrists that they should return to the bargaining table and begin the negotiations for 1987-88 again. The optometrists were in negotiations with Professor Rayner as chairman from April to September, but the government refused to budge from its opening offer of a decrease of 4.3 per cent. Ophthalmologists received an increase of 6.35 per cent for the same time period for providing virtually the same diagnostic services.

Despite a protest rally at Queen’s Park two weeks ago, when more than 400 of the province’s 800 optometrists were on hand, the government stubbornly refuses to negotiate in good faith. The government’s position is untenable. Simple fairness demands that the government reverse its position and make a reasonable offer to the optometrists.

INTER-CITY GAS CORP.

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). I asked him about his role in the Inter-City Gas Corp. $50 to $70 retroactive rate increase to consumers in the riding of Simcoe East. He indicated that the Ontario Energy Board, which approved this exorbitant increase on top of the regular December 1988 bill, is an independent authority. He passed the buck by saying that the board, not himself, is responsible for ensuring that the rates are just and reasonable for consumers of that energy.

His answer is unacceptable. He is abdicating his responsibilities as Minister of Energy. As far as I am concerned, his job is to review energy matters on a continuing basis and to co-ordinate energy-related activities of his government. That should include approving or disallowing the unethical $50 to $70 rate increase that hits senior citizens and those on fixed incomes the hardest.

He should have said no to the rate increase, just as many seniors in Simcoe East are saying no to paying this additional amount that turned up on their December bills. He has abdicated his responsibilities as Minister of Energy and therefore he should immediately abdicate his position as Minister of Energy. Shame on him.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to take this opportunity to inform my colleagues in the House of a recent report released by the city of Mississauga entitled the Mississauga Economic Development Strategy.

In light of the fact that free trade is a reality, Mississauga council is taking the initial step to make certain that its city will be able to compete in the global economy. Mississauga has not only a fast-growing population but also a fast-growing economic base. To ensure that Mississauga continues on its road of high-quality growth, the report recommends three goals.

Keeping business in Mississauga is the first goal, which focuses on our existing businesses. We at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology feel it is very important to act as an advocate for the business community, and I feel that this advocacy will also prove very successful for the municipal government.

The second goal of attracting quality growth is an issue that fits well with the Premier’s Council. It is through the small and medium-sized companies, which are the future development companies in this province, that we will be able to guarantee that quality growth will take place. We must help these companies to create wealth and, in turn, they will create economic benefits and employment for our city.

The third goal of city-building focuses on promoting the city centre, expanding a solid relationship between the business sector and the municipality and offering support to promote facilities that will heighten the quality of life in Mississauga.

I would like to congratulate the council of our city for such forward thinking.

ROBERT J. WATSON

Mrs. Marland: In a city the size of Mississauga, with a population of 400,000, there are many extraordinary people who rise to the top in terms of community service, and it is to one of those individuals that today I send, with deep appreciation, my sincere congratulations.

Robert J. Watson, QC, has just completed the full term of six years on the executive of the Mississauga Board of Trade, serving as president during that time. Bob has been a powerful force in the planning, growth and development of the Mississauga Board of Trade, and I am particularly proud of his accomplishments.

Bob Watson is a superb and caring human being who has made a tremendous commitment to our city and the people who live there. His present work of hundreds of hours as a volunteer member of the Olympic Council of Peel and the board of the Sports Council of Mississauga is a further indication of this man’s service to the community in which he has his law practice as a senior partner of Watson, Ublansky and Meehan. He is also counsel to the law firm of Fasken and Calvin.

Bob Watson exemplifies for all of us the true meaning of a volunteer and a friend in the community. He has made a unique contribution and in so doing gives all of us a great deal for which to be thankful to him. He is one wonderful person.

PRODUCT CERTIFICATION

Mr. Neumann: Now that the Canada-US free trade agreement has been enacted, some of the problems which were foreseen, and indeed some others, have emerged.

I have been made aware of a problem which may become common for small businesses that supply components for Canadian companies which export to the United States. The Canadian original equipment manufacturers are now beginning to require that all component parts be certified to American standards.

A local businessman has informed me that it could cost him up to $15,000 to go through the process of obtaining the necessary “U stamp.” Even if Canadian and American standards are identical, companies must pay for American inspectors to come to their plants, look at their product and give it the American stamp of approval. This will be required for those products destined for the Canadian market as well.

This same individual, who started his business within the past year, says that it may have been cheaper for him to locate in Buffalo and supply Canadian manufacturers from that location.

I ask the Prime Minister of Canada: Where is the adjustment assistance to help this company and others prepare for the wonders of free trade?

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mr. Cousens: I have a letter I received from a grade 2 child, who writes:

“Dear Guvearmint:” -- that’s the spelling, but this is a small child.

“It is not fair that you can say the Lord’s Prayer and we can’t. So please do something about it! If you do you would make us very happy. Please tell us why the government can say it and kids can’t? Thank you.”

1340

I have another letter:

“Dear Guveannint:

“I think it is not fair that you get to say the Lord’s Prayer and we don’t get to. Can we please say the Lord’s Prayer again?”

We are changing some of the fundamental values of the system --

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: Well, we are talking about schools’ interpretations of what is going on and we are talking about the freedoms people have enjoyed in this province and we are talking about a government which has not listened to what some of the people want to try to do. I am insulted by the remarks of the minister for the disabled, because he should have respect for the views of other people.

All I am saying is that young people in the school system are asking that they be listened to. Maybe this government, spelled incorrectly, will start to listen to what the people of Ontario really want to do.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) concerning her government’s focus on saving money rather than ensuring that patients receive the treatment they have come to expect from what was once a world-class system of health care services in Ontario.

I recently told the minister about Lloyd Crawford of Oro Station, who has faced a series of heart bypass surgery delays over six months. The Crawford family has begun circulating a petition calling on the minister to accept her responsibility of making immediate improvements to our health care system.

The president of the Ontario Medical Association warned that more patients requiring heart surgery are going to die because her government is more concerned with saving money than providing proper care. Unless she begins accepting her responsibility as Health minister and does what needs to be done, more people are going to die needlessly. She should show some leadership and accept her responsibilities now.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: In light of the comments previously made, I would like to draw to the attention of the House and also to my riding that although the 5.4 per cent increase in terms of municipal funding has been kept at this stage from last year, emphasis has been placed on the educational system and also on hospitals. I think an 8.1 per cent increase for hospitals is a significant step by this government in terms of looking after what is an important issue for the province and also for my riding and other members’ ridings.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY / SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today I will be introducing for first reading a bill to reform the Ontario system for preventing workplace illness and injury and protecting worker health and safety. The bill flows from a vision that the productivity and effectiveness of Ontario enterprise are nourished by the value we place in fair and equitable workplaces; workplaces where labour-management relations are based on trust and mutual understanding, where health and safety are protected and in which the exploitation of women and minorities is not tolerated.

Ce projet de loi résulte de notre conviction que la productivité et l’efficacité des entreprises ontariennes sont favorisées par la valeur que l’on attribue à des lieux de travail justes et équitables ; des lieux de travail où les relations patronales et syndicales sont basées sur la confiance et la compréhension mutuelles ; où l’on protège la santé et la sécurité ; et dans lesquels l’exploitation des femmes et des minorités n’est pas tolérée. Ce projet de loi accordera aux travailleurs et employeurs de plus grandes responsabilités et une plus grande autorité pour contrôler les risques de blessures et de maladies au travail.

This bill is rooted in a perspective that success in the workplace can be achieved only if labour and management have, and indeed seize, the opportunity and responsibility to work collaboratively and constructively. It is against this backdrop that this bill will give workers and employers greater responsibility and authority for controlling the risk of workplace injury and illness. It will provide labour and management with new opportunities to work jointly to fulfil that responsibility effectively, and it will help ensure that they have the capacity to do so.

It will provide uniform training programs to equip them with the knowledge and the skills they need to do an effective, efficient and responsible job and it will ensure that they have full access to information about existing and potential hazards in the workplace.

For that reason, this bill will extend the requirement to establish workplace health and safety committees and appoint worker health and safety representatives to tens of thousands of additional enterprises across the province, including construction sites.

Furthermore, it will create a new Workplace Health and Safety Agency, chaired jointly by labour and management, to develop and deliver health and safety education for men and women in the workplace, to engage in research and consultative services and to provide advice to the Minister of Labour on future directions.

De plus, il établira un nouvel office pour la santé et la sécurité au travail, dirigé conjointement par les travailleurs et les employeurs, dont le but sera de mettre au point et d’assurer la formation concernant la santé et la sécurité sur les lieux de travail ; d’offrir des services de recherche et de consultation ; et enfin, de conseiller le ministre du Travail sur les orientations à prendre.

Honourable members will know that at present the responsibility for education and training is shared by safety and accident prevention associations, by the Occupational Health and Safety Education Authority and the Workers’ Health and Safety Centre of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

These organizations have provided a wide range of health and safety training programs for the specific sectors they serve. This bill will utilize their expertise by bringing them all, except the Farm Safety Association Inc., within the framework of the new agency so they can contribute to the development of a uniform standard of education and training right across the province.

In addition to assuming responsibility for the employer safety and accident prevention associations and for two occupational health and safety clinics, the agency will assume responsibility for the funding of the province’s five health and safety resource centres and, of course, for research.

As I have suggested, the agency will exist in the first instance for the central purpose of supporting the effort in the workplace to prevent worker illness and injury through new approaches to education and training and through certification and accreditation.

As I have also indicated, the bill will put the responsibility and authority for controlling workplace risks in the hands of thousands more people on the shop floors, in offices and on construction projects.

For the first time in Ontario, construction projects with a workforce of 20 or more persons where the project is run for three months or more will require joint health and safety committees and worker trade subcommittees. In addition, some 30,000 offices and retail outlets currently exempt under the act will have to establish joint health and safety committees.

Pour la première fois en Ontario, les chantiers de construction employant au moins 20 personnes et devant durer trois mois ou plus devront avoir des comités mixtes de santé et de sécurité. Les amendements prévoient également la création de sous-comités, par corps de métier, pour les chantiers de construction sur lesquels il existe des comités mixtes de santé et de sécurité. De plus, quelque 30 000 bureaux et magasins, qui sont actuellement exempts de la loi, devront créer des comités mixtes de santé et de sécurité.

All committees will be co-chaired by one representative from labour and one representative from management. Some 50,000 businesses which employ more than five workers but fewer than 20 will be required to appoint worker health and safety representatives chosen by their employees.

If joint health and safety committees are to be truly effective in rectifying health and safety problems in the workplace, they will require special expertise. Under this bill, every joint committee will be required to have at least one labour and one management member specially trained and certified under a program to be established by the new workplace health and safety agency.

Certified members will have the authority to stop work if they find a provision of the act or regulation is being contravened, the contravention poses a danger or a hazard to the worker and the danger or hazard is such that any delay in controlling it will cause a serious risk to the worker.

1350

As honourable members know, there have been growing concerns that the present worker right to refuse dangerous work fails to protect workers adequately because it does not cover work activity that is likely to endanger, such as lifting heavy objects. This bill expands the right to refuse to include work activity. It also ensures that if a worker refuses to do unsafe work, that worker will be compensated for the time it takes the workplace parties themselves to investigate the refusal.

The bill places other responsibilities on employers. For instance, it places a duty of care on officers and directors of corporations for ensuring the health and safety of workers. It requires employers to establish health and safety policies and training programs that meet new standards. The bill also raises the maximum fines for corporations that do not comply with the law to $500,000 from the current maximum of $25,000.

Since 1985, the Ministry of Labour has been actively and aggressively involved in the reform process that directly addresses the government’s commitment to improving the quality of the workplace environment. The measures I am putting before the House today will place the responsibility and capacity for resolving health and safety issues more explicitly and fully in the hands of labour and management.

Fundamentally, they will result in fewer workplace accidents and illnesses, in a lessening of the pain and suffering that imposes itself on too many of our homes and families. Ultimately, they will also mean more effective and productive enterprises in Ontario.

En résumé, ces mesures entraîneront une diminution des accidents et des maladies au travail, une diminution des souffrances qui affligent de trop nombreux foyers et familles. Enfin, ces mesures augmenteront l’efficacité et la productivité des entreprises ontariennes.

I urge their expeditious passage.

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Wong: Today, I am pleased to announce an initiative that reinforces this government’s commitment to ensure that Ontario Hydro is responsive to government policies on important goals such as energy efficiency.

The municipal street lighting pilot program is designed to help make this province more energy efficient. The program is jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro and will encourage and assist municipalities and townships to convert street lighting equipment to more energy-efficient lighting.

Together, the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro will make $1.5 million available for this one-year pilot project. Selected municipalities and townships in northeastern and eastern Ontario will be eligible for assistance to convert their streetlights. As many as 25,000 streetlights could be converted to save up to four megawatts of electricity.

The municipal street lighting pilot project will be evaluated and considered for province-wide expansion.

If all Ontario municipalities converted to more energy-efficient technologies, they could save up to 75 per cent of the over $35 million per year now spent on electricity for streetlights. This would produce province-wide savings of 72 megawatts, enough electricity to provide the needs of a community the size of Niagara Falls.

This program is the latest, but not the last, example of our commitment to energy efficiency. Yesterday, I introduced a major set of amendments to the Power Corporation Act to ensure Ontario Hydro will be responsive to government policies and public priorities. An important part of these amendments and the memorandum of understanding deal with Hydro’s commitments to energy efficiency.

Honourable members will recall that in the November 3, 1987, speech from the throne, the government committed itself to encourage greater municipal involvement in energy conservation. The Power Corporation Act amendments, the memorandum of understanding and this program meet that commitment.

There are good reasons for decreasing demand and using energy more effectively through conservation and energy efficiency improvements.

Energy efficiency can improve our security of supply and ensure that energy supplies are adequate to meet the needs of our people. Energy efficiency improvements can help us to maintain one of the highest standards of living in the world. Energy efficiency also helps us to lessen the burden of energy use on the environment. Every effort to safeguard our environment will rank high on our list of government priorities. The public demands no less.

This program will make an important contribution to ensuring Ontario makes more efficient and responsible use of its energy resources.

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: In response to the comments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), almost every working day someone is killed on the job in Ontario and almost every minute an employee is injured in an Ontario workplace. Back problems have become epidemic. Repetitive strain and injuries are rampant.

By the end of my statement, eight more workers will become victims of unsafe work environments in Ontario, the hidden time bomb in workplace health and safety for the thousands of workers suffering from occupational illnesses. It has to stop. Working people should not be put at risk simply to make a living for themselves and their families. The amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act brought forward today are a step towards making Ontario workplaces safer and healthier.

The situation has got worse under this majority government elected in September 1987. According to Workers’ Compensation Board figures, 469,681 workers made claims for compensation in 1987, up 6.24 per cent from the previous year. Fatalities went from 220 in 1986 to 238 in 1987, an increase of eight per cent. The following tables from the Workers’ Compensation Act show that injuries and claims have gone from 344,758 four years ago to 469,681 in 1987.

New Democrats like Stephen Lewis, Elie Martel and my leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), have fought to improve health and safety conditions in Ontario’s workplaces. For years, we waged an uphill battle against the Conservative government. Finally, in 1979, the Occupational Health and Safety Act was passed. For the first time, Ontario workers had the legal right to refuse unsafe work. They won the right to have joint health and safety committees in their workplaces.

After the 1985 provincial election, we seized the opportunity, ended 43 years of one-party rule and supported the Liberals on the basis of an agenda of reform. The accord made occupational health and safety one of the key priorities. New Democrats were able to get legislation passed in June 1987 that gives workers the right to know about workplace hazards. Bill 79 amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require employers to provide hazardous materials inventories, labels and data sheets. Employers must also provide training and instruction related to these substances in the workplace.

In 1986, Elie Martel, the 19-year NDP member for Sudbury East, introduced Bill 149 which would shift the balance of power concerning health and safety from employers to the workers. That legislation passed second reading in this House, a highly unusual feat for an opposition proposal in major legislation. It was gaining broad support when the government called a September 1987 election.

Mr. Martel and the member for York South have denounced the lack of training provided workers and the role of the safety associations as mouthpieces of business. Most importantly, workers need more power in the workplace.

I want to make it clear that today’s amendments go some considerable distance in giving workers more chance to work in safe and healthy workplaces. We look forward to debate on this legislation.

In the next 24 hours, another worker will likely be killed on the job and 1,290 workers will suffer injuries from minor cuts to life-disabling trauma. Cancer, which has touched so many of us, will claim the lives of many who develop the disease simply because their workplace is unhealthy. We have to do in this House whatever it takes to end the legacy of pain and sadness that rotten working conditions bequeath to us.

New Democrats, working with people from labour, business and the government, will do whatever is necessary to make that difference for working people in Ontario.

1400

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. Charlton: I would like to take a few moments to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). The minister’s statement this afternoon is another primary example of a government with wonderful ideas that is too timid to pursue them aggressively.

The statement this afternoon clearly sets out in factual terms what the potential is in Ontario around a municipal lighting program, and yet the minister is still tinkering around with a one-year, mini-pilot project when he already knows what he can accomplish in a province-wide program. He has given us the figures right here today.

It is another example that follows the one he gave us yesterday when he introduced his amendments to the Power Corporation Act, amendments that are all headed in the right direction but do not --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired. Thank you.

Mr. Runciman: I would also like to respond to the Minister of Energy’s rather modest statement this afternoon. The minister has indicated a commitment to conservation and I have no doubt he personally has such a commitment but he is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with the power behind the throne, Ontario Hydro. We saw that very clearly in the announcement made yesterday. Ontario Hydro’s commitment to energy conversation is in question at best --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Energy conversation?

Mr. Runciman: Energy conservation, I said. The House leader should clear out his ears for a change.

We hear a great deal of rhetoric, but no real commitment on the part of this government or on the part of Ontario Hydro to meaningful energy conservation.

I went through the select committee on energy hearings dealing with the demand/supply planning strategy. We took a look at municipalities, for example, at the fact they are still out there, many of them, very vigorously attempting to increase market share.

We see Ontario Hydro advertising on television continuously, again pushing increased energy consumption. Why do we not see initiatives taken in that direction? There are continual efforts to encourage increased consumption of electricity across this province; no real commitment. We saw it during the Christmas break when Ontario Hydro was talking about possible brownouts. I have never, in my own area, seen such a proliferation of Christmas lighting on residential homes. There was no real commitment on the part of the municipal utilities or Ontario Hydro to meet those concerns, if indeed they were real.

