Journal des débats 1989-janv-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Farnan: At this very moment of time, Patricia Murphy will be driving 60 kilometres from Rexdale to Mississauga during her lunch break to administer medication prescribed by her doctor for her son, Christopher. She has done this for the last several days and must continue to do so on a daily basis because the Peel lunch and after-school program has a policy not to administer medication at all.

Admittedly, I am informed by a staff person at Peel lunch and after-care, this policy is under review, which is little comfort to Patricia Murphy.

Surely a single mom is under enough stress without inflicting this unnecessary pressure and anxiety of spending her entire lunch period in traffic traversing the city to administer a medication that very easily could be administered by the staff of the Peel lunch and after-care.

The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) had this to say in the Mississauga News, January 25:

“By providing child care facilities in new schools, the Ontario government hopes to strengthen school-family relationships and help parents acquire appropriate services for their children.”

Our schools will administer medication when presented with a note from the family doctor and an appropriate form signed by the local officer of health. The same service should be provided by day care operations. Surely appropriate services include the administration of medication to children in need.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr. Wiseman: Members will recall the recent attempt of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to appeal the court decision respecting extraprovincial trucking licences in Ontario. They will also recall the huge backlog of new applications which resulted because of the minister’s decision to pursue the matter in the courts.

I can tell the House that Quebec has refused to grant extraprovincial operating licences to Ontario carriers since last August. Do members know why? Who better to ask than the Minister of Transportation? His court battles have tied up the valuable licensing for Quebec operators. The Quebec Transport Commission no longer will put up with the minister’s nonsense. This commission has stated that it will begin processing licences for Ontario carriers when the backlog of applications is cleared.

The minister’s inaction is certainly an embarrassment to his colleague the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty). This member stood in the House on January 5 to sing the praises of his government’s eastern economic development initiatives; I am sure the truckers in eastern Ontario would beg to differ with the member’s opinion.

I urge the member for Ottawa South to approach the Minister of Transportation for an explanation of his inaction on the matter, which is of great concern to shippers and carriers in eastern Ontario.

PETER KNIGHT

Ms. Collins: I am pleased to inform the House that Dr. Peter Knight has been selected as Hamilton’s Citizen of the Year for 1988.

Dr. Knight came to Hamilton from his native New Zealand 20 years ago and is professor of surgery at McMaster University and a staff surgeon at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton.

Several years ago, after witnessing at first hand the often tragic results of road accidents, he decided to devote his spare time to doing something to reduce this carnage. In 1981 he organized and established the Hamilton-Wentworth Council on Road Trauma. This council, which Dr. Knight has chaired since its inception, is now internationally recognized for its contributions towards improving road safety.

Dr. Knight has been a pioneer in the field of educating people, especially teenagers, regarding the dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He has lectured widely on this subject, giving over 200 talks to high school assemblies, halfway houses and other public forums and producing a training film for the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police. His discussions with young people led directly to the formation of Hamilton Students Against Impaired Driving.

These volunteer efforts have contributed immeasurably to making our roads safer and to improving the quality of treatment for traffic accident victims.

I commend the Advertising and Sales Club of Hamilton for selecting Dr. Knight, and I congratulate Dr. Knight for his richly deserved honour.

LOW-RISE REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: Some time ago, the Ministry of Housing initiated a program called the low-rise rehabilitation program. It is one of those things that sounded like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, it really has not worked out to the benefit of anyone.

Here are two examples. At 9 Humewood Drive in York, the owner of the building got a $30,000 interest-free loan under this government program and also received a 62 per cent rent increase from the rent review board. At 877 Millwood Road in East York, the landlords received another $30,000 in an interest-free loan under this plan and asked for and got an increase of 59 per cent.

That is not the only problem that this program suffers from. At 316 and 320 Lonsdale Road in the city of Toronto, they received a $40,000 interest-free loan for one building and a $155,000 interest-free loan on another one. At 57 and 59 Spencer Avenue in the city of Toronto, the landlord received $190,000 in interest-free loans from this same program.

The problem seems to be that nobody wants to take responsibility for the program. What began as a sensible idea to rehabilitate apartments is now stuck in a real morass of different governments, each denying responsibility for it, and of landlords exploiting the very obvious loopholes in the laws of Ontario and in this program in particular. This is one program that really needs one level of government to administer and a whole lot of common sense.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I rise to address once again a very serious concern expressed by my constituents regarding Lieutenant Governor’s warrants issued with respect to the criminally insane.

I have called on the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to take responsible action by initiating a public inquiry into the stabbing of a Brockville woman. John Finlayson, an outpatient of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, was subsequently charged with aggravated sexual assault in connection with that stabbing.

Mr. Finlayson committed a grisly sex murder of a nine-year-old Toronto boy in 1973 after he had been consuming alcohol. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Recently, he was released from the Brockville hospital on a loosened Lieutenant Governor’s warrant.

Last week I gave the Minister of Health documents from the hospital which showed that hospital staff were aware that Mr. Finlayson was drinking three days before the stabbing of the Brockville woman. During those three days, the hospital staff failed to bring Mr. Finlayson into their custody.

The Minister of Health has chosen to evade this issue by suggesting that this is a federal matter. However, risk management in Ontario’s psychiatric hospitals is clearly a provincial responsibility, a responsibility that the Minister of Health has chosen to shirk. By continuing to delay and obfuscate, the minister, for reasons I cannot fathom, is actually telling the people of Ontario that she is prepared to take chances with their safety, and she is sending the same message to hospital staffs.

I call on both the minister and the government to give their immediate support to the motion by the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) going before the standing committee on public accounts this week.

1340

GOVERNMENT RELOCATION

Mr. Daigeler: Much has been said recently about soaring prices in Metropolitan Toronto. I agree with Berel Wetstein’s advice in the Toronto Star on January 17. The solution to Toronto’s problems is to redirect economic growth towards less-developed areas of Ontario. The Ottawa-Carleton region, which I represent, is experiencing boom times similar, although not equal, to those in Toronto.

However, Renfrew and Lanark counties, Prescott and Russell, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and others are lagging behind. Such eastern Ontario cities as Cornwall, Smiths Falls, Hawkesbury, Pembroke and Perth would welcome new service-related and manufacturing industries with open arms. I urge the Ontario government itself to set the pace and relocate some of its branches to eastern Ontario.

Government relocation is already under way for northern Ontario, with great economic success. Obviously, there will be some disruption for Toronto-based employees. However, in the long term, government and industrial relocation will reduce pressures on housing, social services, garbage disposal and transportation. A more balanced economic growth will benefit us

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: A note on the fridge, January 30, 1995: “Hi dear: Had to run. I’ve peeled the potatoes and veggies. You’ll find the tourtière in the fridge. I’m working till 10 tonight and I’ll probably be exhausted when I get home.

“By the way, I’m working the Sunday shift tomorrow. It’s too bad. I was really looking forward to a nice, relaxing day. But we need the cash and I couldn’t say no. Shirley said no last week and her hours have been cut right back. I’ll miss seeing mom tomorrow. Thank God you’re free on the weekends. Maybe I’ll try to get up to the nursing home during the week. I really miss doing things together.

“Don’t forget to read Tim his bedtime story and give him a kiss for me. Make sure he knows that I’m off on Tuesday and I’ll take him to the park to feed the ducks. Maybe one of these Sundays when we’re all together we could all go to the zoo. I know the children would love it.

“Too bad you’re travelling this week. Still, I’ll be off Sunday after next and we can plan something. I miss the good old days, when we could count on spending Sundays together.”

Signed, “Working Mom.”

CANADIAN FORCES BASE PETAWAWA

Hon. Mr. Conway: I seek unanimous consent to make a short statement about a tragedy that struck the military community at Petawawa over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Honourable members will know that over the weekend the Canadian Forces Base community at Petawawa was struck by a dual tragedy. On Friday morning, five single young men, all from the airborne regiment at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, were killed in an automobile accident in the Arnprior area of eastern Ontario. They were on leave but on their way, after the leave had concluded, to join their comrades in a joint Canadian-American military exercise in Alaska.

After that tragedy of Friday morning in which those five young men were killed, a Canadian Forces Hercules aircraft, some time last evening, I believe at approximately seven o’clock local Alaska time, crashed upon landing at the airfield at Fort Wainwright near Fairbanks, Alaska, killing eight servicemen, six of whom were also from Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. Others were injured.

Members can appreciate how this double tragedy has struck the military community at home in Petawawa and elsewhere across the country. I want on this occasion, on behalf of the government of Ontario, to express our deeply felt sympathy to the families, comrades and friends of those who were killed and those who were injured.

My colleague the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), himself a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces and whose son has served in the airborne regiment, will be representing the government at a memorial service to be held at Petawawa some time in the very near future.

Again, to Brigadier General Douglas, base commander at Petawawa, to the families and comrades of those who were killed or injured, our most heartfelt sympathy on this most tragic of occasions.

Mr. B. Rae: Our hearts go out to the families and friends of those young men who were killed. It has been a very tragic weekend, a weekend of great emotion and of great feeling in the constituency and town of the government House leader.

I very much want to send our condolences and anything we can do. I think all members of the Legislature have a sense of helplessness when we hear news such as this, but we do want to send whatever we can to the families and let them know that citizens of this province are thinking of them, feeling for them and caring for them in this their hour of need.

Mr. Sterling: On behalf of our party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, I wish to say that we would also like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the government House leader, who represents the riding which takes in Petawawa.

We would particularly like to extend our sympathy to the parents and families of all of the young people who died in these two tragic incidents. I believe four of these people were from eastern Ontario, although those people who go to CFB Petawawa felt, I am sure, that eastern Ontario was their home as well. Therefore, for our particular part of the province, we feel even a greater tragedy in this affair. Again, we express our condolences to the families.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all members of the assembly, when Hansard has printed the official word of the Legislative Assembly I will of course send a copy of Hansard to the base commander in Petawawa, so that your words of sympathy are heard.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: It is with distinct pleasure that I announce today the winners of the 1988 Ontario Sports Awards. These outstanding amateur athletes represented Ontario on the playing fields of the world and achieved extraordinary levels of excellence.

Their victories are an inspiration to us all. Their dedication, their commitment and their competitive spirit encourage every one of us to try a little harder, no matter what our field of endeavour.

Each award is accompanied by an athlete excellence grant. These funds are dedicated in the award winner’s name to help cover the costs of training Ontario’s next generation of athletes in that sport. It is with great pride that I announce the following winners:

The Disabled Athlete of the Year, from Hearst, is amputee swimmer Stephane Lecours, who set five world records in the past year, several of them at the Disabled Olympiad in Seoul, Korea.

Sailors are the Team of the Year, the Canadian Flying Dutchman team of Frank McLaughlin and John Millen from Toronto, who with their coach, Dave Thomas, won a bronze medal in Seoul.