The leader of the Liberal Party some time ago described Ontario Hydro as an out-of-control monster. We obviously are not going to see this government take control of that monster. The minister is in their pocket. Hydro has its own agenda and this minister is clearly following it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Harris: We look forward to seeing what will evolve from this new piece of legislation coming today from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). We question how serious he is about it. The first draft of this bill was introduced on the last day of the last session. Now we are presumably close to the tail end of this session, with the exception of the minister’s labour bill or nonbill on Sunday shopping.

The bill comes back in again. I understand it has been revised, but I say that this one will probably die again and then we will get the next bill when the next session comes in. People can see how serious we are. We keep introducing these bills. When they come in on the last day or in the last week or the last couple of weeks, we realize how serious the minister is.

Second, with the amount of time that has passed, the one aspect, the key part, of this particular piece of legislation, as I understand it, is this: In his statement, the minister emphasized that the effectiveness of both joint health and safety committees and worker representatives will depend on their training and the information available to them. So it is indeed this committee itself, these 14 -- seven from labour and seven from management -- who are going to be the key. The minister says that is the key.

He also says, “It will provide uniform training programs to equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to do an effective, efficient and responsible job.” But with all this study, and in questioning in the lockup today, nobody could answer how much training, what kind of training and how long the training is going to be. Some of the answers were, “It depends on the industry.” The minister’s statement says “uniform training programs.” The key to making it work is not in this statement. It is not in the bill at this particular stage.

It appears to us the government still does not know how it is going to work. Perhaps when they reintroduce it a third time, they will have a little better handle on this.

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: The Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) has risen in his place to comment about conservation of one of the two resources he is responsible for, one being electricity; the other is the public purse, which has been entrusted to him as a member of the cabinet.

I would like to point out that a constituent, a resident of the city of Burlington, received two large packages one day apart with the same material, by Priority Post. Yet the thermometers the constituent requested were still absent from the packages the minister sent.

Perhaps he should look at getting his own act together in terms of how he is administering his portfolio.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Solicitor General. I wonder if the Solicitor General could explain why the Ontario Provincial Police is not covered by the government’s legislation on Bill 4, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy to point out to the member, as I have done before in this House, that we are working on amendments to the Police Act or a new police act that will look at the responsibility of the OPP in this direction. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be very satisfied and happy to support this when we come forward with it in the next session.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is quite wrong if she thinks we are going to be satisfied. It is my understanding, according to the Ottawa Citizen of October 3, 1988, that it is her plan to split the Ontario Police Commission and give to the police commission itself the responsibility for reviewing complaints against police officers who are employees of the police commission.

I wonder if the Solicitor General can tell me why that solution is good enough for the OPP, but in fact does not appear to be good enough for other municipalities and other police commissions in other municipalities. It is an approach that was explicitly rejected by her party when it was in opposition, in discussing the Metro Toronto complaints bill.

Can she explain why she continues to refuse to allow a totally independent civilian review of the OPP, just as it is covered in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy for this occasion given to me to explain this. The Leader of the Opposition has it completely backwards, which is most unfortunate for him and for those who are listening to his opinions.

The OPC has indeed already been split in its responsibilities. We have, on the one hand, the quasi-judicial arm of it, which is the OPC, and which will deal with complaints. On the other hand, we have the policing element that is directly under the ministry and is where the OPP work. They do not work for the OPC and would not be reviewed by those for whom they work. The very point the Leader of the Opposition is making is why we have split this into two functions, the one being the policing function and the other being the quasi-judicial function of the OPC.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is talking about something that has absolutely no legislative authority. When she says I have it backwards, I think she should at least have the courtesy to say that there is in fact no legislative authority for this division.

The legislative authority of the Ontario Police Commission is as now set out in Ontario’s Police Act. The Solicitor General knows that. I am asking her if she can tell us why it is that the Ontario Provincial Police is being treated differently from any other municipal police force across this province. Why is there not one complaints process which covers, in principle, police officers who work as members of the OPP, police officers who work for various municipal police forces as well as for those who now work in Metropolitan Toronto? Why is the same law not in place, so civilians have the same rights of complaint, the same rights of redress, the same rights of investigation living outside Metropolitan Toronto --

1410

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member asked the same question four times.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, one cannot bring in anything as complicated as a new Police Act or a basically amended Police Act without consultation. This consultation, as I have already told the member, has been going on and people are being very co-operative: the Ontario Provincial Police Association, the police chiefs, the Ontario Police Commission itself and the government. We will be bringing forth an act that very much will satisfy the complaints which have been made. A bill that deals specifically with municipal police forces by its very nature does not deal with the OPP, which is not a municipal police force.

Mr. B. Rae: I could ask the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) the same question to see whether we get the same answer. I am sure I would get exactly the same answer, because I know he agrees entirely with the views that have been expressed by the Solicitor General. The Attorney General is saying I am wrong, that he does not agree with the Solicitor General. I do not understand.

TRITIUM

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday the Minister of Energy presented a bill to the Legislature asserting the political primacy of the government and the government’s political direction with respect to Hydro, making it very clear that it is important that the government ensure that Ontario Hydro is working within the policy framework this legislative package outlines.

I wonder if the minister can turn his mind for a moment to the very difficult and controversial question of whether Ontario Hydro should be selling radioactive tritium to the United States. Can the minister tell us what is the policy framework of the government of Ontario with respect to the sale of tritium to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Wong: This is a question that I think concerns all members of the Legislature, not just the members of the government. It is our view that we would not want tritium sold for purposes that would find themselves in military applications or weapons. In terms of the peaceful use of tritium, this is a matter which the cabinet will be addressing to detail fully what the precise policy decision of this government is, in a timely way.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has a rather illusory view of the way the world works. He will know that there is a crisis in the tritium supply in the United States, because of problems that have been well-documented in newspaper reports and elsewhere about what has happened to a number of American nuclear plants and, indeed, nuclear weapons facilities which have been closed down because of safety problems.

I would like to ask the minister very directly: What is the position of the government of Ontario with respect to the proposed export of tritium to the United States? Is the government going to export tritium from Ontario to the United States? Yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Wong: In answering the Leader of the Opposition, let me say that the policy on the export of tritium will be decided vis-à-vis Ontario’s position with respect to the whole world, not just the United States.

As many members in this House know, there are people in western Europe, in Japan, in the USSR and in the United States, for example, who would like to utilize our expertise and our knowledge in the handling of these materials, so the policy this government will establish will be based on our view of whether export should be done anywhere in the world.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure that Colonel Gadhafi and a number of other world leaders will be delighted to hear that in fact the government is contemplating the sale of tritium not only to the United States but indeed all around the world, but it does not give any comfort to those of us who believe that once the substance is exported, it is impossible for the government of Ontario to dictate that substance’s use.

We are in possession of a substance that is extremely important for the triggering mechanisms on nuclear weapons, which have to be replaced and replenished about every 10 years. The minister should be aware of that. He should be aware of enormous pressure that is now being brought to bear on us and on Ontario Hydro, as a potential supplier of that tritium, not only to the United States, as the minister now states.

I think we are entitled to an answer. What is his position with regard to tritium? Why does he not stand up in the House today and say to Ontario Hydro that the potential use of tritium is simply too dangerous for it to be exported from Ontario and that is why it is not going to be exported from Ontario? What is wrong with just standing up and saying that?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Let me stand up and say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that we firmly support the Atomic Energy Control Board and the other federal departments and agencies of the federal government which have the responsibility for that export, but let me add further what I said in answer to the first question, that this government is also concerned. Therefore, when this cabinet and this government look at this problem, we will not just leave that to the federal arena, we will look at the implications for the people of this province.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health and it relates to the situation that I discussed with the minister yesterday, the case of Mrs. Maria Gaccioli and the tragic death of Mrs. Gaccioli, which occurred on January 13. I took the opportunity to advise the minister’s office that I was going to raise this question again with her today, as I did yesterday, to see if in fact the minister has been able to ascertain any of the details surrounding the events that caused Mrs. Gaccioli to be released from the hospital on January 13 and why surgery was not performed on that particular lady when she was fully expecting that surgery would be performed before she left Victoria Hospital. Could the minister give some information to the House on that particular case?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Following yesterday’s question from the leader of the third party, the ministry contacted the hospital for information. The cardiologist is currently out of the country, so I asked ministry officials to contact the family and to get its permission to release the patient’s file. In fact, the ministry has just received that permission. I have asked them to develop a chronology of events and I will report to this House as soon as that information has been assembled.

Mr. Brandt: As the minister is well aware, the situation regarding Mrs. Gaccioli does not just involve one particular case but a number of cases that we have brought to the attention of the minister, literally right across the entire province.

I would like to bring to the attention of the minister today two additional cases of individuals who are, thankfully, still alive, one of whom is Betty Ann Tyrie, age 52, resident of Sarnia.

She has in fact been diagnosed as having a hole in her heart. In my view, as a nonpractitioner in the field of health and as a layperson, it would indicate to me that is a fairly serious condition.

Betty Ann Tyrie does have an appointment for March 1989 at University Hospital. She has an appointment for June at Victoria Hospital.

Jack McGuigan, age 62, had his third heart attack in February 1988. It took nine months, from February to November, for him to receive an angiogram, at which point he was diagnosed as requiring a quadruple bypass.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: This man is undergoing continuous chest pains. The earliest date for his operation is March.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

1420

Mr. Brandt: My question is: Would the minister indicate whether the problem is a shortage of nurses, a shortage of beds or a shortage of surgical teams? What is causing this life-threatening kind of problem that is occurring with respect to the individuals I have just --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the leader of the third party, there are some 40 surgeons in Ontario in nine hospitals in six centres providing cardiac surgery. I can tell him that I rely on advice from physicians. I do not, as he did in the House today, give my medical judgement or opinion because I am not a doctor.

We rely on physicians to determine who should have surgery and in what order, based on their judgement. I can tell the member that the advice I have received from the surgeons and the cardiologists in this province suggests that the situation is in hand, that the funded capacity, which next year it will be almost 5,000 procedures available in this province -- last year there were more than 4,000 -- is a significant increase. It is coming on stream, and they believe the situation is in hand.

Mr. Brandt: The minister may think the situation is in hand. I have pointed out two more cases to her which are absolutely critical. These people do not have the time to wait. When she indicates that the physician is in a position to prioritize these particular procedures, we are playing with lives. We are playing with the lives of people who cannot get the surgery they require.

The minister knows full well that some of them are taking the option of going to clinics in Cleveland. They are going to clinics in Detroit or elsewhere, and in some instances spending their life’s savings in order to undergo a procedure that is not available to them in Ontario.

Is this satisfactory to the minister, or does she intend to find some method by which she can reduce the six-month waiting period -- and longer in Toronto? It is now three months in Sudbury. It is running 27 weeks in London --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important that we fairly categorize the situation and that we listen to the experts who tell us and who advise me on what the situation is in this province.

Mr. Brandt: These people are going to die if they don’t get surgery.

Mr. South: We’re all going to die, Andy.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Dr. Keon, a noted heart surgeon in this province said recently, “I do not think the demand does exceed our ability to do the operations.”

He said, “We are turning our volume up slightly, as a matter of fact within the next few weeks, to try to reduce our waiting lists; but it is not excessively long, and we think that people are being managed in a pretty safe way.”

He said: “I realize that there are waiting lists in Toronto, but also these waiting lists are not out of hand. I believe that with some relatively minor adjustments, the patients who are at risk and who need coronary surgery could be managed.”

I can tell the leader of the third party that I listen to these experts like Dr. Keon. I have been assured by the leadership of cardiovascular surgery and cardiology in Toronto that the funded capacity will be on stream within a matter of weeks, and they believe the situation is being managed.

Mr. South: The best health care system in the world.

Mr. Brandt: Was.

Mr. South: Is.

Mr. Brandt: Was.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, can we make sure Mr. South’s comments are recorded?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the assistance of the members. However, I will recognize the member of Leeds-Grenville for a new question.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health, dealing with risk management for the criminally insane. Last week, in response to a question from the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), the minister said that the last six recommendations of a risk management report she tabled in this House last November had been implemented right after the report was received.

Will the minister tell us how she knows they were implemented and how they are being monitored for effectiveness?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As a matter of fact, just this morning I met with the director of the psychiatric branch, who informed me that the recommendations are being implemented and monitored.

Mr. Runciman: I guess we have to wonder who is in charge of the store. I would hope --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to remind the members of standing order 24(b) once again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: I guess the members of the other two parties are only interested in public safety questions if they raise them.

Mr. Speaker: I recognized the member to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: I would hope the minister is aware of recommendation 8 of her report, a recommendation that deals with the vital importance of controlling access to and use of alcohol.

I have an internal Brockville Psychiatric Hospital document -- I have sent a copy to the minister -- dealing with John McBeth Finlayson, a forensic outpatient charged with aggravated sexual assault of a Brockville woman. The report indicates that hospital staff knew this man was drinking at least three days before the alleged offence.

This is a man responsible for the horrific murder of a nine-year-old Toronto boy, a man who himself said, “Every time I go on a binge, something terrible happens,” and this walking time bomb was not pulled off the street, he was not even contacted and the police were not informed.

In the face of this evidence, is the minister still prepared to stand in this House and tell us that the system is working well and that public safety should not be a concern?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said repeatedly in this House that protection of the public, the safety of the public, is always my number one concern.

As the member opposite knows, the process for Lieutenant Governor’s warrants is mandated by the federal Criminal Code. We have received a recommendation on how, through implementing the recommendations of an outside report, we can ensure that we have the very best risk management system available. I have told him that we are in the process of implementing that report, and I am assured that we will have in place the very best possible systems available for risk management.

As he knows, I cannot comment on any individual case because of this matter being before the courts, where it will be fully aired, and I would say to him that it is important that we acknowledge that in fact we have an excellent system here in Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: One as committed as this minister is to everything could be considered committed to nothing. The sad reality is that the minister has been a dollar short and a day late on this issue since the brutal attack on a London girl last spring. She has not done her job.

Faced with the evidence I have presented, if her staff is not supplying her with that kind of information, is the minister now finally prepared to support an open and public review of the administration and monitoring of community privileges for the criminally insane, or is public safety going to continue to take a back seat to patients’ rights?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me try again to explain to the member, who does not seem to want to listen, that it is the responsibility of the federal government for the warrant process. Second, the terms of reference of the warrant include such things as location. They are set out very clearly by the independent LGW Board of Review as established under the federal Criminal Code. That is the way the system works.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: You are responsible for administering privileges -- your administration in the hospitals. Don’t try to fob it off. You’re responsible and you don’t know what’s going on and you don’t care. You don’t know and you don’t care; that’s the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Jackson: There are unsolved murder mysteries in my riding, sexually-related murder mysteries.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South is not helping.

DIOXIN IN KRAFT PULP

Mr. Hampton: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is aware that the European Community recently announced that it is preparing to ban the importation of all chlorine-bleached paper products as of the year 1990 because, as he knows, chlorine-bleached paper products contain detectable levels of the pollutant dioxin. In view of the considerable environmental damage caused by dioxins and in view of the European Community’s decision, what action does the Ministry of the Environment intend to take to require Ontario pulp mills to convert from the chlorine bleaching process to an oxygen bleaching process?

1430

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member, who is very interested in these matters, would be aware of the expert committee’s report. I know he would have reviewed it along with the other material which he has, which is most appropriate. In fact, it points in that very direction.

As we develop new regulations to deal with the effluent and the processes related to the paper mills in the province, we are in fact encouraging them to do that.

What in effect will make the difference is the new levels that they must meet in terms of contaminants which are produced. I think, very clearly, that will point to the oxygen bleaching as being superior to the chlorine bleaching which is taking place at the present time.

I think what was advantageous was that the expert committee consisted of a person who was an engineer, a person who was a scientist and a person who was an economist from northern Ontario. What the report pointed out was that not only is this technically and scientifically the very best way to go at this time but also the economics would dictate that it seems to be a reasonable course of action.

As I say, as the new control orders come up and are improved and made more stringent and as the regulations are being developed at this time, I think the member will see that those regulations will point in the direction of simply having that chlorine bleaching process removed and replaced with a new process, which I think the member would agree with me is superior to an abatement action, rather a process change.

Mr. Hampton: I appreciate the plethora of information that always comes from the minister, and there is a plethora of information out there. There is the minister’s study; there is a federal study. There is no doubt about it. But the key question here is, when is the minister going to act? I think there is an economic aspect to this too. The profits in the pulp and paper industry are at a record high at this time.

The time to make the change is now, not two or three years down the road when the profit level is low and we have companies crying poverty. When is the minister going to sit down with the pulp and paper industry in Ontario and say, “The time to convert is now”?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fact, we have had those discussions. As I say, I think what is probably superior to stipulating some specific technology -- though as a nonscientist or nontechnical person, I happen to like that particular option being available. The government’s role and responsibility is to set the specific levels. The company must then achieve those levels, using the kind of technology that is best suited to removing the contaminants.

What I always find interesting is that --

Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, he is taking a long time to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Now, there is the member for Lake Nipigon who, I remember, on one occasion -- I will not say that. I remember one occasion when the member, a very good friend of mine, and it is in answer to this question --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

MEDIATION IN FAMILY LAW

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for women’s issues. The minister will be aware that in 1987, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) commissioned a study on mediation in family law. The report of that study was recently leaked to a member of the media and it was uncovered that within it there is a recommendation that the mediator have the power to force an abused woman into mediation if he thinks that the woman is in a position to effectively negotiate with her abusive spouse.

Does the minister recognize that the power imbalance that exists between victims of domestic violence and their abusive spouses makes mediation inappropriate and has he made representation to that committee outlining that fact?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is really too bad that when the member for Burlington South refers to a leaked document it is obvious from the information he provides in his question that he has not read the document. I sincerely suggest to him that before he raises the matter again in the House he have a good, thorough look at the document, if he happens to be in contact with the person within the media who has a copy of it.

If he does that, he will find out that the document is a draft consideration of the question of more effective utilization of mediation in the instances of family breakdown. The document does not make any suggestions at all about compulsory mediation but looks at ways to more effectively make mediation available to spouses who, as a result of a series of incidents within the family, determine to separate.

I encourage the member, if he wants to find a copy of the document, to have a good read of it. Perhaps in the next days and weeks he may have better questions on the subject.