In this the Year of the Coach, 1989, two special awards have been created and two outstanding coaches have been selected to represent all Ontario coaches. From the University of Toronto is Elizabeth Hoffman, who coached Ontario field hockey teams at the 1981 and 1985 Canada Games. The male coach of the year is Jack Donohue from Kanata, who recently retired after 18 years as Canada’s national men’s basketball coach. Mr. Donohue has made a tremendous contribution to basketball and coaching.

With an unprecedented number of victories for Ontario athletes at national and international events, the committee decided to honour multiple winners in two categories. Ontario’s 1988 Outstanding Female Athletes of the Year are, in alphabetical order, marathon swimmer Vicki Keith from Toronto, the conqueror of all five Great Lakes in 1988, and figure skater Elizabeth Manley from Ottawa, for her silver medal performance at the Calgary Winter Olympics and the World Championships.

The Male Athletes of the Year are Olympic superweight boxing gold medalist Lennox Lewis from Kitchener, figure skater Brian Orser from Orillia for his silver medal performances at the Calgary Winter Olympics and the World Championships and the Olympic bronze medal winner in the decathlon, Dave Steen of Burlington.

All the award recipients will be honoured at the annual sports awards banquet here in Toronto on April 7.

Several of these athletes are with us in the gallery today and I would ask them to stand so that we could honour them. I am sure that I speak for every member of this assembly in extending our sincere congratulations and thanks to all the winners.

1350

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

Hon. Mr. Wong: Today, I am pleased to announce a major project which underlines the Ontario government’s support for parallel generation, the independent generation of electricity. It is my pleasure to inform this House that, subject to the finalization of last-minute details, an 87-megawatt cogeneration plant will be constructed in Fort Frances on the grounds of Boise Cascade Ltd.’s pulp and paper mill in that city.

Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of thermal and electric energy from the same fuel. At the plant, a natural-gas-fuelled turbine will produce steam to heat the pulp mill’s giant boilers and electricity to be sold to Ontario Hydro.

The project, subject to Ontario Energy Board approval, will cost $100 million. Funding comes from ICG Utilities and a low-interest loan from Ontario Hydro. The Ministry of Energy and the Northern Ontario Development Corp. are providing a liability guarantee. Boise Cascade, under subcontract from ICG, will manage, operate and maintain the facility.

All the participants in this project will benefit. ICG and Boise Cascade will benefit economically and Ontario Hydro will obtain supplies of electricity at attractive rates. The people of Ontario gain a more diverse, reliable electricity system and economic spinoffs from the project.

The project also complies with government’s commitment to protect the environment. The plant will be fuelled by clean-burning natural gas. All plant emissions will conform to provincial standards.

In addition, the plant will provide Ontario Hydro with a secure, low-cost energy supply in an area of the province that requires increased generating capacity and the pulp and paper plant will enjoy substantial fuel cost savings as a result of this project.

The project represents a $100-million investment in Fort Frances and will enhance economic development in that area. It will create 175 construction jobs during its development and an estimated 10 more for its continued operation.

The Boise Cascade cogeneration project embraces four government of Ontario objectives. It works towards improved overall energy efficiency, northern economic development, the use of cleaner fuels and the expansion of electrical power supplies by independent producers.

I am pleased to announce this project in the context of several key initiatives the government has instituted over the past two weeks.

At the beginning of last week, I introduced amendments to the Power Corporation Act which will ensure that Ontario Hydro is responsive to government policy and public priorities. An important part of these amendments deals with Hydro commitments to energy efficiency and parallel generation.

I also initiated the municipal street lighting program, a $1.5-million pilot program jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro.

The government has now received Ontario Hydro’s $2.5-billion plan for the reduction of acid gas emissions, as reported to the House recently by my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Part of our strategy for reduction of acid gas will certainly involve increased use of cogeneration, of which this project at Fort Frances is an excellent example.

It is important that all sectors, government, public utilities and private business and industry, co-operate to meet our common goals to improve the efficiency of electricity production and to reduce our energy consumption. I believe the Boise Cascade cogeneration project is a fine example of that co-operation.

ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased today to announce the appointment of Rosalie Silberman Abella as chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Ms. Abella succeeds James R. Breithaupt who has been appointed chairman of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

I want first to thank Mr. Breithaupt for his distinguished service with the law reform commission over the last five years. His friends in this assembly will wish him well in his new duties.

The new chairman, Rosalie Abella, is well known to members of this assembly for her significant contribution to the life of the province in many areas. She has served as a judge of the family division of the provincial court. She has been a member of the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal and a member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. For five years she served on the Premier’s Advisory Committee on Confederation and for the last few years she has served as chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Rosalie Abella is perhaps best known for two significant studies which she prepared at the request of governments. In 1983, she tabled a report for the province on Access to Legal Services by the Disabled and, in 1984, she was appointed by the government of Canada as the sole commissioner on a study into equality in employment. Both reports exhibited her commitment to principle and her strong practical bent. Her contribution to our community has been recognized by many, including the seven universities which have conferred on her honorary doctorates.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission is not only the most senior, but also the most distinguished commission of its type in Canada. It of course functions independently of the government and is entitled to select its own agenda. Notwithstanding its distinguished history and the significant practical contribution it has made to the reform of our law, I have for some time been concerned about the law reform commission’s role and the importance of establishing an appropriate agenda for its work.

The reports of the commission have tended to focus on matters of “black letter” law. It is the government’s belief that in a rapidly changing society the commission may want to begin responding to a wide variety of law reform issues that are of more immediate concern to the general public we are all committed to serve. This was very much the agenda of the Access to Justice Conference which the Ministry of the Attorney General convened last year with considerable success.

In particular, it is very much to be hoped that the law reform commission, under the leadership of its new chairman, will develop a consultation process which can involve a wide variety of groups and individuals across the province that have concerns about the law, the administration of justice and law reform. I look forward to a most productive period for the commission under the guidance of Ms. Abella as it begins the task of developing a new agenda.

Under the direction of Ms. Abella, I anticipate that the law reform commission will continue to develop and indeed expand its examination of matters which are of real and pressing concern to all citizens of the province. I am confident that the reports which Ms. Abella and her fellow commissioners will tender will provide solid advice to the government in ensuring that the laws of the province continue to meet the needs of those whose interests we serve.

I invite all members to join with me in congratulating Rosalie Abella and wishing her well as she enters upon her new duties.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Mr. Farnan: Environment, dedicated volunteers and good programs produce champions. In recognizing and congratulating the winners of the Ontario Sports Awards, I would extend this to all athletes who have represented us at the provincial and national level. I would also like to recognize all of the athletes, coaches, officials, administrators and government programs that have contributed to the road to success of our Ontario Sports Awards winners. Congratulations.

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

Mr. Hampton: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). When I was first elected some 18 months ago, I sat down with Ontario Hydro officials and that was when the cogeneration program was first discussed. We welcome the announcement today of the finalization of the cogeneration project.

I want to say, however, that while the paper mill that is entering into this contract with Ontario Hydro may in fact conform to all government requirements in terms of the environment for this cogeneration program, I believe that same paper mill exceeded the air limits last year more than any other paper mill in the province.

1400

While the government should be congratulated on the fact that the new undertaking in terms of energy cogeneration will conform to sound Ministry of Energy and Ministry of the Environment practices, I ask the government to look again at what some of the current practices are in terms of conforming to Ministry of the Environment practices.

I would like to note that this is a project which, in terms of northern Ontario, is overdue, and I hope the Ministry of Energy will consider further cogeneration projects like this, especially if they conform to the practices and rules of the Ministry of the Environment.

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, I want to offer my warmest congratulations on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to the athletes who are with us today. I want to say personally that I am sure every family in this province has been touched in some way by the achievements of the remarkable men and women we saw performing in Seoul and by the remarkable contributions of Vicki Keith, who is the first person in the history of the world to successfully swim all the Great Lakes in one season.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Atlantic is next.

Mr. B. Rae: I asked her on Saturday night what was next and she said I would be reading about it in the newspapers soon, so we all look forward to these great achievements.

Seriously, all of us and indeed our families draw inspiration from their example. I know they do not always hear from everybody about how proud everybody is, but they can get a feeling from our speeches today of how really proud we are of what they have done on behalf of all the young people out there who draw such inspiration from what they have done and, if I might say, of a few older people as well, who look at them with great admiration and wonder.

ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mr. B. Rae: I want to offer my congratulations to Rosalie Abella on her appointment as the chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. I can tell the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that I think it is a very fine appointment. Along with many others, I am a great fan of Rosalie Abella. I think she makes a tremendous contribution to public life in this province.

The only thing I would say to the Attorney General is that I am delighted by the fact that he is now changing the role of the law reform commission and giving it a more activist role, but when the government itself lacks vision; when the government itself is, according to its own advisers, stumbling from crisis to crisis; and when the corridors of this place are rife with the sense that even when it gets good advice the government is reluctant to act, all I can say is we have had a conference on access to justice, but we have had no action from this government on the recommendations that came out of that conference.

I look forward to the recommendations of Rosalie Abella. She made some tremendous recommendations to the federal government on employment equity, none of which has been adopted by the provincial government with respect to employment equity in this province. So I look forward to reading Rosalie Abella’s reports, and my only hope is that they finally are implemented, perhaps even in the lifetime, as it gets shorter and shorter, of this increasingly reactionary and stumblebum Liberal government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to add congratulations as well to Ms. Abella, who has been appointed as the chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. I do hope, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has noted, that this government will take greater note of the recommendations and of the good work the Ontario Law Reform Commission has done in the past.

I would also like to thank at this time a former member of this Legislature, Jim Breithaupt, who in my view has led the Ontario Law Reform Commission to many substantial reports. I only wish his former colleagues now on the government side would implement many of those reports.

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Mr. Cousens: Our party would like to join with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) in congratulating the winners of this year’s Ontario Sports Awards. They are winners not only in their own successes in sport but also for all of us, because they stand as models of excellence of people who have set goals for themselves and then reached towards them and achieved them. We need more models like this in our society today.

I commend the minister and all in the ministry and these athletes in particular for their achievements. I hope they will continue to be excellent models to our young Scouts in the gallery and to the young people across our province who have that chance of excelling in something. I hope that all of us can begin to have a sense of fitness about ourselves, a sense of moving towards excellence in anything we do. They have certainly proved themselves and we are proud of them.

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

Mr. Runciman: I want to indicate our party’s pleasure at the announcement of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) today with respect to the 87-megawatt cogeneration plant in Fort Frances. There is no question that this development is going to boost the Fort Frances economy and we are pleased to see it taking place.

As I am sure the minister would acknowledge, this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the electrical generating potential in Ontario with respect to cogeneration.

As is the custom over there, the minister has engaged in a little bit of self-congratulation. He makes reference to the amendments he has introduced to the Power Corporation Act which at first glance, in our view, appear to be woefully inadequate and certainly do not deal with the concerns expressed by his leader in a former incarnation when he described Ontario Hydro as a monster out of control. The amendments the minister brought into the House last week certainly do not deal with the concerns expressed by his leader on a number of occasions in the past.

The minister also mentions the municipal street lighting program, which again, in our opinion, is a very meagre effort at conservation. With all due respect, he should be expressing more concern about the efforts on behalf of Ontario Hydro and municipal utilities across this province to increase market share and in many instances push advertising urging consumers across this province to increase electrical consumption.

We have to be talking seriously about conservation and demand management and the minister has to deal very effectively with Ontario Hydro and the municipalities across this province, in a much more effective manner than he has to this point.

I want to indicate to the minister that in terms of cogeneration and getting that potential on stream, he has to deal more effectively with Ontario Hydro again to ensure that there is a fair pricing mechanism out there, and perhaps even more important to ensure that there is a more co-operative stance taken on behalf of Ontario Hydro.

I want to indicate that in my own region of eastern Ontario, two chemical firms, Nitrochem and Dupont, have been attempting for the past number of years to work out an agreement with Ontario Hydro to get a cogeneration project off the ground. They have been frustrated at every turn, roadblocks have been placed in their path and there is no light at the end of the tunnel with respect to getting that significant cogeneration project on the rails.

That is happening right across this province. We had that expressed to us ad nauseam through the hearings of the select committee on energy.

I want to suggest to the minister and to his government that they deal in a more effective and firm manner with Ontario Hydro to make sure that we realize the very significant potential of cogeneration in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BREWERY MERGER

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier, in the absence of several other ministers who might have received this question. I know the Premier has a penchant for referring questions, but I note that his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) are not here.

I have some very specific questions that I want to ask the Premier on what he intends to do, in particular about the Molson’s-Elders merger, but more generally about the epidemic of takeovers which is a growing problem in Ontario and in Canada and indeed in North America.

I want specifically to ask the Premier a question about the Investment Canada Act. As he will know, the matter of the merger between Molson’s and Elders is potentially covered by the federal legislation called the Investment Canada Act. That act states very specifically under section 20 that one of the factors which the federal minister -- now Mr. Valcourt, as of 12 o’clock -- has to take into account is “the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the investment.”

I wonder if the Premier can tell us today what the position of the government of Ontario is with respect to the merger that is now contemplated between the Molson company and Elders in producing this new Molson’s brewing company.

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, the competition policy and Investment Canada policy is in the hands of the federal government. Our concern is for the workers involved. That is the priority for this government. Just as we reject the kind of approach that one of the federal ministers took and said, “Go and look in the want ads,” we do not believe that is the appropriate response in the circumstances.

There are mergers going on. As the member knows, no provincial government has the power to control or regulate those. In this particular case, it also relates to certain international questions with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and to the question of interprovincial barriers with respect to the production of beer. It is a complicated one from that point of view.

But our priority is for the workers. As I understand it, the ministry is working with those workers who will be dislocated as a result of this over the next two and three years. We are working with the union representatives and others to make sure that we have the proper programs in place to help and to make sure that the companies live up to their responsibilities in this regard.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier says this is entirely a question for the federal government and then says that his worry is about what happens to the workers. The reason I put the question to the Premier was that, quite specifically, the Investment Canada Act says that what a provincial government thinks is happening to the workers is in fact a very legitimate question for the federal minister to consider in approving or disapproving the investment; in this case, of the merger.

That is why I am very specifically asking the Premier if he can tell us the position of the government of Ontario with respect to this question of a merger as it is covered by the Investment Canada Act and other federal legislation. Can he tell us precisely what representations he is making, because he is asked to make them? In fact, under the Investment Canada Act, he is expected to make them.

What is he saying to the federal government --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said to my honourable friend, as this develops --

Mr. B. Rae: Are you in favour of it or against it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Am I in favour of the merger? If the member is asking me if I am in favour of the merger, the answer is that there is nothing we can do about that particular situation. It is not my judgement to sit --

Mr. B. Rae: There certainly is something you can do about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is wrong. Let me just say to my honourable friend there are certain rationalizations going on in the economic world. A lot of it, frankly, I am not happy to see. But I do not want to mislead the member, nor would he want to mislead anybody, into thinking that this Legislature or the provincial government can do anything about it.

Obviously, we can make our views felt on this matter, and we will, with respect to the treatment of workers. It is incumbent upon the companies involved to make sure that they have programs to assist. The federal government has a responsibility, as do we. I can assure the member that we will fulfil our responsibility in that regard.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the Premier seriously suggesting that the Investment Canada Act, subsection 20(e), does not in fact require the government of Ontario to make submissions? Is he seriously suggesting that the new Competition Act, if this merger were to go to a tribunal, does not in fact give the provincial governments the right to be there as a matter of right as interveners? Is he denying that the provincial government under the Ontario Securities Act has the right to limit the kind of golden parachutes and golden handshakes that go to senior management, when nothing or very little goes to workers? Is he denying that the whole question of corporate income tax and the kind of tax --

Mr. Speaker: What is your question?

Mr. B. Rae: -- write-offs and benefits that go to corporations when they borrow money is not covered by provincial jurisdiction? If that is what he is arguing, he simply does not know what he is talking about, once again, when it comes to what happens to workers in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Premier?

Mr. B. Rae: Answer those questions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think there was a question there, to the best of my knowledge. The answer is, if I could find a question there, I would try to help my friend out, who wants to make a speech from his soap box. Let me say and repeat to my friend opposite that competition policy is in the hands of the federal government. Now the member may not like the mergers. I may not like the mergers. He may not like Stone’s takeover of Consolidated-Bathurst. He may not like the Canadian Airlines takeover of Wardair. I find a lot of those moves extremely disquieting. But let us not, and let the member not, mislead anybody into thinking we have the ultimate control on these matters.

Let me say to my friend: Our concerns have been asserted, and will continue to be asserted, with respect to the rights of the workers and to the future of those workers, and that seems to me to be the priority. The member does not want to stand in this House and give anyone the impression that we have the power to stop this particular matter, because that is not the case and I think my honourable friend knows that.

Mr. B. Rae: All I ever suggested to the Premier is that if he wanted to do something he could, and he obviously --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question. To which minister?

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr. B. Rae: To the Minister of Energy: Last week was a week where the minister both on Monday and Friday had some interesting things to say about the future of energy in the province. Both on Monday and Friday he made the point of saying that it was his personal view that, in fact, a new, large, power-generating station would be required in Ontario by the turn of the century and the government would be making a decision on that matter within roughly the next six months or the next year.

I want to ask the minister this question. He will know that between his statement on Monday and his statement on Friday, the select committee on energy came out with its report on Thursday. One of the very specific recommendations of the select committee was that no new major Ontario Hydro supply option should be approved until the Ministry of Energy and Hydro get their act together on this critical question of demand management.

I want to ask the minister this question: Why is he saying things which are completely and totally at odds with the report of the select committee on energy, which was a unanimous report, signed by members of his own caucus, on Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, let me say that I respect the thinking and the work that was done by the select committee on energy. It came up with a number of ideas which will be helpful to the government and to the people of this province in terms of developing its energy policy and electricity policy.

Let me be more specific and explain to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that is why the government is going through this process as expeditiously as possible: to make sure that when we make our energy decisions for the next decade or 15 years we do it on the most complete and comprehensive information possible. The member was talking about demand management plans and supply options that will take years, in some cases, to put into place, and that will cost many dollars.

Mr. B. Rae: I know that. I think everybody knows that. If we are going to build a new plant, it is going to cost us billions of dollars. The Darlington plant cost billions of dollars. The minister was not here when his leader was Leader of the Opposition, but he raised several questions throughout that time as to what a big white elephant it was going to be and how much it was going to cost.

What I want to ask the minister is simply this. The select committee has said that there should not be another station until everybody gets his act together on demand management. The minister, meanwhile, is saying, unless I misunderstood him -- he said it twice last week -- that, in fact, there is going to be a new station and he does not see any way to avoid the necessity to build a new station. He will not tell us whether it is coal, gas-fired, nuclear or hydroelectric. He has not indicated what it is going to be.

I specifically want to ask the minister this: Can he please come clean? What is the new station he is talking about? When does he plan to present it to the Legislature? Why is he proposing such a station when, in fact, building such a station was rejected as an option now by the select committee which was studying this very question?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Over the past more than a year, I have listened to many of the groups. The select committee provided us with one valuable input. It obviously listened to the public and many special interest groups. At the same time, have listened to and had discussions with many of the big industrial users of electricity and many of the municipal users of electricity -- all of them different users of electricity that rely upon our electricity system -- and some of them point out that Ontario is growing very rapidly, in an economic sense. We need electricity. How can we ensure that with our demand management programs and supply management programs we make the best decisions?

1420

I do agree that we must do whatever is possible to make sure we do as much in the demand management area as possible.

If I read the recommendation clearly from the select committee, it urged that we make sure that we, as a government and as a society, are satisfied that a sufficient amount of work is being done in the demand management area.

Here we are: Last week, I announced the municipal street lighting pilot program which is in the evaluation stage. If it proves itself in the first year, Ontario Hydro is committing to take it through the whole province. That will make us more energy efficient in the municipalities, and that will be good for Ontario.

Today I announced the cogeneration project; 87 megawatts is very significant and a good example, I think, of where we should be heading.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to make sure the minister is saying the same thing in this place as he is saying outside.

On January 24, the Toronto Star, in a story by Kathleen Kenna with a large headline, reports -- and I am quoting from the words that are put in the minister’s mouth, so they are words that he is alleged to have said quite directly: “‘Inevitably, at some point over the next 10 to 15 years, we will need another major (plant),’ he said. ‘We’re well into the process to making the decision’ about where, when and what type of power station is to be built.”

That is what the minister told the Toronto Star. Twice last week he was reported as saying there is going to be a new station of some kind, and that decision is going to affect a new station to be constructed around the turn of the century. The timing is not exactly precise in terms of year, but the message is very clear.

All I am asking the minister is quite simple: What kind of a station is he planning on building? When can he tell us about it? When can he finally recognize that what he is saying is quite the opposite of what the select committee has been saying about the need to deal with conservation before we get into the construction of another major plant?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I appreciate the honourable Leader of the Opposition’s concern in his question and I treat it very seriously.

Let me say first of all, with respect to Kathleen Kenna, the writer at the Toronto Star, I too have a great deal of respect for her professionalism. In fact, in the article the other day where it talked about David and Goliath, I thought I would remind Kathleen if I were to see her today that at the end of that Biblical story, David won the day.