Mr. Jackson: The invitation was to get this minister, who has responsibility for women’s issues, to make presentations before these types of commissions. It is apparent that the minister has not made representation nor has the minister taken a position on this very sensitive point regarding domestic violence.

I would ask the minister if he will give his commitment in this House, as he obviously has seen the report and not made any recommendations to it, if he will give his undertaking that he will not force women who are the victims of domestic violence into mediation situations without their permission.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will give my commitment to the member and to the House not to support any initiative that forces anyone into mediation. If mediation is going to be an effective process, it has to be a consensual process.

I urge the member to get his facts clear before he asks a question. I want to tell him that the Ontario women’s directorate was a member of that committee studying issues surrounding mediation and made very effective representations on that committee. The directorate and I as minister --

Mr. Jackson: We have already established that you don’t meet with them. I just want to know if you made a presentation to the committee.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If the member for Burlington South will just stop shouting for a moment, I will complete my answer.

I want to tell the member that all of us have to be very sensitive to the unique position in which the spouse who is the victim of domestic violence finds herself when the question of mediation arises. I encourage him, when the report is made public, to read it -- that would be a good first step -- and after he has read it, perhaps he will have a useful comment or two as we make mediation more effective and more available to spouses in this province.

PAY EQUITY

Mr. Owen: I also have a question for the Minister of Labour. I know that every member of every party in this Legislature has a commitment to workplace equality. I know we are all committed to improving the lot of women’s incomes in this province. However, a few days ago the Toronto media indicated that women now earn 62.2 cents for every dollar earned by men. It used to be 64 cents. If the figures from the Toronto media are correct, it means we not only are not keeping pace with what we were doing before but are losing ground.

I would like to ask the minister today if he has any statistics which can shed some light on whether we are progressing under the programs he has initiated.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to thank the member for Simcoe Centre for the question. It is a very important issue.

I tend to agree with him that when we put the politics aside, every member of this House is committed to workplace equity issues as they affect working women. I do have some problem, however, with the statistics suggested by the member for Simcoe Centre. In fact, the latest Statistics Canada reports indicate that women who were working full-time in Canadian workplaces throughout 1987 earned an average of some 65.9 per cent of the average male income. By the way, the same figure for the previous year was 65.8 per cent.

The situation in Ontario is even happier than that, that is, the direction in which we are going. Indeed, we have had some significant improvements statistically for working women in the province. Of course, the agenda is not over by any means. It is my firm belief that as Ontario moves towards implementation of the Pay Equity Act which this Legislature passed during the last parliament, we will be making significant strides in closing that gap between what women make in this province and what men make.

Mr. Owen: Last night, I was attending a dinner function in the city of Barrie. One of the businessmen who was attending there indicated to me that his business was out $70,000 to do a study to give some guidance about what could be done with establishing equal pay for work of equal value in his business. He was also saying that he questioned whether it could be done or how effective it would be in the end.

I am wondering if the minister could tell us how his program is progressing with the business community. What progress is he making? Are there any signs as to whether it is going to work or not?

1440

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think it is safe to say that some of the concern expressed, particularly by the business community on the implementation of pay equity when that act was before us in this parliament, has indeed subsided. All the evidence points to the fact that the self-managed process implementing pay equity is going to be successful as we work our way through the timetables in the legislation.

The pay equity office has conducted some 900 seminars around the province, preparing representatives of both workers and managers in understanding the features of the Pay Equity Act, leading, for most businesses, to the posting of a pay equity plan and the wage adjustments that are necessary as a result of the analysis going into the creation of the plan and its posting.

The Pay Equity Commission indeed is working with a number of public sector organizations to ensure that the timetable for the public sector, which begins on January 1, 1990, is implemented in accordance with the act. I am not only very hopeful but very encouraged by everything I have seen around the province.

HAZARDOUS SPILLS

Mrs. Grier: Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment made a strong speech telling the chemical industry that it had to stop putting its toxic chemicals into the St. Clair River. I am sure all members will welcome that speech. However, unfortunately it sometimes appears that the commitment of the ministry is only as deep as the minister.

On the morning of January 10, Dow Chemical spilled six tons of propylene oxide into the St. Clair River. Propylene oxide is mutagenic and carcinogenic. The town of Wallaceburg, which takes its drinking water from the St. Clair River, was not notified of that spill for two days. Can the minister explain that fact and can he also tell us what action he has taken to investigate the behaviour of his officials in the Sarnia office and the fact that the town of Wallaceburg was not notified?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Whenever there is an incident of this kind the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment has a particular interest in it. What happens is that the investigations and enforcement branch interviews everybody who could potentially be involved. It also relies on the ability to detect precisely what was spilled, when it was spilled, what action was taken by the company to avoid this or what action was taken in terms of notification. There will continue to be an extensive investigation of all spills that warrant it, because that is the mandate the investigations and enforcement branch has.

In terms of notification that takes place to any of the municipalities, whether it be on our side of the St. Clair River or the other side of the St. Clair River, we are always reviewing any incident that happens where there are people who would allege that the action that was taken on the part of the Ministry of the Environment office in Sarnia was appropriate or not. The member has brought that to my attention, I think, previously in the House and I have asked for information in that regard.

Mrs. Grier: The minister is always very quick with his good news press releases. This is the second occasion when I have had to draw to his attention the fact that the bad news never seems to get out quite so readily. Because of its concerns about drinking water from the St. Clair, the town of Wallaceburg has a spills notification procedure with the Ministry of the Environment --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have lots of bad news releases.

Mr. B. Rae: Listen to this. Listen to this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the supplementary about the bad news.

Mrs. Grier: There has been so much bad news that in 1985 the town of Wallaceburg negotiated a spills notification procedure with the ministry so that it would be notified every time there was a spill. I now have a letter from a resident of Sarnia asking me to ask the minister if in fact the ministry notified the Michigan authorities of the fact that there had been a spill at five o’clock on Wednesday, January 10, and did not notify Wallaceburg until the Friday.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I notice that the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) was trying to get a look at who the letter was from. Who is the president of the Progressive Conservative Association in the member’s riding?

One of the criticisms which is levelled at me right across Ontario is that I am often presenting the bad news to the people of this province. With the activities and actions we are taking to try to turn that around, whether it is in the Niagara Peninsula or western Ontario or northern Ontario, I think if members counted all the information we provide, they would find we provide more bad news in terms of telling what the problems are that were left to us by the previous government than we provide good news. I want to assure the member that we will continue to provide both the bad news and the good news in this particular case.

In terms of notification, I have indicated to her that we are reviewing our practices of notification, because on some occasions the judgement of the officials of the Ministry of the Environment will be that there is, for instance, a very minor spill which would not perhaps, in their view, precipitate an action which would close down any plants. What we are reviewing is what criteria would be used, what threshold would be used, because it is very understandable, as the member points out, that people --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

DISPOSAL OF DDT

Mrs. Marland: My question is also for the Minister of the Environment. The minister banned all uses of DDT on December 2, 1988, and gave the following notice to all those with existing DDT stock: “Until December 31, 1988, DDT may be transported in accordance with sections 105 to 107 of this regulation to the Tricil waste transfer station at 551 Avonhead Road, Mississauga.”

Could the minister explain why Tricil’s disposal fee for DDT of $2.50 per pound increased 180 per cent to $7 per pound immediately following the minister’s announcement of the ban and of the requirement to send all in-stock DDT to Tricil?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am afraid that I do not control the prices which the company charges for whatever it does. The member’s party is familiar with the free enterprise system. She and her friend to her right, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), and her leader and others would say that the free enterprise system works as a free enterprise system works. We simply do the regulation. We put forward the regulation because we perceived that a problem existed. This company is a company which is licensed to do this and therefore we put forward that regulation, but I do not have control over what the company charges.

Mrs. Marland: Before December 2, the pest control operators purchased and used what was then a perfectly legal substance. Now not only have they lost the value of their inventory but they also have to pay inflated disposal costs. When property is expropriated, governments usually compensate the owners, so my question is: In fairness to these companies and in the interest of protecting the environment, will the minister be offering some form of compensation or disposal assistance to those with existing DDT stock?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fairness, my number one concern has to be getting rid of any DDT which exists in the province. I am not here to protect the companies which had the DDT in hand, because I think most people would have anticipated it years ago. DDT should have been totally out of use. What happened, in fact, was that some people still had some.

I wanted to see the DDT completely taken out of use and out of the stockpiling in inappropriate places. I know that sometimes enforcing the rules and regulations and the laws of this province is costly for some people, but that is the price we have to pay to protect the environment.

1450

ACID RAIN

Ms. Hart: My question is also to the Minister of the Environment.

Last Friday we saw the swearing in of George Bush as the 41st President of the United States. Sulphur dioxide emissions, largely from coal-burning power plants in the midwestern United States, are one of the major sources of acid rain which falls upon Ontario’s lakes, forests, streams and cities, as we know from today’s papers.

In light of Ronald Reagan’s total lack of action on acid rain, can the minister outline what actions on acid rain he expects from the new American administration?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is an excellent question from the member. I want to indicate to her that I think, in fairness to President Bush, one cannot make any specific judgements until we see what programs are going to be implemented.

He did indicate during the election campaign that he wanted to see a reduction of some millions of tons of acid rain in terms of the emissions that fell both on the United States and on Canada. He also selected James Baker as the Secretary of State. Mr. Baker has indicated very clearly that he wishes to see and expects to see a change in the manner in which the US administration deals with the issue of acid rain, and a change for the better.

In addition to that, there have been others appointed to key positions, including the new Environmental Protection Agency director, who is a person who comes from the environmental community. I think that probably bodes quite well.

The key question is, of course, how many millions of tons? Not just millions of tons, but how many millions of tons will the United States be prepared to reduce? I think what we want to see is a matching of the program that we have implemented here in Ontario, called Countdown Acid Rain.

Ms. Hart: While I am glad to hear that the minister believes that this administration will be an improvement over its predecessor, it is vitally important that Ontario keep the pressure on the United States to fight acid rain. We cannot stand idly by while thousands of our lakes die, our buildings -- this very building -- crumble and our health may be affected.

What action is the minister taking to press the United States to reduce acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We in Ontario, as I have indicated, believe in leading by example. With the Countdown Acid Rain program in Ontario, we have very much strengthened the Canadian hand in any negotiations with the United States and have strengthened the position of environmentalists, both in the United States and Canada, who have called for significant reductions on the other side of the border.

The members from northern Ontario would know, for instance, that Inco has committed almost $500 million, Falconbridge some $38 million, Algoma Steel will meet its requirements and Ontario Hydro will meet its requirements, probably at a cost in excess of $500 million.

Second, we are petitioning the US Court of Appeals to force the EPA to enforce its laws which prevent acid rain. We have joined with other states in the United States and environment groups. I am pleased to say that Environment Canada, part of the federal government, has come into this case as a friend of the court. I think that is very productive and helpful.

Third, I will continue my dialogue with key members of the US Congress and administration in an attempt to persuade them of the validity of the case that we in Ontario and Canada are putting forward.

PROPOSED FERTILIZER PLANT

Miss Martel: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) concerning the establishment of a fertilizer plant in northern Ontario.

The minister will know that for many years my predecessor, and also the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), advocated the establishment of such a plant in northern Ontario. Finally, in March 1986 his ministry determined that a feasibility study should be undertaken to look at the prospects of that.

The consultant’s study was finalized in July 1987; it recommended two things: first, that such an undertaking was feasible, and second, that phase 2 of the study be undertaken immediately. Since then, we have asked the ministry to take a lead role with private industry in developing phase 2 of the study. In November we were guaranteed this would happen. We have had no new information since then.

I would like to ask the minister specifically, which companies in the private sector have agreed to participate in this study and when will phase 2 finally begin?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would like to refer this question to the Minister of Mines.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my colleague and friend the member for Sudbury East that I very much appreciate her interest in this. She is correct that there has been an ongoing dialogue about this particular matter. The ministry has aggressively encouraged interest in the private sector.

It seems to me that, subject to my checking the file, the private sector parties that have been encouraged to take an interest are parties like Falconbridge, Sherritt Gordon and C-I-L. These are two or three of those parties that I recall having been encouraged. We are actively pursuing the matter with them, but as the honourable member would know, we want to ensure that there is a very active canvass of all in the community and we want to make sure that there is a market to which we could direct this particular matter.

Miss Martel: The reason for my concern is that this is beginning to sound like the northern Ontario heritage fund. It goes on and on and we have commitments, but nothing is undertaken.

The minister will know that one of the things which disturbed my colleague and me the most about this whole situation was that the city of Sudbury was excluded from the original study. This occurred in spite of the fact that the press release issued by the Minister of Northern Development in 1986 specifically stated that the Sudbury mineral operations would be included.

I would like to ask the Minister of Mines if he can guarantee in the House today that if and when phase 2 finally gets off the ground, the city of Sudbury and those operations will be included.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The short answer is yes, the honourable member is quite correct that there has been a very active consideration of the possibilities, particularly in northeastern Ontario. We are looking now at the phase 2 level, the whole feasibility question, particularly with respect to market development.

I can assure the honourable member, whose interest I noted earlier, that in this, as in all matters, this government intends to consider all communities in northern Ontario, and certainly included in that would be Sudbury.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Harris: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Development about garbage. His government is now working on a plan to deal with Metropolitan Toronto’s garbage. Like so many problems, it now appears that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), instead of developing a solution, plans to put the onus for a solution on somebody else’s shoulders.

We have heard about a proposal to transport Metro’s garbage to some undisclosed site. I would like to ask the minister if he thinks that southern Ontario’s garbage problems should be resolved by creating a huge, new garbage dump in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Again, I want to remind my honourable friend that I am not the Minister of the Environment. I will refer this question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I simply say to the member for Nipissing that a number of options have been canvassed and a number of potential ways of dealing with waste management in the Metropolitan Toronto areas have been discussed. What has happened is that several of the regional municipalities have got together to attempt to work together to find solutions to the waste management challenges that face them.

Certainly, one would anticipate that if there were any such proposal that would come forward, host municipalities or host areas would be those that would initiate an interest in it and certainly not others, and it would be with the acceptance of any community, whether it is in northern Ontario or in southern Ontario. There would be an evaluation on the part of that community as to any proposal to be put forward. It would not be a matter, which I think the member legitimately would be concerned about, of simply selecting a site and saying, “Here’s how we are going to deal with a specific waste management challenge.”

1500

Mr. Harris: The real supplementary is, who is over there fighting for the north? Who is speaking up for the north? Who is the minister responsible for northern development? But since he referred it, I will go back to the Minister of the Environment and say this to the minister, because he is responsible for some of the other problems of the north too, since we do not have a Minister of Natural Resources any more: This government has brought in a number of disastrous policies, to the detriment of resource workers, sportsmen and wildlife management, all on the pretext of preserving northern wilderness, but the government will not rule out dumping Metro’s garbage in the Temagami area.

I am told one of the sites under consideration is the Sherman Mine near Temagami, in the Temagami wilderness area. Can the minister tell me why responsible forestry, mining and outdoor recreation activities are unacceptable in this area but he and his ministry and his government will not rule out dumping garbage in that area?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, one has to say that the member for Nipissing should consult other members of his caucus, because on these issues it seems four or five different positions are forthcoming.

I look at the situation with the number of incidents or policies to which he has made reference, and some of his members from other parts of Ontario would have said they were interested in a different point of view than the member for Nipissing, but I am not aware of any such proposal as the member has made reference to.

Mr. Harris: Why don’t you just rule out the Temagami area? You are the great defender of nothing happening to Temagami. Answer the question: Will you say no to Temagami?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Well, the member went into a long preamble and brought in other things, so I thought it would be most appropriate that I would have the opportunity to respond in kind.

I am telling him that I have no knowledge of any such proposal that has been put forward, and if the member has knowledge of it, I would be most interested in hearing about it, but it is news to me.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Beer: My question is to the Attorney General. Before Christmas, the minister met with the Alberta Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs and earlier this month he met with Senator Murray to discuss, among other things, Senate reform. I wonder if he could inform the House of where, in his judgement, those discussions now sit, and were there any other issues that were raised during his meeting with Senator Murray regarding the current impasse with respect to the Meech Lake accord?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, Mr. Horsman, the Alberta Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, made a nationwide tour to discuss with provincial governments and the federal government the Alberta government’s proposal for triple E Senate reform. Following that, as the Prime Minister of Canada had promised, he sent Senator Murray from coast to coast to visit provincial governments and determine whether there was any basis for consensus on Senate reform, and Toronto was his first stop.

We discussed the Horsman proposal. We said that one of the Es in triple E seemed something we could work with but that there were problems about it. We also raised with the senator Ontario’s view that the matters that were set out in the select committee on constitutional reform’s report would have to be addressed by the first ministers at the same time as Senate reform.

Mr. Beer: The minister mentioned the various recommendations that were contained in the select committee report which this House adopted last year in June at the time of the discussion of the Meech Lake amendment. I would like to be clear in terms of the discussions that the Attorney General and the Premier are having that in fact we are continuing to push for the inclusion of the recommendations which we made in our report to be discussed at the second round, and particularly, I suppose, the two recommendations that we crafted in the form of amendments, recommendations 9 and 10. Is it the continuing intention of the government to pursue those matters with other ministers of intergovernmental affairs?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is clearly the intention of the government. Senator Murray, of course, had read the committee report and was thoroughly familiar with it. I explained to him that I thought there was no question but that the issues which were identified by the committee, particularly the recommendations to which the honourable member refers, would be treated by Ontario as having equivalent priority to any other issues which were advanced in the second round, including Senate reform and fisheries, which are explicitly mentioned in the political accord.

I also indicated to him, as I think the committee represented in its report, that I thought Ontarians were very concerned that we begin to elaborate the process of constitutional negotiation. He essentially accepted both those points as the view of the province.

LARK MANUFACTURING INC.

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister will know that in September 1988, at the end of the day on a Friday afternoon, Lark Manufacturing Inc. told its workers not to bother coming back. The company failed to pay the workers their vacation pay. It failed to deal with termination pay. It failed to deal with severance pay. In fact, it failed to pay the workers their wages.

Could the minister tell us what specific steps the employment standards branch has taken to ensure that the workers get the money to which they are entitled, that orders are laid against this company promptly and that assets are not stripped, as the workers fear they have already been, from this company?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is too bad the member for Riverdale has asked this question right at the end of question period, because it is a serious issue. He has raised his concern about it previously and I am glad he has raised it at this point.