To answer the honourable leader, let me say that when I talk to everyone whom I talk to, I point out that over the next 15 years or so, at the rate at which the economy is growing, the rate at which demand is growing for electricity, the numbers seem to indicate that even after we do all the things we should be doing in the demand management area -- and this is in answer to the question -- it is my feeling that we will still have to look at the supply side.

As a result, here we are as a government, encouraging these smaller projects that can be implemented faster; they do not require as much in terms of capital; they can give our system greater flexibility in a shorter period of time.

What I am saying is that, as I said to the newspaper people, it depends on the time frame, and I feel that in due course, we will have to face that decision.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Harris: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that the three hospitals in Toronto that handle adult, open-heart surgery have a capacity to handle 3,100 cases a year; yet, according to a recent report by the Ontario Hospital Association, in 1989 only 2,600 procedures are expected to be performed. In other words, these three hospitals will be operating at 500 cases below their existing capacity while people are literally dying on waiting lists.

This does not sound like a world-class, well-managed health care system to me. I would ask the minister if she feels that this is a satisfactory situation. If it is not, what is she going to do to change it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As we have discussed on a number of occasions in this House, we have moved to increase our capacity for cardiovascular surgery in this province and we have increased it in a number of locations. It has increased in Hamilton. Just last week, Hamilton doctors announced their increase in capacity would, in fact, take the stress and pressure off Toronto. We know it has been increased in Sudbury, Ottawa, and in Toronto as well.

I want to assure the member opposite that expert physicians are working very closely with the ministry to make sure that the resources that were made available by the ministry some time ago are used to expand that capacity to meet the needs of the people of this province as quickly as possible.

Mr. Harris: We contacted the Ontario Hospital Association. It said that in spite of the present capacity, a shortage of nurses will restrict the ability of Toronto hospitals to perform open-heart surgery. So as important as it is to put more money into capital expenditures, to build new units, to bring more surgical teams on stream -- as the minister says, to increase the capacity -- without the nurses to staff these units they will continue to operate below even the existing capacity, let alone her solution, which is an expanded capacity.

I would ask the minister what action she is taking to ensure that more nurses are available to staff the intensive care units and to ensure that more nurses do not leave the profession?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have taken a number of initiatives. Everyone understands that the hospitals themselves, the employers, the nurses’ union, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the profession, the College of Nurses of Ontario, the educators, as well as government, all have a role to recognize the changing profession, to ensure that nurses are appreciated, are given the respect that they deserve and that their working conditions reflect the changing realities within our province and the role of women in the workplace.

I can tell the member that the commitment I have from all of the partners involved in delivering health care to this province is a commitment to work with us co-operatively to seek solutions. I am optimistic and very confident that we will be able to provide those services that are required to the people of Ontario, as close to home as possible, recognizing the regional differences of our province.

Mr. Harris: I would like the minister to take a look at today’s Globe and Mail. There are three full pages of classified ads for jobs for nurses. The big draw is money. There are ads here from Ontario hospitals. There are ads here from those outside Ontario. For example, at Stanford University Hospital in California, the salary range is $31,700 to $47,000. There are also management opportunities available, $41,000 to $62,000. Clearly the big draw is money. The respect that they are asking for is, in large part, money.

So until she agrees to allow the OHA to open contract talks with the nurses, until she agrees to provide the funding so that it can provide, particularly at the upper end salary ranges that are going to allow them to compete, we will continue to lose existing nurses and we will continue to be unable to attract nurses, so that whether the government builds 500 or 5,000 new units or new capacities for open-heart surgery, she is not even going to be able to live up to the existing capacity of 3,100 a year.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would remind the member opposite that intensive care nursing, critical care nursing and operating nursing are highly specialized parts of nursing and they require additional education in order to be able to work in those areas of nursing.

I can tell him that what will be helpful in this situation, and the reason I am so confident that within a very few weeks we will see that capacity increase in the city of Toronto, and downtown Toronto as well, is the fact that 68 critical care nurses will be finishing the program at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. The hospitals of downtown Toronto have been sponsoring them to take that situation.

Other than that, I would say to the member that I have great respect for the collective bargaining process and I believe there are many issues to which collectively the employer, the Ontario Hospital Association, and the employee, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, will be able to seek solutions, with the support and facilitation of the ministry and of myself, problems that perhaps are outside the collective agreement.

1430

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On February 6, the officials of his ministry will release into the community the 18-year-old killer of Arthur Irwin, his wife and their seven-year-old daughter. Today, we have learned that the Irwin killer will probably remain within the Hamilton-Halton area, because that is where he is currently working. Will the minister agree to warn the local and area police, and the school officials if necessary, that this dangerous young man is about to be released into our community?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I think the information the honourable member has just shared with us is fairly well known by the public, certainly in his area. As members know, we have co-operated with the local police in the provision for passes in the last six months.

Let me share with the honourable member that considerable initiatives have been taken to assist this young man to reintegrate himself back into society. The children’s aid society has offered, and he has accepted, guardianship for the next couple of years so that it can provide supports for him. A local youth support service has offered help and he has indicated he is prepared to do that. He does have a job. He has been offered living accommodation at two different centres. He will choose which of those he will accept.

I think all reasonable initiatives have been exerted to assist this young person and to assure the community in which he will live that those supports are there to help him.

Mr. Jackson: The minister is very careful not to clarify the nature or the extent of the information he is disclosing with respect to this case. He talks only about support services and whether or not they are operating in a vacuum. He knows full well that the Young Offenders Act, paragraph 44.1(1)(h), clearly states cabinet has that power to disclose that information and records to any class of persons it designates.

The Irwin killer has been pronounced so dangerous that it is said he “could kill again, without a doubt.” His girlfriend at the Syl Apps Youth Centre is a double murderer and his best friend is the boy who killed the Babineau children in Orangeville. At the trial, two psychiatrists testified he is insane. He has received absolutely no psychiatric treatment during the three years he has been in the minister’s care. Members of my community want to know whether the minister stands by his statement, in yesterday’s Toronto Sun, that he is absolutely “no threat to himself or others.” Does he stand by that statement?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I think a rereading of that statement would clearly point out that I was sharing the information that had been made available to me, by the psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and frontline counsellors who have worked with this young person, that there is no evidence he in fact is a danger to himself or others at this time and that consequently no psychiatrist could admit him to a psychiatric institution involuntarily.

I believe the member will also find, if he rereads the second part of the statement I made, that I said I, as the minister, can make no guarantees -- nobody can -- but all the evidence available at this time would indicate he is not a danger to himself or to others. I certainly hope the various agencies that have offered assistance to him, including the support staff at Syl Apps after he leaves Syl Apps, will have those offers used by the young person, and that society generally will give him an opportunity to reintegrate himself.

He has fulfilled all the commitments of the federal law. We, as a ministry, have fulfilled all the requirements of the federal law. It is now up to us as a society to give him a chance, and it is up to him as a young person -- he is an adult now; he is 18 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: -- to take advantage of the support systems that are being made available.

Mr. Jackson: When I raised this question with the minister several months ago, the status of the Irwin killer was shifted from unsupervised day passes to supervised day passes. The minister has publicly stated that if he should ever find out who the employee was who talked to the media, he would fire him.

The relatives of the deceased Irwin family are terrified. They do not know what to do when this individual is released in a week. Some are seeking restraining orders to prevent this killer from coming near them. Therefore, I want to ask the minister what support he is giving those relatives specifically, and will the province assist in their motion for a restraining order?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me go back to the editorial comment of the honourable member. He will recall that at the time confidential information was divulged by a staff member at Syl Apps, I made the very clear observation that all our staff people take an oath of confidentiality, and that is to respect what they have seen and heard as part of their job. That particular staff person broke that confidentiality. That was the basis of my statement.

Mr. Jackson: It contradicts what you’re telling us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No, it does not. What I clearly indicated was that a team of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and front-line staff people all made a joint decision as to this young person’s ability to cope outside of Syl Apps. The fact that some other single individual exerts his particular individual opinion is well beyond the confidential security oath he takes. That is what I was speaking to and I still think that is wrong.

The second point I would make very clearly is that while that young person was at Syl Apps, he did take advantage of the opportunity to participate in therapy sessions, both group and individual.

The third thing is that there is a federal --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the proposal to privatize the nonprofit housing program known as Homes Now. How does the minister explain to all those community and church groups out there that are working very hard to put together nonprofit proposals for affordable housing that they are expected to do their work on a nonprofit basis at the same time as the Ministry of Housing is inviting the private sector to come in and make a profit from this nonprofit housing proposal?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As the member opposite knows, we have committed to building 30,000 new housing units through the provincial Homes Now program in a very short time. We are committed to getting this housing built as quickly as possible and to helping the groups that are going to be involved in building it to do that as well and as effectively as they possibly can.

We have increased significantly the staff in the Ministry of Housing that will be working with the nonprofit groups out there to make sure they can build the housing that they are committed to building and that we are committed to building with them.

We have also decided to try out the possibility that some of the administration of the program can be given to some of the people in the private sector, who are now bringing forward tenders to see whether they can do so while meeting our goals for working effectively with the nonprofit sector to make sure this housing gets built.

Surely the member opposite would not like some of the groups out there, which are not necessarily experienced in building housing all over this province, not to get adequate support in their process of building, in the information they need about building, about land, about development, which is quite a complicated process. We have significant staff committed to doing this in the ministry --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Breaugh: It is not hard to get the foxes into the hen house; it is just that they are going to devour some of her assets while they are in there.

How can the minister possibly justify giving them access to things like how much land the government owns and what are the development proposals that will be a priority within her ministry? How does she justify giving the private sector access to this supposedly nonprofit housing program? How does she basically justify allowing them in to cream a profit from what is supposed to be a nonprofit proposal?

1440

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite seems not to have understood what I was saying. What we are talking about is having people work with the nonprofit sector in the process of development. We are not talking about the development of government land directly. We are talking about making sure that the nonprofit groups that are going to be building housing all over this province get the support they are supposed to get. We are looking at the most effective and efficient way of doing that.

We have committed significant resources in the Ministry of Housing and have hired new people to do that. We are exploring the possibility some of that work can also be done by some people who are working with the development sector, to help nonprofit groups to build.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Harris: I have a basic skill-testing question for the Premier. I would like him to listen to the following two short quotes.

Quote number one: “The government seemed bereft of new ideas and initiatives, and on the whole appeared to lack a coherent strategy and sense of direction.”

Quote number two: “The government’s top officials ‘have been totally preoccupied with problem-solving and crisis management rather than long-term planning or priority-setting.’”

My skill-testing question to the Premier is this: Which one of those two statements was made by one of his senior cabinet ministers and which one came out of the last legislative summary prepared by my party?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Everything nasty around here is said by the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: I am sending over to the Premier one of our legislative summaries. Neither of the two quotes came from me. I am not the type of person who would want to put forth destructive quotes. I think he will find most of the information I provide to the Legislature is dealt with constructively, trying to provide solutions to the problems.

I have sent over one of our legislative summaries. I want to say to the Premier that it will save him $150, because I understand that is the going rate for the report that was done by Public Affairs Management. I would like to know, on a serious note, if the Premier agrees with his cabinet ministers and his senior officials -- not with me, not with our legislative summary. Does he agree with them, who have been quoted as saying, “Most ministers’ offices would agree that the Premier’s office is the biggest frustration,” and “They seem not to have a vision.”

Does the Premier agree with his ministers and officials who believe the biggest problem they face in delivering on policy promises is him?

Hon. Mr. Peterson:. The answer is a very clear “no.” Since the honourable member is giving me advice, let me give him some advice. In his bid for the leadership of his party, he should not try to fake it on a Mr. Nice Guy campaign. He will never make it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now could we get back to some ministerial matters?

SCIENCE EDUCATION

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. With the help of their teacher and a senior citizen, a group of grade 8 students in Peterborough has gained national media attention for their knowledge of the greenhouse effect. Theirs is an excellent example of good science education, but I fear their experience is the exception. What is being done to improve the quality of science instruction across this province?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to thank the member for Peterborough for the question. I would have to say that indeed I very much support the kinds of initiatives being undertaken by the students to whom he referred. There is no doubt this is an area we have to increasingly focus our attention upon.

The member will be aware that back in 1986 my predecessor announced a very significant 24-point plan for the renewal of science in the primary and junior divisions within our education system. The focus clearly is on the need to foster curiosity and interest in science. Many of the proposals in that 24-point plan are just now coming into effect, including the new elementary science curriculum document called Science is Happening Here. It has now been released and I might say is receiving great reviews from educators throughout the province and indeed throughout the country.

Intensive teacher-training initiatives are under way. We have developed a directory of women in science. We have committed $6 million annually for new learning materials in primary science. I just want to reiterate that this is an area we believe is of fundamental importance and we will continue to come forward with these types of initiatives.

Mr. Adams: I am grateful for that reply. I was aware of some of the curriculum initiatives and I was delighted to hear of the others. What sort of measures are being taken to ensure these changes in curriculum are reaching the teachers and the students in the schools?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member will know that in a number of areas we are working quite diligently in an effort to set clear standards and make sure both our students and teachers are meeting those kinds of expectations.

Recently, we participated in some international testing with a number of jurisdictions throughout the world in the area of science and mathematics. Just last year, we undertook a provincial review in grade 11 physics and chemistry. The results of that review should be available in the very near future. I just want to say to the member that we do believe in making sure there are clear, identifiable standards that we expect to be met, and we intend to follow up those sorts of initiatives with direct programs.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It was recently announced by the Ministry of Natural Resources at its district offices in northwestern Ontario that regular firefighting crews will be reduced this summer from five-person crews to three-person crews and in some cases the number of crews will be reduced.

The minister knows that the 1986, 1987 and 1988 summers were bad fire seasons where millions of dollars of harvestable forest were lost. In view of that, why is the ministry cutting back on regular forest firefighting crews this year? How does the minister plan to meet emergency forest fire situations and does he not think this is a risky thing to be doing?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I do not think good planning is ever risky. The fact is that this government spent some $50 million last year on fighting forest fires; probably the most successful forest firefighting group anywhere on the continent. We had people come from every other jurisdiction to study our process. We now have a complement of nine CL-215 water bombers. We have crews that number some 2,000. They correspond with the number of people who are needed at a particular time. The number in the crew does not really have significance as to the numbers we ultimately send out to fight fires.

I believe the record we have in Ontario for being in the forefront of those people who know how to fight forest fires has been proved and we continue to have some of the best management in forest firefighting anywhere in the area; in the world in fact.

Mr. Hampton: I see the minister admits the numbers in the regular crews are going to be reduced. One of the statements that was also made was that the regular forest firefighting crews are going to be replaced by emergency crews when the need arises.

I want to ask the minister this: We know the emergency crews are not as well trained as the regular crews. Back in 1979, seven young people died. It was not a forest fire situation; it was a prescribed burn situation. The coroner’s verdict that came out of that said that when people deal with forest fire situations, whether it be prescribed burns or an emergency forest fire, they should have something beyond the basic training; they should have more training than that.

What the minister is going to be doing this summer to fight forest fires is send a lot of people in who have just that, only basic training. Does the minister not think he is taking an awful risk in view of the fact seven people have already died, in 1979? It was documented at the coroner’s inquest.

1450

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the member is going beyond what might be considered good common sense in the question. The fact of the matter is that the modern firefighting crews are much changed from the days he is talking about in the numbers in the crew that respond as part of the initial strike capacity that we have now.

It is quite different from the area he is describing or the time he is describing. We now have equipment that can predetermine where lightning is going to strike, whether there is water with it, whether it is going to start a fire or not and whether the fire itself has reached a magnitude where it develops its own weather and starts fires.

The reason we are going this route is that when we are fighting fires now, we are looking at the basic original strike to put out starts as being the highest priority. We will not jeopardize our crews in any way, much as the member would like to describe it that way. That is just not the case.

The fact of the matter is that there is a very sophisticated way of fighting fires. We are going that route, we are putting the kind of money there to do it and we are putting the resources there to do it. I think the questions the member raises are for quite a different reason than how to fight forest fires in a very good way.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: This question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. During the estimates of the ministry in December, the minister stated that the Ontario Provincial Police investigation into questionable land dealings in York region should be finished by either the end of December or very early in January. It is now the end of January and we have not heard anything about these police investigations yet.

Will the minister please inform the House what is going on with that review?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I understand that the police investigation is almost completed. I cannot put an exact time on when the results of that will be made known, but I am sure it is not going to be very long now.

Mr. Cousens: Our party has been calling on this government and this minister to launch a public inquiry into land practices in high-growth areas, in York region and elsewhere. Time and time again, the position of this government has been to support an independent police inquiry into the matter; but we have had no public inquiry, we have had no report from the police investigation and, in fact, we have no faith in the government’s ability to deal with this issue.

What is the minister’s next move in restoring public confidence in the municipal planning process and the land development practices in York region and other fast-growing areas in the province?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We have never ruled out a commission of inquiry. We said that very early, many months ago, after we received the initial inquiry from the residents, I believe from Mr. Death of Richmond Hill. We have said that we would await the completion of the police inquiry and then a decision will be made. I do not think it would be appropriate to have a commission of inquiry at the same time as the OPP investigation is under way. When that is completed, then that decision will be made.

WATER RESOURCES

Mr. Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. You never miss the water until the well runs dry. Last year, we had a drought situation in various parts of North America. In the county of Oxford in 1988, in the month of June and the first part of July, we had very little rain. A number of farmers were looking for a supply of water for fish, for cattle and for crops.

Is the ministry reviewing with other agencies policies that would simplify the procedure for obtaining water so that we have an action plan in place prior to another drought?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the member may be aware, the Ministry of the Environment has the lead jurisdiction over the allocation of large supplies of water. However, I have instructed my ministry staff, in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and other groups, to examine feasible options to assist farmers in the event that the drought may recur this year.

Mr. Tatham: Has the ministry identified irrigation management strategies that promote the efficient use of water resources?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My staff has been working this winter, assembling information on current irrigation practices and water use. As part of this work, information is being assembled on current water conservation technologies.

I will say in addition that my staff, in association with the University of Guelph, has been conducting research in the area of efficient irrigation scheduling. Information exchange meetings with interested growers have been arranged through farm organizations and additional meetings can be arranged on request.

So yes, we are looking at this. We are working very diligently on finding ways of assisting farmers in the event that this drought may occur next year, the year after or who knows how long after.

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

Mr. Farnan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: In a letter of June 2, 1988, to Pamela MacGregor, a community worker in Kitchener, the minister acknowledged that the current salary levels are too low to ensure a program of suitable quality for developmentally handicapped persons in the community.

On September 21, 1988, the minister wrote to another Cambridge community worker, David Wilde, that although the situation is serious for agencies which serve the developmentally handicapped, other sectors are in more urgent need, and these areas would receive priority.

Will the minister acknowledge that five months ago he promised to explore approaches for improving compensation levels for community workers with the developmentally handicapped? Will he tell us the nature and extent of his explorations and how he intends to redress the situation?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The second letter reflects the basic reality that I, as the minister, am faced with; that is, a number of agencies that provide services in communities across the province have brought to my attention the difficulty they have in attracting and holding staff. As the honourable member is well aware, that includes homemakers, foster parents, young offenders facilities and the one that he particularly mentioned, the agencies that deal with services for the developmentally handicapped.

I have indicated that to my cabinet colleagues as part of our long-term strategy. I have been assisted by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) with certain sums of money to gradually bring up those kinds of salaries. The second letter was simply a reflection of the fact that I am allocating those dollars where the greatest need is. That is not for a minute to suggest that there are not other needs, but they are put where the salaries happen to be the lowest.

The member will be aware of the fact that I got approval to place direct operating grants in child care centres because there was a general recognition that salaries in that service were particularly low. We were able to bring those salaries up by $3,000 to $4,000, on average, across the province. That is what we are working on. We are gradually working our way up that ladder and providing those kinds of increases in salaries where they are most needed.

Mr. Allen: Back to the Minister of Community and Social Services: The gaps that he talks about and that my colleague has talked about are by no means small ones. For example, a residential life counsellor in a comparable community agency would receive $18,000 to $21,000, whereas in a ministry public service position it is $25,000 to $26,000, gaps of $7,000 and $5,000, respectively.

The minister talks as though there is some kind of strategy in the ministry, but his own letters to me on the subject indicate that in fact the gap is growing, not declining. The transfers to the agencies still run at inflation level, while within the ministry they run at seven per cent and above.

Will the minister please explain to us how these agencies can maintain staff morale and maintain numbers and quality of staff in order to deliver the kind of quality service that presumably he wants out of a community agency in his ministry’s strategy to base more service on those very agencies? How is he going to get the goods from agencies to which he does not deliver the money to perform for him?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member is well aware, we transfer well over $1 billion a year to agencies across the province to help deliver those services. We transfer the equivalent of almost another $1 billion to municipal governments, which in turn either provide the services directly or buy those services from community agencies. There is a lot of money out there.

The member will be well aware of the fact that during the four years that I have been minister, those salaries have gone up to a considerable extent. We have been able to transfer more money to them. He is also aware of the fact that the needs of all of these agencies are growing continuously. He will recall just late last week in our estimates debates that there was a certain amount of criticism attached to this minister for directing some of the ministry’s funds for the cost of administering programs rather than directly delivering those programs. I have to keep those balancing factors in place at the same time.