I cannot give him an up-to-date indication, that is, as of today, where the status of the case is within the employment standards branch. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this question period that the employment standards branch is now meeting with the workers at Lark.

Many of the workers at Lark were women, some of them immigrant women, indeed, in some cases, the most vulnerable people in our workforce. The branch is meeting with those women, a case is being launched, and I would anticipate that actions will be pursued to recover wages owing, to recover vacation pay and any other benefit those people working at Lark are entitled to as a result of the closure of the facility, including severance and termination pay.

PETITIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have approximately 50 petitions here from people across the town of Markham addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the dramatic growth rate in York region has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process and, given that serious allegations have been made regarding the integrity of this process in York region, we strongly urge the provincial government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process and land development practices of York region.”

It is duly signed and duly submitted by myself on behalf of the people of Markham.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Polsinelli: I have three petitions addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I have subscribed my name to that petition.

HOME CARE

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition signed by some 600 residents from Burlington addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

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

“Whereas the Red Cross Society has incurred a deficit because the government of Ontario has failed to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and therefore the Red Cross may be forced to withdraw their home care services, we petition the Treasurer of Ontario to adequately fund the Red Cross services so that 170,000 citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive care in an institutional setting.”

The petition has my signature and support, and the total is now 2,600 signatures from the city of Burlington on this subject.

1510

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mr. Lupusella: I have a petition addressed:

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

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

“Whereas the crown in the province of Ontario continues a lengthy, futile and expensive prosecution against the Church of Scientology; and

“Whereas at no time in recorded history has an entire church been charged with a criminal offence for the actions of individuals, and freedom of religion in the province is at risk; and

“Whereas the alleged offences occurred over a decade ago and those responsible have been expelled from the church or rehabilitated,

“We petition the Attorney General and the government of Ontario to withdraw the charges against the church and end this prosecution.”

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

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

Miss Nicholas: The report has a number of recommendations in it, but I think I would be remiss if I did not mention on behalf of the committee that the Ombudsman is retiring in March from his position of five years. We want to, and did in our report, commend Dr. Dan Hill for an excellent job well done as Ombudsman. I know that on behalf of all the committee members, and perhaps the Legislative Assembly, we respect him as an Ombudsman and we will miss him dearly.

As I mentioned, the committee has a number of recommendations. I hate to highlight one, but we did deal with the northern health travel grant. We recommended that travel grants be given to individuals who are older than 18 years of age who are travelling with patients to Toronto or to major city centres. I think this is a good recommendation, one which was unanimously supported by the committee, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate it in the House.

We have a lot on our agenda for the next year, including expanded jurisdiction, and I know that we will have a fruitful discussion.

On motion by Miss Nicholas, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AMUSEMENT DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 205, An Act to amend the Amusement Devices Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly on these changes we are proposing, in cases where no safety hazard is presented, the bill gives licensees reasonable time to remedy minor violations and permits the director of the elevating devices branch to grant technical variances. In addition to some administrative clarification and fine-tuning, the amendments enable the ministry to require third-party tests of amusement devices and to lay charges within a year of an incident.

Furthermore, the bill makes unsafe behaviour in and around amusement devices an offence under the act. Based on our experience during the first season of our licensing program, I feel these amendments will prove practical for ride operators, while enhancing public safety.

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 206, An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This bill will extend the period of time in which charges may be laid from six months to one year. The change is consistent with changes we are making to the Amusement Devices Act which are intended to improve our administration of justice.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 207, An Act to amend the Energy Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: These housekeeping changes will clarify the ministry’s ability to grant technical variances that do not undermine safety standards and to delegate specific responsibilities to the natural gas utilities, thus ensuring that inspections are as comprehensive as possible.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 208, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation

Motion agreed to.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION ACT

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro moved first reading of Bill 209, An Act to revise the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: It is my pleasure to introduce An Act to revise the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

As members know, the McMichael Canadian Collection is one of the most important collections of Canadian art in existence. While focused on the Group of Seven, it also includes works by their contemporaries as well as by native and Inuit artists. It is the only gallery in Canada devoted exclusively to Canadian art.

Revisions to the existing act were required for a number of reasons. An appropriate bilingual name was needed for the collection. Under revisions to the act, it would be known as the McMichael Canadian Art Collection d’Art canadien.

The board of trustees will be enlarged to increase its fund-raising capabilities and to ensure effective direction of the collection. The collection mandate has been clarified so that it will remain focused on Canadian art as the gallery continues to expand.

Finally, financial and administrative clarifications have been made that will provide for greater efficiency without altering the relationship of the agency to the ministry.

The McMichael collection is one of our great cultural treasures. This act, revising the previous act, will ensure that it remains such for years to come.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion 20.

Mr. Harris: I do not plan to be very much longer, but I did want to have an opportunity to conclude my remarks.

When I left off yesterday, I was discussing the fifth and last of a number of quotes from the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). I think there are another 40 or 50 that I am saving for some of my other colleagues who I think will want to refer to some of them.

I was talking in the context of Bill 114 specifically and the remarks on February 15, 1983, of the member for Renfrew North, that great part of the Ottawa Valley. He said, “I cannot believe we are seized, in the winter of 1982-83, with some parliamentary crisis that forces us into a new avenue, down a slippery slope of time allocation.”

I really think that is the most condemning of quotations for me to read into the record in this debate because, as I referred to yesterday, it implies, even in his very vocal opposition to time allocation, that were the matter of some urgency such as a parliamentary crisis, something of great import, he might then understand -- he might not agree with it, but he might then understand -- the government’s bringing in time allocation.

The occasion when that time allocation motion was brought in was the inflation restraint program. It was designed, as has been proven very successfully, to fight the very severe problem of inflation which this province, this country and certainly the western world faced in 1983.

Now, the member has brought in a similar mechanism, a similar time allocation, on Bill 114.

I think it is important that the House understand just how important Bill 114 is. What is the bill? It is a labour bill designed to make the government look a little better because of the disaster of Bill 113. It is to defend workers from what the government is foisting on them in Bill 113.

Does it do it successfully? Not one worker thinks so, not one union thinks so, not one store owner thinks so. Ninety per cent of the people it is designed to provide some measure of protection for are nonunion; they work in small family stores, with one, two, three, four, five or maybe 10 employees. None of them feels the bill offers any protection at all.

In fact, what it suggests is that if a worker feels things are not being worked out to his satisfaction, they will make mediation available, provided by government mediators; the same mediators who are some three to four to six months backed up on the mediation they currently perform for the Ministry of Labour.

Bill 114 is a bill that store owners do not want. It is a bill workers do not want. It is a bill that has been described by one of the largest unions as probably discriminatory, as probably an infringement of personal rights, as probably unable to withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is a bill of such insignificance, such undesirability, that the government has chosen to bring in time allocation for it. I do not think by any stretch of the imagination there is a single, solitary person I know of across this province who thinks this bill is significant, meaningful and worth while. Why pick this bill for time allocation?

Second, this bill of such insignificance, such undesirability, has had a total of one hour of second-reading debate and a total of an hour and a half to two hours of consideration in committee. It is one on which the opposition parties have been very co-operative, have been very facilitative, and have said: “Let’s not prolong the debate. Let’s get it out to hearings, hear what the people have to say. We’ll have an opportunity. This government will give us an opportunity to have full and open debate when the time comes.” That is what we thought. How wrong we were when we see this guillotine motion before us today. How wrong we were.

When it came back into committee after the hearings, we sped it along in less than one session’s worth of time, an hour and a half or so, because we felt the bill required and deserved to be in committee of the whole, where all of our members could express their concern with the bill, where all of our members could have the opportunity they did not have on second reading.

I guess I feel particularly betrayed. As House leader for my party, it is my obligation, one of my tasks, to negotiate with the other House leaders a reasonable forum for each individual member, if he or she so chooses, to speak and express his or her thoughts on a particular piece of legislation. I, in good faith, felt that would happen when we limited debate on second reading. I said there would be another opportunity. Now, there is not that opportunity for all of my members. In that sense, I have let my members down by trusting in the good faith, by trusting in the sense of fairness, of the government that the opportunity would be provided.

It is for that paramount reason that I feel very sad the government has brought in this motion. I mentioned a number of other reasons in my remarks yesterday about why I think it is wrong. I have encouraged my colleagues, if they wish to make comment on Bill 114, to seize upon this opportunity as they are being closed out to make some reference and some comment to Bill 114, because this motion itself which we are debating is to cut off that debate, to limit that debate.

My party will oppose this bill. My party will vigorously debate this bill. My party is saddened and very much regrets that the government has chosen to proceed in this way.

1530

Mr. Kormos: I am going to speak relatively briefly about this. I am undoubtedly the most junior member here. In the approximately 75 days I have been here I have been impressed by much; yet other things that have occurred have, rather than impressed me, disturbed me greatly. In Welland-Thorold, where I come from, where I live and the riding I represent here, I know that the matter of Sunday shopping and Sunday working is of great importance.

I listened with care yesterday as the government House leader spoke. One of the things that he said was that the government listened. I can say this: If they listened, if indeed they did, they certainly did not hear, because it seems to me -- and I speak not only of Welland-Thorold -- that disfavour and thorough disapproval of this legislation, opposition to this legislation is widespread throughout the province. One is hard pressed to think of more than a handful, if that many, of parties or persons or groups that support or would be in a position to support what is blatantly bad legislation.

In addition, we all know now so well that the promotion of the legislation is but another breach of a pre-election promise. That has been spoken of already by other members of the opposition. We know that workers across the province -- both organized workers and more significantly, perhaps, unorganized workers -- are thoroughly opposed to Sunday shopping. The reason they are opposed is because they know that it does not just mean Sunday shopping; it means Sunday working as well.

These same people are opposed to the whole concept of local option. They recognize that this is but some sort of diversion that the government raises to direct attention away from what the real impact is going to be, because the net impact of local optioning is going to be wide-open, across-the-board, across-the-province Sunday shopping, and that will inevitably mean Sunday working.

We know that senior citizens are opposed to the legislation. They have said so. We know that women are opposed to the legislation. They have said so. We know that the churches are opposed to the legislation. They have said so. We know that small businessmen are opposed to the legislation.

In the communities where I come from -- communities like Welland and Thorold which have downtown areas occupied by small businessmen, primarily family-run businesses -- they have devoted a great deal of effort and attention to the demise of the downtown, to the surrender of the downtown, the eclipse of the downtown by the fringe shopping plaza.

We know that the shopping plaza operators are one of the few groups of people or classes of people who have any real interest in seeing this legislation pass. Small businessmen who are ill pressed now to maintain their businesses, to maintain the downtowns of communities like Welland and Thorold, are least of all capable and prepared to maintain seven-day-a-week opening and seven-day-a-week working. Wide-open Sunday shopping will mean the end of small-town downtowns like those in Welland and Thorold.

Bill 113 and Bill 114 before the assembly are not just bad and unpopular. Their passage will have a lasting and unfortunate impact on every city and town in the province and on every family in each one of those cities and towns. As I have said, I know that in Welland-Thorold there is acute concern about these bills. I can say that the people of Welland-Thorold feel a great sense of betrayal by the introduction of this legislation, and even more so now by the effort to muzzle on the part of the government.

The question is, how could a government persist with legislation that is so unpopular and just plain bad? How can the Liberal government carry on with these bills when so many people, not just in Welland and Thorold but across the province, have said no and have said, “The Liberal government is not speaking for us when it says that Sunday shopping and Sunday working are okay”?

Now the Liberal government wants to restrict debate on it. One would have thought that not only opposition members, who of course would want every opportunity to place their positions on the record, but also government members would want every opportunity to indicate to their communities and to the public why they would be supporting the legislation.

It is legislation that eradicates, that destroys a common pause day. It is legislation that constitutes an assault on the role of the churches in our communities and in our personal lives. Surely one would think that the government would welcome the most thorough debate and would seek a public expression of all the interests at stake. Stifling debate, muzzling the members of the assembly is an assault on the rights and interests of every person in the province.

But then, and this was referred to yesterday, there is even more that becomes apparent here, which is clearly that the government and its members want the legislation passed. They want Sunday shopping and Sunday working, even though the clear majority of the province does not. The government obviously wants to pack up and get out of here before the heat really gets turned up.

The government’s Ontario Automobile Insurance Board is going to announce its auto insurance premium increases shortly; and there is no doubt that they are going to be increases. For a government whose leader promised a specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums, those increases will effectively hit the fan shortly. I suggest that even the Liberal members -- certainly the Liberal members least of all -- do not want to be here when that happens. At least, they want to flee from here as soon afterwards as possible.

I would ask whether that is not yet another reason why the government would prevent full debate on this issue, on the discussion of Sunday shopping and Sunday working, so that it can flee the heat when the increased premiums hit the fan, so that it can hide from its role in having created yet higher insurance premiums when it knows it broke its promise to reduce premiums.

The Liberal government, I would suggest, wants to be as far away from here as possible, because it will not be able to defend the board, it will not be able to defend its process and it will not be able to defend the massive premium increases. The government will not be able to explain why the board failed to make a single inquiry as to what is just and reasonable, what is affordable for the driving public. In effect, they are avoiding the maxim: “You’ve called the tune. Now pay the piper.”

I very briefly indicate that it seems to me grossly irresponsible for the government to avoid this particular issue, to muzzle the assembly, to muzzle the opposition and, as I say, to prevent its own members from explaining to their ridings and to the province why they will be supporting the legislation. It seems to me imperative that the public has a right to know why each and every one of the government members would vote on behalf of this legislation. It is a process that, I submit, is an unfair and undemocratic restriction on debate.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to speak to the resolution placed by the government House leader, which in essence means that there will be, at most, four more days to deal with the future direction of this province in terms of Sunday shopping and Sunday working, I must say at the outset that I really probably had a little more confidence in the reliability of some of the statements made by this Liberal government in the past.

I suppose I did that in a rather honest, nonpartisan way. I perhaps felt, when this government promised the people of Ontario that it would be a government with no walls, no doors, no barriers, it would be a new government and a new time in Ontario where people would be listened to, where people’s wishes would be represented by that government and it would be a wholly open government.

1540

What in fact we have completely confirmed for the people of Ontario by this resolution of the government House leader which is before us today, which is no less than a closure motion, is that it not only limits the debate on one bill, but it is precedent-setting because it limits the debate on two bills. Two bills together, for the first time in the history of this Legislature, are being moved to closure by the current Liberal government.

It is somewhat ironic when you follow what the government House leader said yesterday in some of his comments. I really wonder what the government House leader thinks is the responsibility of each one of us who is elected to this Legislature. I acknowledge I do not have the number of years of experience that the member for Renfrew North has, but I would have thought that some of his statements yesterday would have reflected some of his experience in terms of the responsibility that each one of us holds as an elected member of this Legislature.

Instead of that, yesterday I heard the government House leader saying things like the government really had been moved to this point where it had to place this resolution of closure because of a number of tactics on the part of the opposition parties. Unfortunately, I cannot extract from the Instant Hansard, of which I have just received a copy, exactly where the Liberal government House leader placed his opinions when he started this debate yesterday.

However, I know that he did refer to, among some of the tactics that he accused the opposition parties of using in our fight in opposition to both Bill 113 and Bill 114 -- and I am paraphrasing probably, but I know with some accuracy -- our needless and endless reading of petitions. Is that not interesting? Needless and endless reading of petitions.

I would have to wonder what other obligation or alternative an elected member of this Legislature has than to read petitions that are presented to him, in turn to be presented on his behalf to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the government of Ontario. Frankly, it is our job; it is our mandate; it is our obligation to read and present petitions in this House that represent the opinions of the people who elect us to serve them.

I think that for the government House leader to refer to this as needless and endless reading of petitions shows little empathy or understanding for each one of us who sincerely tries to fulfil our obligations as members in this Legislature. As we try to serve the people who elect us, we try to do that very conscientiously.

If it means that we read petitions in opposition, as it happens to be in this instance, to a government bill, a piece of government legislation, then so be it. That is our job. That is our responsibility. If we are not here representing the opinions of the people who elected us to represent them, then I would have to wonder what purpose there is for us serving in this House at all.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Mississauga South indeed has some words of wisdom, but I do not believe in accordance with the standing orders that this House is duly constituted.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1546

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum being present, the member for Mississauga South may proceed.

Mrs. Marland: For the record, I hope that those members who have been recalled into this chamber will certainly recognize that it was not the speaker who has the floor currently who called for the quorum to be present. However, I am more than delighted to have more members come into the chamber and now listen to my words of wisdom, especially those government members who will ultimately be placed in a position where they will have to vote on this motion of closure --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: -- particularly those members of the government benches who have also presented petitions on behalf of their constituents asking them not to support this legislation and who now have been freed by their Premier (Mr. Peterson), by the leader of their Liberal Party in Ontario.

They have been freed by the Premier to vote as they choose. In so doing, they will represent the people whose petitions they have presented in this House -- and since that was the point at which the quorum was called, then I am quite happy now to resume my comments on this very regressive government resolution.

It is true that yesterday when the member for Renfrew North was speaking, he referred to some of the tactics by the opposition parties on this motion. He said, “In this debate, for example, we have seen not just endless bell-ringing but also endless reading of petitions where we could not get to the orders of the day.”

Well, it so happens that a part of our routine proceedings is called petitions. It just happens that it precedes orders of the day, and if in fact there are petitions to be presented and to be read in this House, that is the point at which they are read and presented, and the obligation that each one of us who receives petitions from our constituents has is to read them.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Marland: Here we are today with a resolution that will now control the process of free and open speech in this House, and as I said a few moments ago, for the first time dealing with two bills.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying very hard to address my comments to you. As you are aware, I am certainly trying to ignore the comments of those members who have yet to speak but who do not have the courtesy to allow the person who is speaking to have the floor without interjections. I sympathize with your job. I realize it is a very difficult position you have also.

I just feel that in quoting the government House leader, I would also like to quote what he said in opposition when he too was faced, as I am today, with speaking to a government motion for closure. Is it not funny when you think of that old song, the old adage, “What a difference a day makes”? What a difference, indeed, because on February 15, 1983, the member for Renfrew North said:

“I reiterate, we have been able to do the business of this Legislative Assembly for a long time, through wartime, through great depression and much acrimony, without the time allocation procedure,” the very same procedure that now the member for Renfrew North is in government, he himself has placed in this chamber.