1500

I can simply share with the honourable member that I recognize and I do not challenge for a minute the kinds of figures that he is using -- I have those figures at my disposal as well -- and that we are working towards dealing with them but we are starting, first of all, where the need and where the spread is the greatest.

We are looking at a whole range of community service programs and recognizing very clearly, as a ministry, that if we want to direct more of our attention and more of our resources towards community services rather than institutional services, then the resource dollars have to be there.

RADON GAS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Health, in the hope that I can get some kind of answer from her, because I tried to ask a question some two years ago of the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) about the issue of radon gas, which is becoming more and more of a concern and a public health issue, particularly in the area of the city of Kanata which I represent.

As the minister knows, radon gas is a carcinogenic product which is probably causing somewhere between 500 and 1,000 deaths due to lung cancer each year in our country. Canadian standards suggested by the Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, are considerably higher than the United States counterpart. US recommended radon levels should not exceed four picocuries per litre. The Department of National Health and Welfare has recommended somewhere between four and 20 picocuries as a safe level.

Interestingly enough, four picocuries is --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Sterling: My question to the minister is: What is the acceptable level of radon gas for Ontario homes set by her government?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the member opposite might find it interesting to know that radon gas is a naturally occurring gas which is emitted from traces of natural uranium found in all rocks and in soils. It breaks down and causes radon gas.

I can tell the member that radon testing in the home is now available through the Ministry of Labour and anyone who wants to request or has concerns about levels can make the request through his local medical officer of health.

Mr. Sterling: The minister has not yet told me what the acceptable rate is for Ontario. If we take the American acceptable rate or the World Health Organization acceptable rate, 13 to 15 per cent of the homes in the city of Kanata would be above that rate and all of the homes in the Ottawa-Carleton area would be above that rate.

What is ironic is that the acceptable level in a mine in Ontario is four picocuries per litre. The fact of the matter is that homes in Kanata and Ottawa --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could I ask the question for the honourable member?

Mr. Sterling: What is the minister going to do to protect the people of Ontario in their own homes?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Whenever issues like this are raised, I want to tell the member opposite that I think it is very important that people have the facts; that is in the public interest. It is important for them to know that acceptable levels and standards are set by the federal government and that testing is available through the local medical officer of health and the Ministry of Labour when anyone has a concern about an unacceptably high standard.

I would say to the member and to all members that if anyone has a concern, he should contact his medical officer of health, who can arrange for testing to be done, and that the levels and standards are set by the federal government.

PREPAID SERVICES

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. A constituent from my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere recently brought to my attention a problem she is experiencing with a fitness club by the name of Holiday Fitness.

This club sold memberships for facilities that were to be located in the Scarborough Town Centre, and last fall Holiday Fitness decided not to open at this location. The same process occurred at a proposed location in Don Mills. In all, approximately 3,000 members were forced to transfer locations or to apply for refunds.

This constituent and others have been unable to recover their funds to date. Can the minister advise the Legislature what his ministry is doing to assist my constituent and the 3,000 other consumers to recover their investments?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yes, I can tell the honourable member that investigators from the ministry have been in contact with the owner of Holiday Fitness, who I am advised is attempting to put together some funds to at least provide a partial refund. Those contacts and that mediation effort are continuing.

I can also tell the honourable member that in the Scarborough and the Don Mills situations, we are checking to assure ourselves through our investigation that the owner did not continue to sell memberships after it became apparent to him that those clubs were not going to be able to successfully open.

The honourable member points out that there are some 3,000 individuals involved, and so it is a matter of real concern to us to attempt to at least recover some of the money.

Mr. Faubert: I thank the minister for his answer and I will be sure to pass it along to my constituents.

By way of supplementary, I have noticed many examples of fitness companies as well as other similar institutions requesting large deposits or advance payments for their services and then either taking off with the funds or declaring bankruptcy. Can the minister advise the Legislature of any initiatives his ministry has taken to help protect consumers of this province from losing their hard-earned cash in such ventures?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: One thing that the honourable member should know and would want to tell his constituents and that indeed it is important to remember is that since October of last year, we have had the Prepaid Services Act in place. Constituents in the Holiday Fitness and other such areas who have had the problem in the past will not in the future suffer the same kind of consequences.

We have under the Prepaid Services Act provided for the trusting of any fees that are paid by the member’s constituent and others, in terms of membership fees and indeed in terms of fees to join the club in initiation fees in the first instance. We have also made provisions that these annual fees, which are all that a club can ask for, can be paid on an instalment basis, so that the vulnerability of consumers is not very great indeed.

I do not think we can assure the people of Ontario that no fitness clubs in the future will go out of business. I can assure the honourable member and the House, though, that I think under the Prepaid Services Act the exposure that consumers face is much more minimal than it has been in the past.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. A week ago I drew to the attention of the House the shocking news reported in the Sunday Star of January 22, 1989, that two senior residents of retirement homes had been found frozen to death outside the homes in January.

I am told that one victim resided in Meadowcroft Place, a privately operated retirement home in Etobicoke, and the other resided in York Manor, a publicly operated home for the aged run by York region in Newmarket. Apparently, the seniors had wandered outside in bitter winter weather and were unable to find their way back in or alert anyone inside.

My question to the minister is this: Since there are no provincial regulations requiring such residences to have specified security and alarm systems and adequately trained staff to respond to alarms, will she make a commitment to give this matter top priority and develop provincial regulations and a licensing system as soon as possible so that tragic events of this kind will not be repeated this winter?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I would inform the House that the two deaths the honourable member raises are now the subject of coroners’ inquests, and I look forward to receiving the recommendations which will come from the coroners. All the facts will be brought forth and will be made available to the public at that time. Those recommendations will be considered very seriously as we move towards the discussion of standards of care in rest and retirement homes.

We have asked the public for its input. I have now received more than 78 briefs on the issues. An advisory committee made up of experts from around the province is meeting and has told me it will give its report to me in March of this year.

We have also completed an inventory of rest and retirement homes in the province, and this will be published very shortly. Prior to this time we have not had a great deal of knowledge about the industry and we found it is a very complex one, ranging from small homes that may charge about $20 per day and offer very little to very luxurious homes which may charge in excess of $100 per day and offer a great deal in the way of amenities. We are working now with the information we are gathering to move towards discussions of the best way to regulate standards.

1510

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

Mr. Harris: I have a petition which is a follow-up to one that I presented earlier. It reads:

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

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

“Whereas in 1973, the Ontario Housing Corporation constructed a senior citizen complex, consisting of a senior citizen apartment building located at 135 Worthington Street West, in the city of North Bay, and

“Whereas it has come to our attention that senior citizen apartments have been rented to nonseniors;

“Be it resolved that we the undersigned support the establishment of a regulation whereby senior citizen apartments be made available to seniors only.”

This is signed by about 250 seniors, in addition to the 300 or so I tabled a couple of weeks ago.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: This is a petition, one of many that I have yet to present. I do not want to give them to the House all in one day as this government will be inclined to forget it unless we make more of an issue of it.

“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 dramatic growth 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 signed by myself and submitted to the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill Pr79, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion 20.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Cambridge have any further comments?

Mr. Farnan: Yes, I will continue where I left off on Thursday last. Basically, at that stage I had talked about the process of receiving input from the public of Ontario as the committee toured the province. At that time, I noted that the government did not appear to be listening to the public.

Following that stage, we then went into the clause-by-clause discussion of these two bills in the standing committee on administration of justice. There was no indication that the Liberal members of that committee were prepared to listen to the arguments put forward by myself and by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton).

Basically, what we attempted to do during the clause-by-clause discussion of this bill was reflect, in amendment form, all of the suggestions -- the most important suggestions -- that were received from the people of Ontario as we went across this province and received their briefs and presentations.

Every time that we put forward an amendment of substance that reflected what the people of Ontario said, we were defeated. I have to point out the fact that the votes on all occasions were the majority Liberal members of the committee using their majority vote to defeat the combined votes, in most cases, of the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservative members.

Following clause-by-clause discussion, we came back to the House, where we hoped to have constructive debate of these two important pieces of legislation. I point out that, contrary to the views that have been expressed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and members of his government that there has been exhaustive debate on these bills, it is just simply not true.

What we had was several months of public hearings during which we heard from the people of Ontario, but the government refused to listen. We had clause-by-clause in committee, which amounted to possibly about 50 hours of discussion at public hearing. Of those 50 hours, only four hours were spent on clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 114. That is the legislation that is supposed to provide protection for workers who will be asked to work on Sundays.

So on a very major piece of legislation which will affect the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands -- indeed, possibly millions -- of workers who, in years to come, may have to work on Sundays, there were four hours of discussion. The government then brings in a closure motion limiting debate so severely that if each member of this House were to rise and speak on Bill 113 and Bill 114 over the next three days, each member of the House would get three minutes.

There is a vast number of Liberal backbenchers -- indeed, members of the Liberal cabinet -- who will not speak on Bill 113 and Bill 114, despite the fact that their constituents -- small businessmen, workers, municipal politicians and churchmen -- are urging them to speak on this important issue and to reflect the will of their community, that they are opposed to this legislation. The vast majority of Liberal members of this government will be silent on the issue. They will not take their three minutes. It is interesting, but it is sad.

Why would the government force closure? It is an interesting question, especially for a government that wants to be perceived as open and accessible, that campaigned on the premise that it was open and accessible. Why would this government call for closure? There are two reasons.

The first is that the heat on the Sunday shopping issue is back. Just this past week, we had two of the pre-eminent churchmen in our province appealing to the government to withdraw this legislation and to review its policy.

What happened, in fact, is that while we had considerable discussion and emotion around the Sunday shopping-Sunday work issue back in the spring and summer of 1988, the heat was taken off the issue because it went on to the back burner. The issue of free trade and a very emotional federal election absorbed the interest of the public, so the Liberal government of Ontario was spared from the very strong feelings that people had about this legislation.

1520

But now that the free trade issue and the federal election is over with, we are in a situation where people are again focusing on matters of significance at the provincial level, and one of the issues that they are focusing on is the Sunday shopping-Sunday work issue.

As I talked to many, many of my constituents in Cambridge this week, their remarks to me were, very simply: “Are they really going to go ahead and do this? Is the Liberal government going to close its ears to the voice of the people of Ontario, expressed so clearly and unequivocally?” I had to say to them as I met them in the market or on the street: “Yes. There is absolutely no indication that the Liberal government of David Peterson is going to listen to the people of Ontario.”

In fact, I regretfully had to say to them that the opposite is true, that this Liberal government is going to go ahead and act in direct opposition to the expressed will of the people of Ontario, the expressed will of every sector of our community. It is going to go ahead and reject the two months of public hearings, when 529 delegations representing millions of Ontarians said to the government: “We want to keep our common pause day. Withdraw this legislation.”