In fact, the member for Renfrew North goes on the next day, February 16. Obviously, the member for Renfrew North got to speak in the Legislature on two successive days in 1983, February 15 and February 16. On February 16, he said: “My point is simply that in my time here...we have had many a heated debate on many a government bill....We saw the best of the British parliamentary system at work, a bit of give, a bit of take.”

Would it not be just great if we had a Liberal government today that believed in the British parliamentary system, that would in fact have a bit of give and a bit of take.

I further quote from the member for Renfrew North on February 16, 1983, where he went on to say, “It reminds some of us of the happy compromises of an earlier day on important legislation that made this place work in the face of strong opposition....And without closure.”

Mr. Conway was speaking in favour of having debate without closure.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, if you please.

Mrs. Marland: The member for Renfrew North at this time. I do not know the name of his riding at that time, on February 16, 1983, although his name, Sean Conway, was the same.

Further on that day, the same person says: “It is the way of our forbears. It is the way of our tradition. It is not the way of some extraneous place that might, in this instance, provide some convenient crutch on which the government might lean.”

You would think that with 94 seats, this Liberal government would not need any crutches, but obviously, using the words of the current government House leader, it does need crutches and therefore it is moving this motion of closure, or time allocation in other words, in this House.

Lest we think it is only one member of the current Liberal government who had concerns with this very same process in 1983, I would like to read what the current Minister of the Environment, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), said on February 15, 1983.

“I feel the government would have been much wiser to have adopted a different course of action. I think it is blocking the democratic process; that is a mild word to use,” said the member for St. Catharines in 1983. He said “blocking the democratic process.” The member for St. Catharines, who is now our Liberal Minister of the Environment, said that in Hansard on February 15, 1983, for those of you who wish to check the reference.

On that same day he also went on to say: “I ask that he” -- the Premier -- “recognize the lack of wisdom of proceeding with a motion of this kind. It clearly stamps his government as one that is prepared to bulldoze legislation -- important and less important -- through this House.”

I am sure this very eloquent speaker on February 15, 1983, the current Minister of the Environment for the Liberal government, today has these words haunting him, as he is part of this government which is now bulldozing legislation that the people of this province do not wish for, that the members of the opposition parties of this House do not support, and that I hope some of the members of the Liberal government will not support.

In quoting the current members of the government, who obviously have all turned their coats inside out and are now sitting in the government, those things they believed in so strongly six or seven years ago suddenly do not matter any more. Suddenly, they have 94 seats and a mandate and they are completely different people. They think differently and they feel differently. Obviously, it is very easy for them to change their minds, and I would guess, perhaps their standards.

I feel it would be unfair to focus only on the government House leader and the Minister of the Environment in these quotations from the past. In order to be completely fair, I will now quote David Peterson from December 8, 1982.

The Deputy Speaker: May I again remind the member that there is a parliamentary tradition not to call the members by name.

Mrs. Marland: I will quote the person who is currently the member for London Centre, the Honourable David Peterson, the Premier of Ontario, the Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. I do not know the name of his riding back in 1982 because the riding names have been changed.

On December 8, 1982, this person said, “As my colleague pointed out, there were other options. That is why we cannot support this motion for closure, guillotine, phase closure, time allocation or whatever one wants to call it.”

How interesting that the current member for London Centre, the current Premier of this province, felt that this very motion that his government has now introduced in this House in December 1982 was perhaps a guillotine type of procedure. Indeed it is.

This same speaker went on to say on December 8, 1982, “I have the right to pursue the most vigorous opposition that I can pursue, and the longer I am here the more I believe very strongly that the opposition is the only thing that stands between government and the sheer, naked use of power.” The words “sheer, naked use of power,” were the very words of the current Liberal Premier himself back in December 1982.

Six years ago, plus two or three weeks when the current Premier was simply David Peterson, a member of the Liberal opposition in Ontario, he was moved to make an extremely strong statement against the very type of motion he now, as leader and Premier of this province, has introduced, a motion that at that time he said was “the sheer, naked use of power.”

He also said he had the right to pursue the most vigorous opposition he could pursue. Is that not a right for every single member of this Legislature? Is that not the very right each one of us is trying to exercise? Is that not the very right each one of us wants to exercise on behalf of the people who elected us to represent them in this House?

1600

For those of us in the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario who are totally opposed to Bill 113 and Bill 114 and the direction in which our province will go once those bills are proclaimed, that is all we want. We want the very same right the member for London Centre, the then member of the opposition and now the Premier wanted to pursue in 1982.

There is no question, when we look at the impact of this legislation, that we will have tremendous changes in the future direction of the society of this province. How ironic that when these two bills change society in Ontario, that change will be totally against the will of the majority of the people. How ironic that the majority of those people in Ontario who voted Liberal on September 10, 1987, because they heard the Liberal candidates across this province promise them, as they also heard the leader of the Liberal Party, the Premier, that they would not make any changes in the Sunday shopping legislation --

Mr. Faubert: Who said that? Oh, come on.

Mrs. Marland: We have the statements of those candidates. We have statements in the press. We have advertisements by the Ontario Liberal Party where it promised that it had no intention to change legislation affecting Sunday shopping or Sunday working in this province. They gave those assurances. On the basis of those assurances, they were elected with 94 members.

There were many promises made by the Liberal Party as it rode around this province in the summer of 1987. This is just one of the many broken Liberal promises. It happens to be one that Progressive Conservatives and my colleagues in this caucus feel very strongly about. It happens to be one that I, personally, feel very strongly about. It happens to be one of the promises on which I never thought this government would be so foolish as to run counter to public opinion.

They knew public opinion at the time they were campaigning in the summer of 1987. The reason they knew was because we had had two legislative committees travel this province and ask the public what it thought.

We had had a Progressive Conservative task force travel to all points in the province, both urban and rural, both tourist and business. The Progressive Conservative task force visited 14 centres and heard very clearly from the people in Ontario that they did not want changes to permit Sunday shopping in Ontario.

Only six months later, there followed around this province another group of people who were members of an all-party legislative committee. On that committee, we had the member for London South (Mrs. Smith), now the Solicitor General. That committee also travelled to 14 or 15 locations in Ontario and also heard loud and clear from the people of this province that they did not want wide-open Sunday shopping, that they did not want changes in the legislation, and that they did not want the responsibility for that decision to be made at the municipal level, but wanted it to stay with the province.

So much so that when the report of the standing committee of this Legislature was tabled in this House by the chairman of that committee, it was unanimous by all members who sat on that committee, which means of course the Liberal members who I think numbered six or seven and the members of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. There was not one negative vote on that committee.

The first recommendation of that committee was that the responsibility for legislating Sunday openings remain with the province. How ironic that one of those Liberal members today is the Solicitor General, the member for London South, who in turn had to be the person to introduce Bill 113. How ironic that even now, after we had a second committee tour this province and hear from the people that they do not want any changes in Ontario in terms of Sunday shopping, we still were not satisfied. We still came back after the election in September 1987 and had this government introduce two bills, Bill 113 and Bill 114.

The irony, of course, is that what Bill 113 really says in very few words is: “We as the Liberal government of Ontario don’t want to be bothered with the issue of Sunday shopping, so we’re going to give it to the municipalities. We’ll let the local municipalities decide. Let them have all the pressure groups, the lobby groups, the headaches. Let them try to respond to the problem. We don’t want it.”

Then we have Bill 114 as a partner bill. Bill 114 says, “Oh, dear, of course, if we’re going to have some municipalities open on Sunday, we’d better do something to protect the workers who don’t want to work.” Bill 114 is supposed to do that. Unfortunately, it does not do that. Bill 114 does not protect the workers in this province who might choose to spend Sunday as a common day of pause, who might choose to be with their families, relatives and friends on Sunday, who do not want to be placed in a position where they are forced to work because they do not, according to the bill, have “reasonable” cause not to work. I would like to see anyone in this House define the word “reasonable.”

We hear all the time from this government: “What’s the problem? A lot of people work on Sundays today. Why shouldn’t everybody else work?” In its own pathetic defence, this Liberal government believes the dictum, “Misery loves company.” They love to tell us that many people already work on Sundays.

Even after Bill 113 and Bill 114 were introduced, this government was still convinced -- goodness knows, it must have blinkers on -- that this was what the people of Ontario wanted. They wanted to take those bills right through second reading and third reading, have them proclaimed and get on with dumping the Sunday shopping issue on the municipalities. Only because the two opposition parties dug in their heels were we able to force the government at least to agree to public hearings on these bills. If we had not insisted, we would not even have had those two pieces of legislation go to committee for public hearings. We now have the third road show travelling around this province, again an all-party legislation committee, asking the people of Ontario what they want.

1610

It is my understanding that this committee had something like 287 deputations before it. I am speaking of the number of people who attended in person; I know they received a large number of written briefs. Of approximately 287 appearances before the committee, I understand there were eight in favour of both those bills, particularly in favour of Bill 113.

Here we have again the people of Ontario saying what their opinion is, what they want for the future of this province on the subject of Sunday shopping. We expected that after all of the public had been in before this committee and had said no, no, no to Sunday shopping and Sunday working, the committee would listen, but that is not what happened.

The Liberal members on that committee could not listen to any of the arguments either by my Progressive Conservative colleagues on the committee or the members of the New Democratic Party on that committee, nor could they seemingly listen to 279 presenters to the committee. They went into those hearings with the pretence of listening to the people of Ontario but came out of those hearings choosing not to amend the legislation to where it might be even partially acceptable or workable. They just went in to carry the banner for the Liberal government, which had already decided it was going to pass this legislation and, as I say, dump the issue and the responsibility on the municipalities.

How ironic that when I circulated a questionnaire on Sunday shopping in the riding of Mississauga South I received almost 1,500 responses. I know those who have sent out householders with questionnaires as part of those householders will appreciate that 1,500 responses is a very high response number, to have 1,500 people who will complete a questionnaire on any issue, but in this case I was only addressing the Sunday shopping issue.

When polls are done by professional pollsters across this country on any issue, they usually take a number between 1,100 and 1,200, I think. For my office in Mississauga South to receive 1,500 responses said to me that these people wanted to make a statement. When we calculated the response that came in on Sunday shopping, the figure was 70.5 per cent opposed to Sunday shopping. Some of the additional comments that people went to the trouble to write on this questionnaire say to me, as their representative, that I have an obligation to stand in this House today and oppose this government closure motion. I have an obligation to tell this Liberal government of Ontario that the people in Mississauga South do not want Sunday shopping and Sunday working.

I will read only one additional comment which was made when in my questionnaire I asked, “What do you think is the most important issue facing the province of Ontario today?” The handwritten answer is: “Replacing a haughty and vacillating government with one committed to the principles and ideals of conservatism, which have served this province well for many years and in no small measure contributed to its social stability and economic prosperity.”

What that is saying is that the people of Ontario want a government that will listen. They do not want a government that makes promises and then betrays the people who elect it by not keeping its promises. They do not want a government that wishes to change the future direction of this province with this kind of legislation. They do not even want a government that makes the kind of statements that this government has made on other issues that affect the social fabric of this province. I might use as an example the position that the government has taken with regard to the reading of the Lord’s Prayer in opening exercises in schools.

The Sunday shopping issue is just a further reflection of this government’s lack of caring for and commitment to the people of Ontario. For all those thousands upon thousands upon thousands of petitions and names of people that have been read into Hansard, the record of this Legislature, on their behalf, we stand today opposed to a motion which stops the fair, democratic, British parliamentary procedure of wide-open debate and a continuous opportunity to express the concerns of the people we represent.

I know the government has said that we are holding up other business of the House. As I look at the pieces of legislation that are on our Orders and Notices as business of this House, I, frankly, do not see anything that impacts on as large a number of people as do these two bills, and adversely impacts on the people who can least be impacted on.

When we look at Bill 114 and think about the fact that this Sunday worker legislation does greater harm than good in that it creates an aura of protection for retail workers but in reality offers little or no protection for the most vulnerable of our workforce, particularly single parents, and we look at the kind of pressure that is put on those families, just coping with a normal work week -- if we cannot believe in a common day of pause for religious reasons, then surely we can believe in a common day of pause for reasons of our social fabric.

Frankly, the argument that this Liberal government has placed in support of its own legislation on this issue is not representative of the people that each one of the Liberal government members represents. I am still, I suppose, an optimist enough to the degree that I am hopeful that when the vote takes place in this Legislature on Bill 113 and Bill 114 the members of the Liberal Party in Ontario will look very closely at each and every one of their responsibilities, particularly, I might add, those members of the Liberal Party who have stood in this House and who have read into the record petitions from their constituents in opposition to Sunday shopping and Sunday working. If those members then stand in the House and vote in favour of this legislation by saying, “We are not saying that we are in favour of Sunday shopping and Sunday working. All we are saying is that we are in favour of somebody else making the decision. We are in favour of passing it down to the municipalities and letting them decide whether there is going to be open stores in Mississauga, Oakville, or Etobicoke, or wherever, around this province,” all I can say in response is that each and every one of the members in this Legislature was elected to make decisions.

1620

They were elected to represent the interests of the people who voted for them. They were elected to keep the promises on which they campaigned. On this issue there is a lot of record as to the position of the Liberal Party of Ontario in the summer of 1987 that it would not change the existing legislation as it protected a common day of pause in Ontario.

I challenge those members of this Legislature who have presented petitions on behalf of their constituents to vote and represent the views of the people who have asked to be represented and to ensure that they take the responsibility which has been given to them and to me to vote on those matters which are within my jurisdiction.

As I stand totally opposed to Sunday shopping and Sunday working, I stand with pride with the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. I do not shirk my responsibility. I stand here and oppose this legislation as I oppose the motion for closure limiting the debate on this very important subject by the Liberal government of today.

Mr. Breaugh: I am opposed to the motion and I am opposed to both bills. I want to take some time to comment --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Look at the motion objectively. Forget the bills.

Mr. Breaugh: I am looking at the motion objectively. I perhaps will take the interjection to heart and spend a little time on the motion per se.

It has been a while since we have seen a closure motion of any kind introduced in this assembly, introduced by the previous government, whose hallmark near the latter part of its days was its arrogance.

It is a fundamental change in the nature in which Ontario is governed. The theory, of course, is that this chamber and the members here pass the laws in Ontario, that there is a fair amount of input in the process, that we believe in public hearings and we believe in amendments being brought forward by members on all sides, and that in the end that theoretical model will produce the best form of legislation we could find.

After you have been here for a while you really yearn severely, hoping that some day that will happen here, but it does not. You begin to understand how the political process overtakes the parliamentary process from time to time. The end result, when you have a government that is truly set in its ways and has a huge majority, is the kind of motion we have before us today.

In its politest form, one could call this a time allocation motion. In its real form it is called a closure motion or a guillotine motion. I was interested in the Speaker’s ruling on the matter, when the validity of the motion was challenged. He went through in a very detailed way, trying to examine the parliamentary precedents for motions such as this.

Without discussing whether the ruling was correct, which would be improper, I do want to make some notes that you do not see motions of this nature introduced into anybody’s legislative chamber until there is clearly something wrong with the process. No government in a parliamentary system wants to bring forward allocation motions of this kind which are in effect closure motions.

One of the reasons I oppose this motion is that I have always taken the point of view that if the government of the day wants to invoke closure there is very simply a procedure under our own standing orders which allows them to do so. The problem, of course, is that that invocation of a closure motion under our standing orders is pretty bald. It really begs the argument that if you want to move a closure motion, you had better be able to clearly substantiate that that particular matter has been under discussion here in this chamber for some period of time and of course, we are now debating a motion which in fact allocates time around a debate that has not yet begun.

That may be in order. That may be what this government wants to do. But in my view, that is clearly wrong. If you wanted to make the argument that this debate has gone on for too long, at least you should let the debate start. That has not happened.

One of the reasons I dislike this format for a motion is very simply that it is closure under another name, and in fact I heard the government House leader the other day making the argument that this was simply a time allocation motion, as if we had all sat down, as the House leaders do every week, and decided, “Here is how we’ll get the order of business done for today or for this week.”

What has happened in this instance, of course, is that there has been a complete and total breakdown in the communication system among the political parties here.

There has been a problem in communicating. I think, in large measure, the government cannot say that its bills are misunderstood by everybody. It cannot take the position that, “Everybody else is out of step except our 94 members.” It cannot take the position that the people of Ontario do not have a right to expect a government to perform as it said it would during an election campaign.

If the government members could stand in their places today and say, “We’re doing now exactly what we promised during the election campaign,” much of the sting would be out of us, as opposition members. Much of the anger and the fire would dissipate. But what angers us immensely is that they are now proposing to do in legislative form something that is exactly the opposite of what was promised during the election campaign. That, I think, gives us the right to extend this debate. It gives the people of Ontario the right to say, “It doesn’t matter whether you got a majority the last time, there’s something wrong here.”

The rules of debate in this chamber kind of restrict my language a little bit in describing this, but in other quarters, when you do one thing that is precisely the opposite of what you said you were going to do, there is a range of words that is used commonly. They are not very parliamentary, but they are very specific and very effective and very true.

That is part of the difficulty that surrounds this debate. It is not just the matter of Sunday working. It is not just the matter of a broken political promise. It is the matter that a government went to the electorate and said it would do certain things and has since established a pattern of doing just exactly the opposite thing.

The people in Ontario have a right to question that; and the opposition parties in the chamber have not only a right to do that, we have an obligation to do that and that is precisely what is happening here.

One of the things that I find frankly disturbing is that when this government first came into power, it came in under unusual circumstances in a minority.

Mr. Ballinger: Tell us how, Mike.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: There seems to be some urging from the far left here.

Mrs. Marland: You regret that action now, don’t you?

Mr. Breaugh: I regret a lot of things that have happened while I have been here, but that is not one of them.

For 42 years, one political party dominated the agenda in Ontario. Even among their own ranks, I think near the latter part of that reign, there was a begrudging admittance that things had just plain gone off the tracks, that a government had forgotten what a parliament is supposed to be about. It had forgotten about the democracy in which we live and the parliamentary functions which are part of this place. It had forgotten in large measure that a cabinet is not there to tell the remainder of the government caucus what to do. It is supposed to consult with its own. It is supposed to debate with its opposition.

Near the latter part of its stages, though, it did not use it very regularly. It became not an uncommon occurrence to see some kind of allocation motion, some kind of closure motion being brought forward by the government of the day.

On the opposition side, both parties, both the Liberals and the New Democrats, said, quite rightly: “That’s a sign of arrogance. That’s a sign that the democratic process” --

Mr. Miller: It is a sign of responsibility.

1630

Mr. Breaugh: This is interesting, because a government member has just said that what was once described as arrogance when he was an opposition member is now, when he becomes a government member, a sign of responsibility.

He is not the first government member on that side of the aisle who has said that. I was in this chamber when the Conservatives were the government and that was their line: the opposition was being irresponsible; the opposition should step right in line behind the cabinet, just as the government caucus is supposed to do.

Well, we are not going to, and we do not apologize. We are not going to succumb to any notion that somehow, just because the members are licking the heels of the government, they are more progressive than anybody else in this chamber. They are not.

Mr. Miller: We are doing our function.

Mr. Breaugh: The member has interjected that they are doing their function. I remember how he described that function when he was in opposition. I think it is unparliamentary to use that kind of term, so I will not.

Mr. Speaker, I am under fire here. I am under fire from the government majority, which thinks that all it has to do is howl and I will sit down. Well, I will not. If they want to see how long I will stand in opposition to something that I think is wrong, let them get out the Hansard.

There have been occasions when I admit that I spoke at some length about a matter that I thought was wrong. I recall the government of the day did not like it much better than the members did. But, to give the devil his due, I do recall this: The government of the day made me speak for a lengthy period of time before it started talking about time allocation. I believe that Thomas Wells, the government House leader of the day, showed me a little note where I had spoken for a little over nine hours before he introduced his allocation-of-time motion.

But he did not do that before the debate began. He at least made me do my job as an opposition member. He made me talk until I had most of what I had to say on the matter out on the public record and then he said, perhaps justifiably, “We think we have heard enough from the member for Oshawa for a while; we are going to organize the rest of the debate.”

I had to admit at the time that at least I got on the record the things that were bothering me. I did not expect the government to like it, but then I am not here to say things that the government likes. I am not here to please the government. I am not here to feed the fish, so to speak.

The government backbenchers are here, I suppose, in their own way, and it is sometimes hard to describe around here what the role of the government backbenchers is. They supposedly vote correctly at the right time. They supposedly applaud the ministers as they go about their business. But it is rare and unusual to hear a member of the governing party who is not in the opinion on anything. We see from time to time that they put forward motions saying what a wonderful job the Liberal government is doing, and I do not object to that; just do not ask me to vote for it.

This particular day, I think, is a sad day. I will not read into the record old speeches, by those who are now in the cabinet, about what they thought of a government moving time allocation motions, closure motions and guillotine motions. I did not think they were particularly eloquent at the time, and so I will not bother to read them into the record again today. But the record is very clear that most members of this cabinet spoke very harshly about a government using time allocation motions, and quite rightly, because this is a tenuous process we are into here.

I suppose in large measure this is a very distinct difference between an American congressional system of governing and a British parliamentary system. In an American congressional system, if you have got the numbers, you got the votes; it is as simple and as brutal as that. A parliamentary system works on a little different principle; it says: “Eventually that may be true; but on the way to that decision the opposition parties do not have much in the way of tactics to thwart the government of the day, but they do have some tools. They are allowed to use their minds and their tongues for as long as they can mount the argument, so to speak, against whatever the government is doing.” That is what is happening. The government of the day is expected in a number of ways to listen to what is being said by the opposition members. It is not anticipated -- and it rarely happens -- to give credit to the opposition parties; but it does have to listen to them. It is as simple as that. They do not have to like what they hear, but they do have an obligation to listen.

When they send a bill out to committee, one of the safeguards of a parliamentary system is that the public itself has an opportunity to come before a legislative committee and present its views. A government in a parliamentary system is expected to respond to those views, and this government has not done that.

In many ways, I suppose, there are those in this chamber this afternoon who would prefer an American congressional system: You have got the numbers, call the vote, end of the game. But that is not where we are, and part of the sadness that should be in this chamber this afternoon is that there are those in government today who should know better. The record certainly shows that they knew how to argue that this type of motion was clearly wrong.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is wrong for this very basic reason: If the government is correct in its legislation, it really does not have to convince me as an opposition member of that; it has to convince the public out there. The public out there says that these two bills and this government motion are wrong.

The opposition comes from the strangest of quarters. I have heard it said by some that really what this argument is all about is that a lot of people would like to shop on Sunday but nobody wants to work on Sunday. I suppose there is some measure of truth in that. As long as no one has to work, you could find some system whereby everybody could go shopping and nobody would be forced to work. No one would object to that. That is part of the argument, for sure.

It rather phenomenal, the number of people who stop me on the street in my community and want to know exactly what this is all about. Why is this government moving in this way? Merchants, who one might think at first blush would like to keep their stores open an extra day during the week, are very straightforward about the argument that it does not mean any more business to them. It is true they pay the rent for the seventh day, but they really are not going to do any more business. They know that, and they do not want to keep their stores open.

There are some people who get a little extra work on the weekend, but they would rather spend it with their families. For some in my community -- I suppose like many others -- there is a bit of the religious connotation about this, and I do not think we should shy away from that. Whatever their religion might be, they want some common pause day. They want some time to go to church and spend some time with their families. Not all of them do that in an organized, formal religious setting. They do that in their own way these days.

The bills contained in the motion are bills that are flawed, and the public in Ontario knows that. The people of Ontario have said that in as many ways as we can reasonably expect them to do so. They have said that before committees. They have said that to each and every one of us on the phone, in writing, through their organizations, through their unions, through their churches and through their municipalities.

In as many ways as they can say it they have said it, and the government of the day chooses not to hear them. This is wrong. It is as simple as that. The government should simply take a moment of its own time and say: “Is there anything in the history of parliamentary democracy which would forbid a government from ever going back into the government caucus and saying: ‘We know what the government line was. We thought we had a good argument, but the argument is wrong, and the reason it’s wrong isn’t that the opposition parties are opposing” -- that’s why we are here; that’s hardly unusual -- “it’s wrong because the people of Ontario have told us it’s wrong. These two ideas, these two bills and this allocation-of-time motion is the wrong way to proceed. Why don’t we just back up for a moment and start again?”

As one who has been involved in this argument for quite a while now, I admit quite freely that any type of organizing of retail sales on weekends is a toughie. It is difficult in our society to find the one day on which the government would close everybody down.

The government certainly cannot do it on a religious basis any more in this province. It can do it, I think, from a labour legislation point of view; that is perhaps possible. It is difficult to do it, as we have seen with the previous legislation, in terms of the size of the shop or the number of employees who are in there. As quickly as the government writes the legislation, somebody out there will find a way to get around it.

I do not think we can deny that among the public, as straightforwardly as I can put it, there is a reasonable expectation that at least one day on a weekend belongs to them and that the government of Ontario should be inventive enough to write legislation which clearly satisfies that requirement in their minds, not in my mind.

1640

As an opposition member I am here to pick holes, in the traditional way, in whatever the government has to say for today, and I anticipate that government members will listen with great pleasure to all the things I have to say and ignore quite a few of them. This would not be the first government that has done that. That is my role.

The more difficult one, and the more difficult challenge, is for this government now to respond to the people in Ontario, who have done some unusual things over these bills.

It is not every day that people get up in the pulpit and preach sermons about laws. That is pretty unusual. It is not every day in Ontario that church groups, labour groups and people in the business community all agree on something. That is kind of unusual. It is not every day in Ontario that it is as clearly focused on two particular pieces of legislation as it has been on these two bills.

This government would be wise to say: “Let the debate proceed. Let’s find another way to do it.” This government would have been wise if it had been mature enough during the committee process to accept amendments from wherever they came to see whether that would provide legislation which meets the needs of the people of Ontario.

These two bills do not do that. By now, this government knows that.

The sadness in today’s debate is very simply how quickly this government, with its huge majority, has run aground. It is not the first government with a big majority to do that.

Some of us have had the pleasure of talking to Frank McKenna in his jurisdiction, where there is no opposition member present; everybody is a member of one political party. Although I know some Liberals on the committee who visited with me a little while ago thought that perhaps would be the best of all worlds, he quickly set them straight that this is the worst of all worlds. It is an aberration of the parliamentary system and it causes all kinds of difficulty on the government side. In New Brunswick, they were not quite sure how they were going to proceed with this; they were into some interesting ideas about assigning responsibilities to particular members. The biggest single problem, of course, is credibility.

That is where this government is on the hook. This government is not short of members to win a vote. This government is not even -- dare I say it? -- short of bright people who could do a good job in a government.

Mr. Laughren: Name names.

Mr. Breaugh: I will not name names, because it would embarrass the majority of the cabinet. I would not want to do that.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Name one name. Please.

Mr. Breaugh: Well, it certainly would not be my friend’s. Does he want to interject some more? No.

What this government does lack, and it is perhaps to be expected, is simply maturity. This is not a government that has been in business for very long.

In the minority, what the government was going to do was clearly set out by an agreement. I do not regret that agreement. I do not like the results of it, but I do not regret the agreement per se, and I would say that a lot of good legislation was brought forward during that brief period.

What this government, on its own, is stumbling around with now is, who does it blame when it wants to do something? They cannot say, “We have an agreement and we must do that,” and that is part of the problem.

Their basic agreement is not with us; their basic agreement is with the people of Ontario. Their problem very simply is that they are breaking their pledge to the people of the province. It is not me who is saying that; if it were, they would have no problem. It is the people of Ontario who are saying that, and whether they have tested the government’s mettle on the free trade agreement, Sunday shopping or a multitude of other things now, the problem is that what it is doing is at variance with what it said it wanted to do and they are beginning to recognize that.

That is why this motion we are debating this afternoon is catching some attention. It is not that the people of Ontario are really into procedural matters; they are not. They understand the difference between right and wrong. They have a reasonable expectation that if you are going to form the government, you tell them what you want to do and when you form a government, you will do that.

In the very simple, clear way in which polities works, for all of its being maligned, it has some good things about. People understand the basics. They might not understand a procedural motion that is before the assembly this afternoon, but they know this much, that something is wrong. Something that a government said it would do, it is not doing. It is not just two rather small opposition parties that are making that argument. It is being made in churches, on street corners, in union halls, in big stores, in little stores and in shopping centres all across Ontario.

The governments knows it because, of all things, this government has developed -- I give it credit -- a good network for listening to what the people in Ontario want. It has used all of the public relations tools and public opinion polling tools that are available to a modern government. Twenty years ago, the government could probably have said it had guessed wrong or it could have denied that it had ever been wrong and assumed it was correct. These days, that is not possible any more. This government knows where the minds of the people of Ontario are on almost anything you can think of. They are polling to capture that public opinion, and they know that what they are attempting to do here is severely flawed.

This government should know because it is not old; complete senility has not set in yet. This is just some kind of early form of senility that has arrived here. This government knows that this type of time allocation motion right now is wrong. It is as inappropriate now as it ever was when the Tories introduced it. It is as wrong now for all the same reasons as they said it was wrong when the Tories tried to do it.

It is not the way that a parliament goes about its business. It is not the way to overcome opposition parties who are doing, after all, what they are here for. They are here to argue the case. I would put it very simply this way. If it were true that what the government wants to do is the greatest thing in the world, if it were true that all of the arguments had been put, if it were true that the opposition parties should not speak any further on these matters, then even this government, timid as it is, would have absolutely no qualms about moving a straight, flat-out closure motion on these bills because that is the purpose of a closure motion. That is why it is in our standing orders.

If the government honestly felt that the debate was over and everybody knew the debate was over, that is precisely what it would do. The government House leader would not hesitate for a moment then to stand up on his high horse and say: “That’s enough. We are through with all of this. We are moving closure now.”

Hon. Mr. Conway: Surely you know me better than that.

An hon. member: He’s a nice fellow.

Mr. Breaugh: I did not say he was not a nice fellow. This has nothing to do with being a nice fellow.

That is the reason even the government House leader knows that what he is up to here is wrong, that he chose not to do that. He chose not to exercise the provision of the standing orders for closure because he knows that if it is put that boldly, he will appear to be wrong. When he did it, he chose to hide it rather neatly in the form of a time allocation motion.

In my view, he jumped the gun just a bit. He would have been a little bit smarter had he at least allowed the debate to get started before he moved this allocation motion. That would have been a little more appropriate, I think, because it is kind of hard to explain to the people out there how a debate is being stopped before it got started.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: I know the members are anxious to do as the member for Kitchener suggests. I think it is the member for Kitchener. Is that it, Kitchener? Where is the member from?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breaugh: I am trying to find out where he is from. He is not allowed to speak very often, so I do not recognize the member. I know he has something to say. I am sure that when I sit down and we go in rotation, he will get up and say it. At least I will wait with bated breath until he does that.

An hon. member: If you’ll promise to hold your breath, that would be better.

Mr. Breaugh: I am being threatened now, Mr. Speaker. You are supposed to defend me.

1650

Mr. Ballinger: It is only the rump.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Durham-York said it was only the rump. I take it from an expert. He knows about things like that.

The government House leader knows he is doing the wrong thing. He felt the need at the time he put this motion together to dress it up in such a way that it would be difficult to identify what he was doing. But he is doing today with this motion exactly what he has condemned so soundly on so many other occasions when the Tories did it, and he knows it. He knows because people are reading back old Hansards about what he and other of his colleagues had to say about this very same tactic.

Hon. Mr. Conway: In different circumstances.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. The Liberals were not the government. That is the difference. The people of Ontario are beginning to pick up on that difference as well. The difference is about 20 feet. That is the difference and he knows it.

If the government House leader, his pulse sensing exactly what is going on in Ontario, had really had his parliamentary wits about him he would have had no hesitation in moving a closure motion. The reason he did not and the reason he has the time allocation motion in front of us now is to try as best he can to confuse things just a touch.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I had done what you suggest, the screams from the other side would be positively deafening.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Order, please.

Mr. Breaugh: The government House leader is chastising me for being too moderate in my response this afternoon. I really do not want to bite that particular bait. On other days perhaps I might, but not today.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pretend I’m Bob Rae.

Mr. Breaugh: I tried. It does not work.

The motion in front of us is something I think this government will regret, as all governments do. I know the move is made now. In the first year of government, you make an attempt to do all the things you know are wrong, get all the screwups out of the way; in the second and third year, you try to sort things out a bit; and by the third or fourth year, before you head into the next election, you get everybody all calmed down. The Treasurer, who was attacking everybody’s pocketbook in his first year, by about the third or fourth year is trying to slip a dollar or two into everybody’s pocketbook.

There is no real excitement to this process any more. Everybody in Ontario, everybody in the free world, understands that every parliament will be the same in that respect. In the first year, they do the stupid things; all the screwups are supposed to happen. Brian Mulroney in Ottawa seemed to lose track of which year it was and he kept it going for a while, but in the end he found out that if you have enough money in the kitty, if you can build them a prison whether they want it or not, whether they need a new road or not, people can be influenced just a little by what governments do in the latter part of their term.

We are all aware over here that this government will try its best. I think it is not a secret that this government right now would like to leave this place for a while. This government for the first time is experiencing a little shift in the polling results of how popular anybody is. I think this government -- I do not expect any public acknowledgement of this -- is beginning to understand too that there are some in the cabinet who really should not be there any more, and perhaps a little shuffle is in order, maybe a little break. Maybe we should just blow the whistle and call half-time for a while and go away and let them regroup a little.

Mr. Wildman: It’s time for the Icky shuffle.

Mr. Breaugh: I cannot see the government House leader doing the Icky shuffle under any circumstances. There are others over there who could do that.

I think it is true that this government is entering its bad period. It certainly has stumbled on these two bills. It certainly has not done much credit to itself by introducing this time allocation motion which is being debated today. The government has clearly made some serious errors. That is being reflected in the population.

The poll I listen to is not the one I read in the newspapers or hear broadcast in the media. The poll that is important to most of the members here, the poll that is accurate, is what we hear on the ground in our own constituencies. That is the one that really makes a difference to us. It may match what all the polling services have provided as information, but it may not. In my community, as in every other community, I suspect, people are stopping the members as they enter the grocery store and saying: “Why are they doing that? That is a little wrong, isn’t it?”

I will bet there are Liberal backbench members who talk a pretty different line in their own community from what is the formal government line here. I think if I was pushed, I could probably come up with some government members who are not quite as consistently fervent about these two bills as some in the cabinet would be.

Hon. Mr. Conway: In my riding, they tell me that Environics isn’t wrong, that the bottom isn’t falling out of the NDP.

Mr. Breaugh: We have just had a report from Renfrew North that the New Democratic Party is rising in Renfrew, and I would not be surprised at that. With the government falling so quickly and so dramatically, something has to go up. In many ways, it is a see-saw.

I wanted to put this stuff on the record because I think it is important that the people who are important in this debate -- not the government members and not the opposition members, but the people we are supposed to serve, the people in Ontario -- have a right to be a little angry today. They have a right to say two or three pretty brutal things. One is, “We elected you because you said you were going to do this and you are doing something different.” They have a right to say, “Why did you bother with public hearings when you really didn’t want to hear what we had to say?” They have a right to be a little upset when they were invited to propose amendments to these two bills and the government decided:

“We’re sorry, we’re just not going to listen to that. We know better than you do.” And I think they have a right to be a little upset today at a motion that stops debate, in a formal sense, before it starts.

I guess from the government’s point of view, its hope is that a time allocation motion is not a simple thing. It is easy to be a little confused about precisely what it means. It is a little difficult to figure out how you move a motion to stop a debate before it starts, but that is what is happening. The argument is then focused on a procedural matter, such as we are doing this afternoon.

There are not a whole lot of experts in parliamentary procedure in Ontario, but I think at the end of this process, whatever might happen, the government will look back on this debate as its first major false step. The first big mistake that this government has made was around the way it handled these two bills, not just about the content of the two bills themselves but the way in which it displayed its arrogance at such an early date, not to the parliament, not to the opposition members, but to the people of Ontario.

The government’s hope is, and I grant it this, that it may be a long time before there is another general election in Ontario, and by the time that rolls around, the people in Ontario will have forgotten about these two bills and this time allocation motion and be grateful that they got their cheques from the Treasurer.