Whom is the government going to listen to? It is going to listen to nine delegations that came forward and said, “We are in support of this legislation.”

That is one reason.

The second reason the government calls closure is very simple. We saw an example of it in the House today. Mr. Speaker, you will recognize this, sitting in the chair, impartial as you are. You will recognize the fact that this government is embarrassed on a day-to-day basis in this House. My leader, the leader of the official opposition, and my colleagues are raising tough questions -- questions concerning health, housing, education, auto insurance, community workers and community programs -- and on a day-to-day basis this government is embarrassed.

Indeed, only today we saw in the newspapers that this government has no long-term vision, that it is acting on a crisis-management basis, a day-to-day basis. The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, and you will recognize the fact, is that the Liberal government wants to get out of here as quickly as it possibly can, because this government realizes that the longer this House is open, the more embarrassed it will be and the more its deficiencies will be exposed by the official opposition and the third party.

The moment of truth is indeed here. The question I asked when I opened my remarks was this: Is the government listening and is it accessible? If it is listening and if it is accessible, to whom is it listening and to whom is it accessible?

I am going to read into the record some quotations that I gleaned from my travels with the standing committee on administration of justice as we went around the province listening to the briefs of the people of Ontario.

This is what the people of Ontario have to say about the Liberal government. These are not my words. This is not an opposition member simply attacking the government for the sake of attacking the government. This is an opposition member reflecting the views of the people of Ontario as I heard them, as they were presented in written briefs as I toured the province. This is what the people of Ontario had to say. I can see that the Liberal members are blushing. They are embarrassed, and rightfully so.

“Who really wants this legislation? The lobby groups from the big plazas.” That is from the corporation of the town of Orangeville.

“Premier Peterson is being forced to go through with the proposed bill because of pressure from large department stores which want wide-open shopping.” That is from Mike Collins, Niagara regional councillor.

“The government of this province is not listening to the wants of the majority of the people who elected them. What in the world do we have to do to get our point across?” That is from Robert Labella, London Chamber of Commerce.

“The Liberals were elected to represent the people in their ridings. The people are saying ‘no’ to the local option. It seems that everybody is wrong except the Liberal Party.” That is from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1977.

Indeed, I would like to make a comment on this particular extract from the brief of Local 1977 of the UFCWU because it is a fact that the Liberals are not even listening to the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, I see you squirm in your chair, because I know that you are personally embarrassed. Even as an impartial chairman you are a member of the government.

The reality of the matter is that we had the executive vice-president of the Liberal Party of Ontario appear before the committee. She said that it was not discussed in the Liberal Party. It came as a total surprise to her.

Mr. Black: Who was that? What was her name?

Mr. Farnan: Her name was Sylvia Sutherland, the mayor of Peterborough and the ex-vice-president of the Liberal Party. Not even the Liberal Party was consulted. Not only did the Premier, his cabinet and his government ignore the people of Ontario but they even ignored the Liberal Party.

Let me go on and reflect on the views of the people of Ontario. What were the remarks of those people who were addressing the Premier, who were addressing the government? I am going to go through all of the major players, and I am going to pick out just one or two quotations for each of the major players.

This is what the Association of Municipalities of Ontario said to the Liberal government: “The association is firmly opposed to what it perceives as the transfer of a complex and socially divisive issue by an indecisive provincial government under the guise of municipal autonomy.” It is signed by the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

We have small businessmen. Small businessmen have expressed, right across this province, their opposition.

“If any city in the Windsor-Toronto corridor opens, virtually every city in that corridor will eventually be forced to open due to cities complaining of losing their market share to a city a short distance away” -- the Waterloo Chamber of Commerce.

1530

The essence of this bill is the domino theory. We know that all that has to happen is for one municipality to accept the option of opening on Sundays, and then they will succumb to the pressure of the friends of the Premier -- the big business lobby. They will open on Sunday and a domino effect will take place. This is what happened in other jurisdictions. This is what will happen in Ontario.

As the opposition parties have pointed out, it will not happen overnight. The sky will not fall in, but over time there will be an erosion of Sunday as we know it, of family values and of traditional values. Of course, everybody recognizes this, except the Liberal government.

The churches of Ontario:

“I want to live in a province in which the vast majority of citizens can share and count on a common day of pause and rest, a common day of recreation and renewal, a common day for visiting and sharing and, yes, for some a day of worship” -- Reverend Milton Barry, All Saints’ Anglican Church, Peterborough, Ontario.

“Very few family-oriented activities take place during the week. Have you ever seen a parade going down the street on a Monday or a Tuesday?” -- John Montgomery, vice-president of the UFCWU.

“This legislation is anti-worker. In our home, Sunday is the one day a week we can spend valuable time together as a family. This is one day we can plan months ahead for family gatherings, birthdays, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, time with grandparents, help with school projects, etc.” -- Mabel Hadley, retail worker, Lindsay, Ontario.

“We believe that the government should give greater consideration to the wellbeing of the family unit in Ontario. Legislation should be aimed at strengthening the family and not tearing it apart,” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Oshawa, Ontario.

“Who will attend community events we are so proud of providing?” -- Karen George, mayor of Brantford.

The tragedy is that workers, trade unionists and churches have fought side by side for over a century to try to get better working conditions for workers. This is reflected in the next quote.

“Have we forgotten the hard fight of our ancestors for just conditions of work? If we remember what they struggled for, which included a humane workweek, allowing time for their families, we will not lightly turn the clock back to a time when competition for dollars ruled the lives of both workers and employers” -- from the office of Catholic Family Life, the archdiocese of Toronto.

From an average citizen: “I am sick and tired of my taxes being paid to rejuvenate sagging downtowns and at the same time the government enacting legislation which would accelerate their decline.”

From a small businessman: “We will have a situation where malls are promoting heavily to attract Sunday shoppers and the result will be shopping dollars spent in large regional shopping malls at the expense of downtown or city centre stores.”

I am going to wind up my remarks, but those examples are simply a reflection of examples that have been put forward in the hundreds of briefs -- there were over 529 briefs -- opposed to this legislation. There were nine briefs in favour.

Whom then is the government listening to?

We have established that it is not listening to the Liberal Party. It was never a policy position of the Liberal Party. It was never discussed within the Liberal Party. Liberal members were given to believe that this was not the policy of the Liberal Party and were surprised and shocked, as was the mayor of Peterborough, Sylvia Sutherland, for example, who said, “It came as a complete surprise to me when the Premier announced this position.”

It was not a Liberal Party position. It was not something wanted by workers. It was not something wanted by churches. It was not something wanted by small businessmen. It was not something wanted by municipalities. Who in the hell wanted this legislation? it was the big business friends of the Premier. That is who wanted this legislation.

It is a shame that Liberal members in this House will not exercise their right to their independence to vote independently on this issue. I am going to conclude with an appeal for a free vote by the Reverend Jones of the Anglican Diocese of Huron when he said this to the committee:

“At the very least, it would seem to us that on a matter which affects the private lifestyles of so many people, the vote in the provincial Legislature should not be governed by party politics but rather by a free vote of conscience.”

I am going to appeal to our listening audience and to the people of Ontario to examine this fact: Every municipal politician in the region of Waterloo, when asked about Sunday shopping, “Are you in favour of this legislation?” said no.

The workers do not want it. The businesses do not want it. The churches do not want it. Municipalities do not want it.

Is it not strange that every Liberal in this House is going to vote in favour of this legislation? Is it not strange that the 48 Liberals in the last House, in a minority government, all supported a common pause day? It boggles the mind that when they were a minority government, every Liberal in that minority was in favour of a common pause day. Suddenly they are given a majority government, they are given 95 seats at the time. All 95 Liberals now are in favour of the legislation, which is a direct contradiction of the legislation that was there previously.

What that says to me is that party discipline has been exercised on this issue and that the Premier’s words in this House when he said there was a free vote are not true. Indeed, the vote will reflect that the Liberals will do what they are told, in the hope of a parliamentary assistant position or whatever, and they are going to ignore the constituents who sent them here, the people whom they represent.

The people of Waterloo will look at the members for that particular region, and those members know that the vast majority of voters in the Waterloo region, the vast majority of voters in Brantford, the vast majority of voters in Guelph, are going to be ignored. The Liberal members who represent those ridings are going to ignore the constituents of Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo, and that is a total disgrace. They were sent here to represent those constituents, and because they are being told what to do, they are going to ignore the constituents who sent them here and who have spoken in such a singularly clear voice.

In conclusion, I want simply to say that the people of Cambridge have been outstanding in expressing their views. In public forums, in letters and in petitions, the people of Cambridge have sent a very strong message to this assembly.

I think they reflect the views of the people of the province. I want to go on the record as saying that it has been a great privilege for me to be the spokesperson for the people of Cambridge in reflecting their views in this House.

1540

I am sad to report back to them that the Premier and his government are simply saying: “We heard what you said, but it does not mean anything to us. We’re going to go ahead, despite what the people of Cambridge say, despite what the people of Ontario say.”

Peter Hoogendam, the furniture store owner in Kingston, Ontario, said before the committee, and he was talking to the Liberal members on the committee, “Rest assured, we will remember.”

There is a political price that the Liberals pay for ignoring the people of Ontario. This issue will not go away, and come the next election the members from Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo are going to be reminded by the voters in my region that they ignored the wishes of the people and they do not deserve to be re-elected and to continue to represent that area.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly in this debate. I have already indicated to you that I think this imposition of the guillotine is unjustified. It is unworthy of the democratic process that we would come to this, in terms of the government using its majority to simply force through legislation without any significant change and without listening to the vast numbers of people who are so strongly opposed to it.

I also want to signal to you, sir, that we have fought this battle now for many, many months, indeed many years, and it has become perfectly clear to us that the government is bound and determined to have its way. To put it bluntly, we can add that we know the government, if this is what it is determined to do, can in fact force the House to vote and can, according to you and your ruling, sir, close off debate.

I want to make it clear that I think the government is making a very significant mistake. I think the legislation they are proposing is wrong, and I think their approach to this whole subject has been very wrong. They have had opportunities many times along the way to change their minds, to change the bill, to change the law, so that people would have more protection on Sunday than they now have. At each and every opportunity when they were presented with that chance to do something to change the legislation and to change the law, they decided not to do that.

For example, a recent letter I have received, and which I would like to read, signed by the Reverend John W. Van Stenford, who is the clerk for the Classes Toronto of the Christian Reformed Church, indicates and really reflects the views of a very substantial number among us. I simply want to read it to the members, so they get a chance to get some feeling for the opinion that is out there. They say:

“Today, January 26, the undersigned representatives of congregations, consisting of approximately 10,000 members living in and around Toronto, considered the pros and cons of Bill 113 and Bill 114. We are deeply concerned about their possible negative implications for the life of our families and that of our neighbours as well as for the social fabric of our communities.