I hope that does not happen on these bills. I hope that the people who are forced to go to work when they do not want to, on a day which is inappropriate to them, remember. I hope that the storekeepers who have to open up their shops when they do not want to because the owner of their shopping centre says “Everybody is going to be open this Sunday,” remember. I hope the people who appeared before the parliamentary committees and gave their honest opinion in a straightforward way and were kind of turned down by this government remember.

I hope the sermons that were read in the pulpits last Sunday are read again before the next general election. I hope that all the trade union leaders who remember what their memberships are going to have to go through in all of this remember that before the next general election. One of the things that bother me a bit about the electoral process is simply that people often pay attention to their government when their government steps on them a little bit, as it is doing with these two bills, but in an unfortunate way, when the pain goes away, they forget who caused them the pain.

I hope that the opposition and all the leaders in our community remind the people of Ontario who caused the pain with these two bills, who broke the faith with the people of Ontario in the way the government proceeded with these two bills, who broke the faith with the people of Ontario in the way in which this government, which should know better, took this legislation through this chamber.

I believe that the bills are flawed. I believe that the process is flawed. I am taken aback somewhat by the fact that those who not very long ago gave very good and true speeches about why there should not be time allocation motions and closure motions introduced into this chamber, do not seem to remember that when they said those words they were right, and just because they are the government today does not make them correct. They may get away with it for a little while, but this is a government that is off the beaten track, that has gone wrong. It may need to call half-time and it may need to go away and think about things for a little while, but in these two bills and in this motion this government is wrong and really should be ashamed of itself.

1700

Mr. McLean: I would like to take the opportunity just before I start to welcome Bonnie McNiven, a page here from the riding of Simcoe East, who was born in Oro township, where my ancestors, who came to Canada in 1832, were from. The McNivens and the McLeans were very close, within two miles of one another, back in 1831 and 1832. I want to thank the Speaker for picking Bonnie McNiven as a page.

With regard to the reasons why this bill and this motion of closure to limit debate on Sunday shopping should not go forward, I want to read into the record a statement that was made by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) when he was the leader of the opposition party. It reads: “As my colleague pointed out, there were other options. That is why we cannot support this motion for closure, guillotine, phase closure, time allocation or whatever one wants to call it.”

I remember very well sitting in the Legislature listening to the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier, saying that. He also said: “I have the right to pursue the most vigorous opposition that I can pursue, and the longer I am here the more I believe very strongly that the opposition is the only thing that stands between government and the sheer, naked use of power. It is the only check we have in the system, and I believe it is our responsibility to exercise it in as responsible a way as we can.”

I would like to give some reasons why closure should not be brought forward. While I welcome every opportunity to debate the issues facing the people of Ontario, I must say that I have mixed feelings about this debate we are engaged in now. I have mixed feelings because I firmly believe that every member in this House should put the views of his constituents on the record. We are all here to represent our constituents, and their views and concerns should also come first, as far as I am concerned.

I have two reasons for approaching this debate with caution. First of all, no matter what is said here today and no matter how well presented our speeches against forcing this important matter into the jurisdiction of municipal politicians are, the government is still going to press ahead with what I consider to be some pretty poorly thought out legislation that will come back to haunt us all in the future.

My second reason for caution relates back to my opening comments in which I pointed out that we are all here solely to represent the views and concerns of our constituents. I plan to do just that, but I have serious doubts that this will not be the case with the majority of the Liberal backbenchers, many of whom we have not heard from when it comes to discussing Sunday shopping, and I doubt that we are going to hear from them now. The opposition to this legislation is overwhelming. That opposition is coming from all parts of Ontario and is not restricted to ridings represented by opposition members.

No one can tell me that there is no opposition to the legislation that will be brought in, in such ridings as London Centre, Simcoe Centre, Muskoka-Georgian Bay or Peterborough to name but a few. Will the members from those and other similar ridings vote against this legislation and make the views of their constituents known? I doubt it. Instead, the Premier has said, “Jump,” and the members of his party have asked, “How high?” rather than voting freely on a matter that has overwhelming opposition throughout this province, opposition from Progressive Conservative ridings, opposition from New Democratic ridings and yes, even opposition from Liberal ridings.

The Premier has given his party its marching orders. The government should show some leadership and indicate that it is listening to the people by strengthening the existing Retail Business Holidays Act rather than dumping the issue into the laps of municipal politicians. The members on the government side of this House could show some courage, creativity and compassion by voting Sunday shopping legislation down. They certainly owe that much to their constituents back home.

As the member for Simcoe East, I have a duty and an obligation to make the views of my constituents known to the government. I have done that with respect to Sunday shopping in the past, and I am going to do it again today. I would be remiss in my duty and obligation if I did not speak on behalf of the people of Simcoe East on such an important issue, which will have detrimental effects on every man, woman and child in my riding.

There has been widespread outrage and objection to Sunday shopping since this matter was first brought to us. That outrage and objection has come from all corners of this province, including retailers, members of the public, labour groups, religious organizations and most notably from a large majority of municipalities.

As members may recall, I sent out a questionnaire concerning the Sunday shopping issue and received more than 800 responses, with the following results -- and this is the reason we should not be getting into the debate on Bill 113 -- 83 per cent were not in favour of Sunday shopping; 68 per cent indicated the current system for designating which stores can open on Sunday is about right; 74 per cent suggested that Sunday shopping would increase pressures on families, especially single-parent families; 74 per cent indicated that Sunday shopping would not increase business or employment; and 75 per cent said they would not be willing to work on Sunday.

This sensitive and somewhat controversial legislation has been debated for approximately two years. It has been debated in this House, it has been debated before the standing committee on administration of justice and it has been debated through the stacks of letters and petitions which I am certain every member receives at his or her constituency and Queen’s Park offices.

The government chose not to listen as one member after another rose in this House to point out the faults with Bills 113 and 114. The government chose to ignore the groups and individuals who spoke against this legislation at the justice committee hearings. The government chose to turn a deaf ear to the many working men and women in Ontario who do not need to shop on Sunday and who do not want to work on Sunday. By choosing to ignore such overwhelming opposition from so many groups and individuals, the government is sending out a clear message that it is abdicating its leadership and responsibilities.

The government is abdicating its responsibility for Sunday shopping by passing the buck and dumping the issue into the laps of the municipal politicians. That is what the government is doing with the waste management crisis and the shortage of affordable housing. Our municipalities are becoming dumping grounds whenever the government is confronted with an issue it chooses not to deal with. The government should be assisting our municipalities to solve these and other pressing issues. Instead, the government chooses to take a hurry-up-and-wait attitude by dumping these matters on our municipalities. That is not acceptable and it is certainly no way to govern a province.

I would like to take this opportunity to restate my opposition to this Sunday shopping legislation. I would also like to make it clear that my opposition is also based on the many letters, petitions and talks I have had with the people of Simcoe East. You can be certain that what I have come to say comes from me and from the people I represent.

1710

I fear that Sunday shopping will impair, if not destroy, the quality of life we have all come to enjoy and expect in this province. I am referring to the quality of life for many families in Ontario, which will be destroyed if one or both parents must work on the traditional day of pause. It will be especially demanding and difficult for single-parent families, of which more than one half are women who work in the retail sector. These single parents will lose the only day they have to be with their children and will be faced with obtaining scarce day care services. They will have to dig into their pockets to pay for day care services, if they are lucky enough to find any.

This is a disturbing situation, because it will further weaken the fabric and quality of family life and could lead to potentially dangerous situations for children who cannot be watched by their working parents and for whom there are no available day care services. This could lead to a growing number of so-called latchkey children, in what is by no means a healthy learning or living atmosphere for our children.

The social fabric of healthy communities depends on more than just buying and selling commodities. People are more than simply economic entities and their needs are more complex than this government appears to understand. By introducing the Sunday shopping legislation, the government thinks it can assume that family values, personal friendships and our quality of life have a price. I say that price is too high, if it means dumping the Sunday shopping issue on to our municipal governments.

It is completely unreasonable for this government to think this way and it is completely unreasonable and unfair for the government to assume that a worker’s refusal of overtime pay to be with a spouse or child represents an unreasonable attitude towards the work ethic.

This government’s legislation denies workable protection for retail employees who want and need to spend quality time with their families. Ontario’s retail workers will soon have their freedom of choice wiped out when this legislation is passed.

The government chooses to focus all attention on the so-called local option. When it talks about Sunday shopping, as far as I am concerned, the phrase “local option” is a fallacy, because the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, Bill 113, will defeat any attempt by a municipality to stay closed on Sundays. If there were truly an option, communities would have the power to resist the pressure to change a local option. It implies the ability to opt in or opt out, to choose between a law as written in Bill 113 or a municipality writing an entirely new law for itself.

Bill 113 does not provide the choice. Instead, it allows municipalities to amend various aspects of a law constantly. The reason I am talking about Bill 113 is that this motion before us is trying to stop any debate from taking place on it. I want to give the honourable members the reasons why I believe that it should be stopped.

There are many other reasons why Bill 113 should not be debated. The Premier today, when he was in opposition some time ago, indicated with regard to closure motions: “Speaking for myself and for our party, I say that part of our responsibility in pursuing what I hope to be a vigorous opposition is that we want to amend the bill and make it better. We regret very much that we have been precluded by certain kinds of behaviour from having that kind of discussion.”

We are concerned too, and I want to conclude my remarks by saying that this closure motion is unacceptable. We do not feel it is in the best interests of this Legislature and we strongly oppose it.

Mr. Laughren: It was not my intention to speak in this debate this afternoon, but I was provoked by the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham), just by the fact that he sat down across from me. I do want to very briefly engage in the debate this afternoon, partly because of the issue the government’s notice of motion deals with, namely, the whole question of shopping on what is generally regarded as a day of rest in Ontario.

I think most of us have an appreciation for that day-of-rest concept. As a matter of fact, when my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) suggested that the Legislative Assembly sit on Sundays, there were hoots of derision and disbelief from members in the chamber. Indeed, people out there in society did not really take it very seriously; certainly members of the assembly did not take it very seriously.

Mr. Fleet: It’s just the member we don’t take very seriously.

Mr. Laughren: That is not a fact. The member for Cambridge was doing something very useful. He was showing that there is a set of rules for one group of people in our world and another set for the people in this chamber. It is factual that when he suggested we sit on Sundays people thought: “Oh, that’s silly. Why would he suggest we sit on Sundays?”

However, this government is quite prepared to say that other people will work on Sundays. Members of the government would be appalled at the idea of coming in here and working on Sundays, even if their constituents decided in a form of local option that they should be here. They would be opposed to that.

I would ask any of them to put in their next constituency newsletter a questionnaire that includes the question: “Do you think that since retail workers are being asked to work on Sundays, given local option, members should be asked to do the same thing?” I bet they will get a surprising response from their constituents.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: I am just issuing a challenge to members of the government to do that. I see nothing wrong with --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Miller: They’ll say no.

Mr. Laughren: If the member believes they will say no, he should go ahead and put it in his newsletter. Go ahead.

I hear members of the government saying, “Oh, our constituents wouldn’t want us to work Sundays.” I am not too sure that is the case. If government members feel as strongly as they do that there should be a local option on whether people work on Sunday, they should give that same option to their own constituents. I see nothing contradictory or illogical in that argument.

I will await with a great deal of interest the next outpouring of Liberal newsletters across the province and see how many of them include a questionnaire that asks constituents whether they think MPPs should sit down here at the seat of power in Ontario and carry on debates on Sundays.

Mr. Miller: It will put the power back where it belongs.

Mr. Laughren: The government member is interjecting that this bill will put power back where it belongs at the community level. If they accept that argument for retail stores and other places of business, why will they not accept that same argument and give to their constituents the right to determine whether they as MPPs sit on Sundays as well? I am just trying to make them be consistent as they deal with the whole question of Sunday working.

It needs to be stated that what we are talking about here are two bills, one which gives the local option on Sunday shopping and the other which deals with the whole question of the right of workers to say they do not want to work on Sundays. We know, of course, that once the employer decides they should work on Sunday, that very vulnerable workforce out there that works in the retail sector will end up working on Sunday if their employer decides that indeed they should work on Sunday.

It is not just the small retailer. This past week I was strolling through the large shopping centre in downtown Sudbury.

Mr. Haggerty: You were shopping on a Sunday?

Mr. Laughren: No. On Saturday I was in the large shopping centre in Sudbury. That is not my constituency, of course, and it is not often that I encroach on the territory represented by my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell). I was surprised how many retailers -- it is an open concept kind of mall -- waved to me as I was walking by or came out and said to me, “What is the latest on the Sunday shopping issue?” Of course, I had to tell them that not only was the government intending to bring it in, but the government was now ramming it down our throats, and by transference ramming it down their throats as well.

1720

Hon. Mr. Conway: Did you smile when you said that?

Mr. Laughren: No, I did not smile when I said that, because without exception, the retailers who stopped and spoke to me in that mall were opposed to Sunday shopping. However, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the owner of that mall is very much in favour of Sunday shopping, I suspect: one Robert Campeau, whose company owns the Sudbury Mall.

Mr. Campbell: Did you also tell them that Sudbury already passed a no-shopping bylaw last February? Did you tell them that?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, all members of all parties.

Mr. Laughren: I am making a serious attempt not to be provocative, but I really must say, now that the member for Sudbury has interjected, that his name was mentioned in dispatches several times on Saturday afternoon. I would not want to repeat in this chamber what they said, because I believe in the parliamentary language that must be used in here all the time.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Was George Samis’s name mentioned?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, as a matter of fact, several people mentioned George Samis and thought that it was a very good thing that he is at the Ontario Highway Transport Board now. Yes, Mr. Samis’s name was mentioned on several occasions.

I must say, though, that it is with a certain degree of unseemly haste that the government is doing what it is doing with this closure motion. I think that it would be good to remind members just how tight a schedule the government is imposing on us in this debate. This is what they are saying -- and I mentioned earlier that there are two bills here, one dealing with labour and one dealing with actual Sunday shopping.

The motion says that “…not more than one sessional day shall be allocated to this order and at 5:45 p.m. on that day, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this order.” That is calling for the adoption of the committee report.

One sessional day really means, for people who do not understand the hours around this place, from the end of question period until 6 p.m. Question period usually ends somewhere between three and four o’clock, so that means about two and a half to three hours of debate on that very important motion from the committee.

The government motion to restrict debate goes on to say: “And that notwithstanding standing order 66(c), there shall be two sessional days allocated to the consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, together in the committee of the whole House.”

This means that for those two bills combined, there shall be two days of debate in the chamber itself on the clause-by-clause portion of the process around this place -- two days on two bills -- so roughly between five and six hours to debate every clause of each of those bills and any amendments --

Hon. Mr. Conway: After nine months of other debate.

Mr. Laughren: After debate in the committee. That is correct. But I should point out to the House leader that the majority of members in this assembly were not on that committee and serve on other committees. It is very difficult for members of the chamber to serve on a number of committees, let alone to go to one all the time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But what does Ed Philip represent, and Mike Farnan?

Mr. Laughren: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) does not represent the constituents in Nickel Belt, not to mention the constituents in Renfrew North; and I know that the people in Renfrew North regret that very much.

That means two days on two bills to deal with all the clauses, plus any amendments that might be put by members of the assembly, and there might even be some Liberal backbenchers who want to make some amendments. One never knows.

“At 5:45 p.m. on the second of these sessional days, the Chairman shall put all questions necessary to dispose of every section of both bills not yet passed as well as the titles and shall report both bills forthwith to the House, and that the question for the adoption of the report of the committee of the whole House on both bills shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.”

That is a closure motion. That concludes the clause-by-clause debate of the bill. There is still third reading to go, but they have given two days for clause-by-clause and amendments.

“Further, that there shall be one sessional day allocated for the consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, together at the third reading stage and that on that sessional day the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at 5:45 p.m. and put all questions necessary to dispose of the order for third reading of the two bills.”

If that is not closure, I do not know what is.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You read the standing orders.

Mr. Laughren: That is closure. It is severely restricting debate. The government House leader and the Liberal members can dress it up with any kind of language they want. That is a restriction of debate in this assembly on two very important bills. How can they say it is not closure?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Sean, what did you call it on Bill 127 in 1983?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am not denying it is closure.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I remember what Tom Wells said. The thing is, you have all your government backbenchers convinced you’re right.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, the member for Windsor-Riverside and the government House leader. If members have some opinions to express, they may do so one after another, as the standing orders call for.

Mr. Laughren: The government members do make it difficult to carry on a reasoned debate in this place.

I think there is an agreement that there is a severe restriction on debate in this assembly. There was prolonged debate in the standing committee with these two bills. We are talking now about debate in this assembly where all members can be present and engage in the debate. There is surely a difference between committee debate and hearings and debate in this assembly, where amendments can be put and each clause can be debated. There is no question about that. What needs to be answered is why the government is so anxious to proceed so quickly.

Mr. Fleet: So quickly? It’s been nine months. It’s like producing a baby.

Mr. Laughren: Do I need to go through the time restrictions again? Two days for clause-by-clause and amendments; 130 members in this assembly, most of whom, I suspect, would like to engage in debate on this very important matter, and the government restricts it to a two-day, five-to six-hour debate. How do we spread that among 130 members?

Mr. Fleet: Oh well, we’re really enthused.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the government House leader and the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Laughren: It is certainly not the small business community out there that wants any kind of speed in this place on these two bills. The small business community is not clamouring for it and the labour movement is not clamouring for it. They are opposed to it. The opposition is not clamouring for it. We are opposed to it.

So one might ask who is so anxious to get this bill through. The name that comes to mind immediately is the name I talked about, the good friend of the member for Sudbury, Robert Campeau, Cadillac Fairview. That is who wants this bill. It is not the labour movement. It is not the small business community. It is not the politicians in this province. It is very big capital that wants this bill.

Even if there was a substantial constituency out there that wanted these two bills passed, one might ask why that would mean that the government would comply with that request. Why would they knuckle under? Why would they say, “Yes, we agree, there has to be a great deal of speed attached to the passage of these bills”? I think it is very simply, and my House leader pointed it out just --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Yesterday. It seems like a long time ago.

1730

Mr. Laughren: Just yesterday. It does seem like longer.

The real motive for the government is to get these bills out of the way, get the assembly shut down for a couple of months and let the political heat cool off a bit because the government has not been doing very well this past session.

Every time there are questions on health care, we get very inadequate answers. On the whole question of education, the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) has been unable to respond to demands out there. I was just in my constituency on Friday. In talking to one of the school boards there, I learned 43 per cent of the students are in temporary accommodation.

I am not saying this is a legacy from the former Minister of Education who is presently the House leader, but I tell members it is a problem that this government simply is not dealing with. The member for Sudbury knows that problem. I am surprised he is not on his feet demanding --

The Deputy Speaker: Is this related to government motion 20?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, because it is those kinds of reasons that really lie behind this closure motion, which the government does not like to call closure; it likes to call it time allocation. Perhaps that means something to the parliamentary purists, but to people out there in Ontario, when the government restricts debate, that is closure. I think --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Closure in the rules just allocates no time.

Mr. Laughren: That is right; exactly.

Hon. Mr. Conway: How did Gaston Demers lose?

Mr. Laughren: That is a very mean question the House leader is asking me. I have no idea why my predecessor lost and I won.

I do hope the government understands why the opposition is angry about this closure motion. We feel very strongly that this is an issue people out there, at the very best, have mixed feelings about. If there were a poll done in Ontario now, I really believe it would show Sunday shopping is not something that is at the top of people’s priority list, to put it as gently as I can to the government House leader.

I say to myself, why is the government prepared to take all this heat on Sunday shopping when it does not need to, when indeed it promised many moons ago that it had no intention of bringing in these bills on Sunday shopping?

I remember the statements by the Premier. I remember the statements by the Solicitor General that to give the local option for Sunday shopping would be the “chicken way out.” Was that the language that was used? I am not sure that is parliamentary, but the government really is a bunch of chickens when it says: “We aren’t prepared to bring in legislation that will restrict shopping on a pause day. We are going to make sure that responsibility is passed back to the local municipality.”

I think the government is getting carried away with this whole question of local option. I was reading Orders and Notices for Thursday and there is even a resolution before us dealing with the Constitution that would make the “notwithstanding” clause a local option.

I ask the government, how far is it willing to go with this question of local option, when it will make the “notwithstanding” clause in the Constitution a local option? I am using local option in a broad sense, namely, provincial option, but that is really what it says. I really find it strange for someone who is seriously considering supporting that resolution. I do not like the “notwithstanding” clause either, but when I read it more carefully and saw that it really was local option by the back door, I started to reassess my position, on that particular resolution at least.

I hope the government understands what it is doing here. I could quote from the present government House leader. I do not know whether he has been quoted before on this particular matter.

On December 8, 1982, when he was not lonely at the top, he was talking about a Conservative government closure motion. He stated, and I quote from Hansard, December 8, 1982:

“Notwithstanding what some in the government may feel, I think we threaten to poison this parliamentary well if we proceed in this debate by writing into our rule book this kind of time allocation. It may be that we need some kind of structured time allocation. My views on that are fairly positive; I personally think we should have, but I absolutely caution members on all sides to draw away from so important and new a departure as that at this time. That is not the way and this is not the time to write into our rule book this kind of very new departure.”

This particular allocation is unusual in that it includes two bills.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But it is structured.

Mr. Laughren: It is very structured; that is right. There is an element of consistency with what the House leader said in 1982. He has structured this closure motion, which he prefers to call time allocation. But bringing in a closure motion dealing with two pieces of legislation is unsettling.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mike, Floyd would make a poor Catholic.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the heckling is getting hard to deal with.

I think, given the nature of the debate we have had, that it would be unseemly to read more into this than is there. However, if one wanted to carry this argument on the closure motion to its logical extent, one could make the argument that once you have put two bills into a closure motion, you could put as many as you want into a closure motion.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is reductio ad absurdum.

Mr. Laughren: The House leader says, to use the language of Shining Tree, that is a ridiculous conclusion to draw from his actions, but I want to tell members that it is not a ridiculous assumption. If the government can put two bills in a time allocation motion and say, “This is the limit on the debate for these two bills,” let the government tell me why it could not say it is three bills, four bills, five bills, six bills --

Mr. Wildman: Whatever is on the order paper.

Mr. Laughren: -- or whatever is on the order paper, if the government felt particularly pressed and wanted to get on with some other business that suited its own agenda.

It is not ridiculous to say the government could expand it once it has gone from one bill to two. It is then very easy the next time to make it three bills in a closure motion, and then four. I really feel very strongly that if the government had come in with one bill and said, “We are going to deal with this as a closure motion,” it would have been saying to us, “We still regard the principle of closure as being offensive to the parliamentary system.” They would still have been giving us that message.

But when they lump two bills together, one dealing with employment standards and the other dealing with hours of work in the retail sector in particular, then I think they are sending out a signal that they are not as concerned as most of us and do not regard the whole question of closure as being as offensive to the parliamentary process as most of us do.

It really is possible, once we have taken this step, which will be used as a precedent in arguments that will be made in the future, to say that more than two can be included in the package.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: If we split it up?

Mr. Laughren: If these were two separate closure motions, no, I would not vote for the closure motion; I am not suggesting that for one moment. But I think it would be much more respectful of the process, of the way of doing it than the way the government is doing it, simply for convenience sake saying, “We want restricted debate on both of these bills, so let’s lump them together all in one.”

I say to the government House leader, why did he not include the rest of the bills on the order paper? If he wants to get out of here, if he does not want to be here day after day answering questions from the opposition in question period, then why did he not include them all? It is the same principle.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Because that would be patently unreasonable.

Mr. Laughren: We would say this is patently unreasonable, but if the government had brought in one bill and had brought in its allocation of time on one bill, we would not have been able to make the argument that it was being unreasonable in terms of one bill at a time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But you would have tried.

Mr. Polsinelli: You would have found another one.

Mr. Laughren: Well, it is a fact. The government shows a contempt for the process when it lumps two bills together and says there is closure on both these bills.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Fantasy.

1740

Mr. Laughren: Fantasy be darned. This is reality. When I start fantasizing, it will not be about closure motions.

It really is offensive to have the government do this. I would at least have had respect for their intention to get on with the debate, as they saw it, if they had brought in one time allocation motion, dealt with it and then moved on to the next one. That way it is not an abuse of the process the way this is when you lump two of them together.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Fiction.

Mr. Laughren: It is not fictional. The member for Renfrew North seems to want to dismiss any arguments that point out the danger of putting two bills in one time allocation motion. The two bills are not amending the same act.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They are not even the same minister.

Mr. Laughren: Right. They are not even the same minister. Can he tell me what would possibly prevent, what would be different in principle from including any number of bills in this closure motion, more than the two that are already there? There is nothing different in principle. The government finds itself walking down that road of abuse of power very easily, after only a year and a couple of months of having that power.

I think that the government House leader, and he will not like this, follows that adage of Ronald Reagan, who said that, “The worst abuse of power is to have it and not use it.” That was what the Republicans in the United States thought during the last eight years. Now we have the government House leader saying: “By golly, we have the power. Let’s use it. Let’s bring in the time allocation motion and use it on the two bills, put the two bills together in the time allocation motion.”

I will conclude my remarks, but I do feel very strongly that where the government made its big error was in making the closure motion so tight on time -- two days, two bills, all amendments, all clause-by-clause debate -- and by including the two bills in one closure motion. I think that was a fundamental error.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They want out of here before the insurance rates come in.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. Our House leader just pointed out that we believe that the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board is going to come in with a decision on automobile rates in the province around the middle of February, give or take a few days.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But we’re here until the work is done.

Mr. Laughren: If the government members are not in such a hurry to get out of here, why are we dealing with a closure motion on two important bills? It is a fact that the one thing this government fears is that it will still be sitting here when the automobile insurance rates come down. Despite what the Premier promised, that he had a specific plan to lower automobile insurance rates, they are going to go up, perhaps substantially. The last thing the government wants is to be sitting here under a barrage of opposition questions when that decision comes down on insurance rates.

There is no question in our minds that is what really lies behind this closure motion. It really does not have as much to do with the Sunday shopping issue as it does with the government’s own agenda and its fear of facing the opposition when those automobile insurance rates come down.

We see them over there. We see that furtive look that now crosses the face of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) every time my leader stands up or the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Kormos) stands up and asks a question about automobile insurance rates.

We can see how uncomfortable the government gets every time it is reminded of what the Premier said about his plans for automobile insurance rates.

This allocation motion, first of all, would not be as tight on time as it is, two days for two bills, and it would not include both bills in one motion if they were not afraid of what is coming up with the automobile insurance rates. There is nothing fanciful about that. That is exactly what is going to happen.

I do not know how the members go back to their constituencies and say, “Yes, the Premier did say he had a specific plan to lower insurance rates, but you know, things have changed now.”

What has changed besides an election --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: A majority.

Mr. Laughren: -- an election that gave them a majority? How do they go back to their constituents and say that: (a) “The Premier was only kidding when he said that he had a specific plan;” or (b) “He did have a plan, but he lost it; he does not have one now;” or (c) “He did not say that; he was misquoted” -- that is a bit hard to do when there are so many examples of it. Or perhaps they will say, “I cannot really answer for the Premier because I agree with you that the insurance rates are too high.”

I can hear the government members now. They will be skating like whirling dervishes out there as their constituents tackle them on the auto insurance rate increases. Whirling dervishes, that is how they will be skating.

I do not envy the government members. I do not envy the member for Sudbury when he has to answer his constituents’ questions as to why their insurance rates are going up anywhere from 15 per cent to 40 per cent. I do not know what rate it will be. We do not know yet, but we know they will be going up, and we know --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Do not go advertising your ignorance. You do not know.

Mr. Laughren: No one knows.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They are already up now.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No one knows. Exactly.

Mr. Wildman: You said you had a plan.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You had a plan to lower them and they are already up nine per cent.

Mr. Laughren: I do not hear anybody saying that they are going down. Everyone knows they are not going down. Is that agreed? Do the members opposite agree that the automobile insurance rates are not going down? General agreement, general agreement. I want to say --

Hon. Mr. Conway: We do not know.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They went up nine last year. They went up nine per cent during the Liberal freeze.

Miss Martel: Some freeze.

Mr. Laughren: I am just saying that the debate goes on about automobile insurance rates, except that there is one part of the debate that is missing, and that is whether or not the rates are going to go down. I have not heard anybody talking about that. I think Liberal members should be outraged that we are not engaging in a debate as to how much they are going to go down, given the promise of the Premier of a year and a half ago that rates were going to actually drop.

I think Liberal members should scream foul about that. The press is not covering that. There is no speculation about how much rates are going to go down. I want to say that during this debate several of our members have pointed out the fact that we suspect an agenda on the part of the Liberals to get out of this place, to shut the place down and let the committees work, so that when we get to the new automobile insurance rates the House will not be in session.

I would have been much kinder to the government this afternoon in my comments if the Solicitor General had been here and had taken part in the debate, and if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) had been here and taken part in the debate. These are their bills. As a matter of fact, the Premier, in view of his promises, should have been here as well dealing with the --

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is my motion.

Mr. Laughren: It is the House leader’s motion, but they are not his bills.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Collective government.

Mr. Fleet: The debate is supposed to be on the motion.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And the motion has something to do with the bills.

Mr. Wildman: We are speaking to the motion. We are opposed to you doing what you are doing, and we are telling you so.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is why we are doing what we are doing.

Mr. Laughren: It is bad enough that the government is trying to stifle debate with this closure motion without heckling and shouting me down as I am trying to make a reasoned debate here this afternoon.

I will conclude my remarks, but I regret very much that the government has brought in this closure motion, which will restrict debate on Sunday shopping in Ontario.

Mr. Cousens: Great concern is being raised by many of us in the Legislature, and I am just surprised that there have not been any of the Liberal backbenchers here to stand and to speak against the devices --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Where are your colleagues at the moment?

Mr. Cousens: I just have to say that obviously, the power of the House leader is total. He has those backbenchers totally cowed. They are afraid to speak up. They are intimidated, and I think this is really a shame. He has been elected. He has such control of this Legislature, but he also, as House leader, has tremendous control over all these other members. I am surprised; I thought that he was a far weaker person than that. I did not think he had that kind of strength.

There are a number of questions I would like to raise. The first one is that I wonder why the government did not bring this motion of closure a long time ago, because it could have done this back last spring, in June, before it went off to the committee and there was going to be some public discussion on these two very important bills that will affect the lifestyle and family life in Ontario.

1750

It would have been the time for this government to say: “We presented these bills in April. We’ve had time to discuss them. We’ve put up with the little filibusters the opposition came out with, and now we are going to proceed.”

But the good old Premier led us to believe that there would be some kind of consultation which would take place during the summer months, that during that process there would be an opportunity for people to be heard, and not only through their petitions. There have been over 100,000 petitions submitted to this Legislature and there have been hundreds upon hundreds of people who have made their views known through association leaders in presentations to the committee, saying, “We’re tremendously interested in the government reviewing its thinking and reversing its direction in opening up Sundays as it is going to through Bills 113 and 114.”

The fact of the matter is that this government has just shoved aside all that public concern. Why did they not shove it aside a year ago? Why did they not just disregard them from the beginning? That is what happened.

Mr. Fleet: We haven’t shoved anything aside. We just want to get on with the business. We’ve been reasonable the whole time. You know that.

Mr. Cousens: Would the member for High Park-Swansea shut up?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Markham does in fact have the floor and would like to address the assembly uninterrupted. I hope the government members will restrain themselves and allow him to address the assembly.

Mr. Cousens: I hope that the next time the member for High Park-Swansea interrupts, Mr. Speaker, you will have him removed. We would be pleased to call some undertaker to take him out, because he seems to come to life only when we have something to say.

Why, then, did this government not bring closure in a lot sooner? They built up the expectations of the people of Ontario that they were going to do something --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member is indicating by his position that he would like the floor. Could honourable members please allow him to speak?

Mr. Cousens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not try to speak over the loud voice and the big sounds that are coming from the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Morin-Strom: A big wind.

Mr. Cousens: Someone from the NDP says “A big wind.” I would not want to be as upsetting, but it is rather obnoxious. If he has something to say, stand up and say it. He should not be so controlled by his House leader.

Why did the government not bring closure in sooner? The point I am making is that what the Premier has done and what this government has done is to suggest that there would be a public process in which the public at large would have a chance to react to these bills. By allowing the bills to go out to committee, they built up those expectations that changes would be made. Nothing has really happened. It has been a virtual waste of their time to try to come along and express those views.

I am receiving letters now from the People for Sunday Association of Canada, the Council of Christian Reformed Churches in Canada, the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping and many other groups saying: “Please fight for us. We’re glad you’re there doing something.” They are thrilled there is going to be an open, free vote and that it will give a chance for the members of the government to go onside and support their constituents in the way they have been asked to support them rather than go according to the way the House leader and the Premier are going.

My point is, why not bring closure in a lot sooner? It would have saved an awful lot of time for an awful lot of people who thought they would be listened to, who thought there was a chance with this government, which started out saying, “We’re going to be open; we’re going to be willing to listen to the people of Ontario.” They have not had that chance.

Mr. Fleet: We’ve been too patient. We’ve been too reasonable.

Mr. Cousens: Where is this open, consultative government?

Mr. Fleet: There were 60 days of sessions.

Mr. Cousens: I have to take great exception, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to allow the member for High Park-Swansea to continue to interrupt what I have to say in this Legislature. I feel that my rights are being abused and unless you are going to act, I want to challenge the Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I will ask once again that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) please restrain himself so that we may hear the member for Markham.

Mr. Cousens: Should it happen again, I will challenge the Speaker if he is not going to take any action on this member.

I think there will be surprising support for this one. I think that people at large, the people in Ontario, have really only got those of us from our caucus and those in the New Democratic Party who are trying to do something on a very important issue, and the fact of the matter is that we are going to be stymied. There will be no further debate. The government is saying “End of discussion,” yet it gave everyone the whole good idea this past year that there would be an opportunity for people to react in a positive way to what the government was trying to do.

The government has shown by this that it really is not prepared to listen. It is not prepared to react. It is not prepared to be that open government the Premier promised it would be when he took power back in 1985 or whenever it was. It seems he has broken that promise.

The promise he has broken is far deeper when you start thinking about the way the Liberal Party, from the very beginning, has come out and said it was opposed to expanded Sunday shopping. This is something they said in the 1985 election campaign. Up to November 1985, the now Premier stated categorically that the Liberal government would not abandon the common pause day. In December 1986 the Liberals said they felt the current laws should be upheld. In January 1987, although Sunday shopping had already been analysed by a Progressive Conservative task force, the Liberals sent the issue to a standing committee of the Legislature for study.

The committee issued its report in May 1987. It recommended that Sunday be maintained as a common pause day and it rejected the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for the harm it would incur in family life and recreational pursuits. In November 1987 the Solicitor General said that choosing the municipal option would be the chicken way out.

I have to say, by virtue of the actions now being taken by the government, it is really taking the chicken way out. Not only have they refused to listen, refused to budge, they have refused to open up the whole subject for the kind of discussion people were asking for.

Mr. South: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has indicated that we have not listened. I would think a bill that has had nine amendments to it is proof that this party has listened.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable member makes a very good point. There is no evidence of listening. Since this has gone out to the committee, the honourable member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) has to understand that the public in Ontario still feels that his government has not listened, has not reacted, has not made the changes the people wanted it to make.

I am sure that he himself will stand judged by his own constituents who have gone to him and asked him to take a position to respond to their needs. Obviously, he is in line with the House leader by his present statement, but I am asking him to respond to his constituents and what they are asking him to do. The fact is that they are satisfied that he has not listened.

It becomes a matter of conscience for each of the members of the Liberal caucus. If they are there to serve the people of Ontario as they have been elected to do, one would have expected that the openness they said they would show would be demonstrated in that they actually would have listened.

I take great exception to that and I would like to go on record as one who says we have only begun. The people in Ontario have asked all of us to look at what we are doing. The churches on the past Sunday received letters from their archbishops and from their spiritual leaders asking their constituents to do everything they can to fight for what they believe, that is, to protect this day of rest so that Sunday will not become a wide-open day for everything to start going on.

This is the plea we are making. We hope that through this debate those who are in the House will have a chance to listen to their constituents and have a chance to prove they have listened. The Premier has now said that the member for Frontenac-Addington and every other member who wants to vote according to his conscience can, that they are no longer under the power of the member for Renfrew North, the House leader. They can actually do what they believe. There will be a considerable effect on Ontario through this bill.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

24 janvier 1989