“As these bills now read, they do not promote a common day of rest, nor do they protect the workers’ social rights and employment security. In fact, they do the opposite. They undermine -- not intentionally, we trust -- the working people’s opportunity to spend adequate time with their spouses, families, friends, neighbours and relatives or at worship, if they wish.

“Increasingly, they will be confronted with conflicting work schedules. As a result, this legislation will further limit people’s ability to contribute to the development and maintenance of a quality way of life so essential to the social and spiritual wellbeing of our children and grandchildren and the potential of our communities and our country.

“In view of the biblical principles of love and justice, which we as Christian Reformed Churches share with many other faith communities, we sincerely appeal to the government and the opposition parties to exercise their public office for the common good. We urge you to make appropriate amendments to Bill 113 and Bill 114 that would substantially reduce all unnecessary Sunday work and significantly strengthen the worker’s social rights.

“Furthermore, the legislation should protect human rights and freedoms of religious minorities. Your nonpartisan co-operation for fairness and public justice for all people is greatly appreciated. May God grant you the wisdom to act responsibly. We look forward to hearing from you.”

It is signed by several representatives of the Christian Reformed Church.

I think members can see from the letter which I have read, and indeed from thousands of others which we have read in this House, that there is a sense out there that the government has been unreasonable; that it had a chance to amend the legislation and chose not to do so; that it has had the chance, and still will have at this late date, at the conclusion of this debate, the opportunity to effect some change. I guess I simply want to say that the government has this chance now to make some changes. I hope very much that it will take the opportunity to make the changes that are necessary.

I think the bill is a bad one. I think that both pieces of legislation -- the one which in effect will give the municipalities the option to open Sundays generally across the province, and the second which will provide no real protection for workers who do not want to work on Sunday -- are dramatic steps backward. I think we need a provincial law that sets a common standard for Ontario. I think the best labour legislation we could have would be Sunday closing legislation. Anything else is very inadequate and does not really meet the situation, the requirements or our needs.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that in your ruling, sir, I think you have established a very dangerous precedent. I think it is a terrible precedent to say that the majority can in effect, without so much as a by-your-leave, amend the standing orders and simply force through legislation as it wishes. With great respect to you and to your office, I think it is lamentable that we did not convince you that minorities need more protection in this House, and that is particularly true when you have a government the size of this one.

I think we are now living with rules and with precedents in this House which will not stand democracy well at the end of the day. It would be far better to have real consensus among all the parties as to how the business of the House should be ordered and some greater willingness on the part of the government to at least listen to those of us who are in opposition to what it is trying to do.

Mr. McCague: I did not object to giving up a little time to the Leader of the Opposition to make some parting remarks as he leaves for a plane. I presume it is to Ottawa to see what his chances are in the next leadership convention.

Mr. Smith: Where they have Sunday shopping. They voted in favour of Sunday shopping in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. McCague: That is very true.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: How many times have you and I Sunday-shopped when we were in committee, George?

Mr. McCague: I am pleased to address this motion. Anything I can do to agitate the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), I will be glad to do. I know that what I will have to say about this motion is exactly what he would say if he were reflecting the thoughts of his constituents. However, he will find in the area of cabinet solidarity a little difficulty doing that.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My constituents like the Sunday closing bill. It is a Sunday closing bill.

Mr. McCague: He may even be absent the day that the final vote is taken.

It is a pleasure to comment on this motion, because I consider it my job to reflect the thoughts of the people in the good riding of Simcoe West, many of whom, somewhat over 2,000, have conveyed to me their thoughts on the matter. I think the same applies to me as to all other members of this House, especially in the more rural parts of the province -- somewhere around 75 per cent to 85 per cent of people who respond are opposed. There may be a silent minority out there that chooses not to divulge its wishes in this matter, but I know that all rural members of this House, if they have done any surveys at all, will find that those opposed to shopping on Sunday are in the area of 75 to 85 per cent.

1550

It was quite some time ago that the government House leader introduced the motion we are debating today. It is a little hard to keep truly on subject because this motion does involve Sunday opening and closing and working conditions, so I think it is about time we read the motion back into the record again. After four or five days, I am sure the viewing audience has forgotten what it was all about.

Mr. Conway moved:

“That, when the order is called for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the committee report on Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, not more than one sessional day shall be allocated to this order and that at 5:45 p.m. on that day, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this order” -- just one day, and one day in this kind of debate means a maximum of three hours, hardly enough time to truly debate a matter of this importance.

The motion 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. 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.

“Further, that there shall be one sessional day 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 at the third reading stage and that on that sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at 5:45 p.m.”--Mr. Speaker, you must feel a little uneasy about interrupting the proceedings just to have a vote -- “and put all questions necessary to dispose of the order for third reading of the two bills.

“Finally, that in the case of any division requested during the time that these bills are being considered, the bells shall be limited to 15 minutes.”

I do not know what would happen if the two opposition parties did not show up for the vote, but it would be interesting to see. I presume the government would use the same guillotine, sledgehammer method it is presently using to limit debate on this and make it a fait accompli.

In the riding of Simcoe West there are two municipalities that are open on Sundays: Wasaga Beach and Cookstown. Those municipalities use the tourist exemption, which seemed like a legitimate enough way to be able to remain open, and people in the area do not object to those two municipalities being open on Sundays. What they do object to is any further openings in the area.

I suggest to the members that these bills are both kind of a knee-jerk reaction to the odd problem that showed up with the legislation, the status quo. I do not think anything was broken and therefore the best advice I could offer is, “Don’t try to fix it.”

I am sorry the House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), is not with us at the moment. I think he is plotting some further strategy. I was always interested in listening to two people in this House, particularly when they were in opposition, the House leader, the member for Renfrew North, and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and in reading back to them, as has been done on many occasions but not in their totality in any way, the quotes they made when they were in opposition.

I think those two honourable gentlemen felt at that time that what they were saying was true. If that is the way they felt, why is it not still true today? There are all kinds of things those two members have said that have come back to haunt them. They of course just smile and get out the sledgehammer and bring in this time allocation motion. It is closure. No matter what the government wants to say, it still is closure.

The member for Renfrew North said such things as, “Quite frankly, as my colleague and leader has indicated, it is an experience and rule among lawyers that difficult cases make for bad law.” Now, the honourable member for Renfrew North is not a lawyer, nor am I. I just do not understand that having said that, he would proceed in the fashion he has now decided to do.

He said, “I would very much like to see the resolution of this deadlock by means of the framework we have evolved here since my arrival here seven years ago” -- this was in 1982 and he is still here -- “namely, the House leaders’ panel, because I do not want to see this kind of new order born in the middle of this kind of deadlock and difficulty.”

Those of us who have listened over a period of years to the honourable member for Renfrew North know of his eloquence and how those words just flow out of him. Obviously, he forgot those over a period of seven years and does not remember the remarks he made on December 8, 1982.

Another quote from the honourable member is, “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.”

He goes on to say, “I reiterate, we have been able to do the business of this Legislative Assembly for a long time, through wartime, through the Great Depression and much acrimony, without the time allocation procedure.”

There are many more of those kinds of quotes that flowed from the lips of the member for Renfrew North, the present House leader of the Liberal Party. I suppose that when he said those kinds of things, he never really realized that he might some day be in the position of House leader, that the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) might be the Premier or that he would be in any position to have those words read back to him.

Well, there he is over there today. I suggest to the members that with this kind of action, this kind of motion, this kind of government, he will not have to worry about what he does after the next election. He will be back over here making those same kinds of statements.

But I do feel a little sorry for the member for Renfrew North because he is after all a member of a very, very large, out-of-control government. I do not label that as Liberal politics any more than I was happy there were so many members of the previous Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa. I think when things are so lopsided, it is poor government.

I can recall the fear I had when I first came into this Legislature. We had a majority at that time but a minority came along very shortly afterwards. I was fearful that minority government was poor government, but I very soon learned minority government is the best kind of government there can be. The members have to have a little give and take. The policies that evolve, I suggest, are not that bad for all of society, and I think they are balanced. But when we get a large majority government as we have here, we are continually having things thrust on us, against our will, and there could not be a better example than this Sunday shopping legislation.

1600

I know for a fact that many of the members on the other side feel they are going to have to vote against their will or else they are going to have to stay out of the House when the vote is called. The Premier kind of led some people to indicate it would be a free vote. I think I have been in government long enough to know how things work.

There will be some of those who will be asked very quietly to vote with the government. Those who will be most inclined to do it will be the ones who think they have the best chance to get a cabinet post during the next shuffle. Then there will be those who feel so strongly, like the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli), that he may stand in his place and vote with the opposition on this matter. However, there will be many who will be away at the time the vote is taken, and therefore their true wishes will never be recorded and maybe not even ever known.

One of the big selling points we are asked to purchase from the House leader is the fact that there has been so much time spent on this subject both in this House and in committee, and also now when the bill returns to the Legislature. The government is inclined to forget that much of the time in committee was spent hearing delegations, both for and against Bill 113 and then Bill 114.

On Bill 113 and Bill 114, I understand there were about 522 oral and written presentations made to the committee. Of those 522, as I understand it, there were only some 30 groups that indicated a measure of support for Sunday shopping, but not all of these groups were in agreement with the Liberal legislation and the local option. Very few -- I understand nine or 10 in total -- expressed total support for the Liberal legislation. That is 10 out of 522. Less than 10 per cent of the total were in agreement and more than 90 per cent were opposed.

There has been a lot of talk about the time spent in here on this motion. The Liberals claim the Sunday shopping bills have been studied and considered for nine months, including some 60 days of legislative debate. It might be worth while to explain what 60 days really means when one breaks it down in terms of hours. I believe that on Bill 113 there were approximately 200 hours spent, and on Bill 114, approximately 128 hours.

If the government agreed to public consultation in the committee process on these two bills, which it did, and the opposition to them is so overwhelming -- 90 per cent opposed, less than 10 per cent in favour -- why then would a government ever think it could get away with pushing this down the throats of the opposition parties? I am here, as I said before, to express to the members the will of the majority of my constituents. Constituents there are telling members of both opposition parties that they want us to use every mechanism within our power to stop this bill.

One might have thought the House leader would have stood in his place today, after the fine report from Public Affairs Management that was reported in the press this morning, and said they diddled around in Cabinet Office far too long with Sunday shopping and free trade. We lost the free trade deal. I guess we are about to lose the --

Mr. Haggerty: You supported free trade, George.

Mr. McCague: You are exactly right.

Mr. Haggerty: Your party was with them all the way.

Mr. McCague: You are exactly right. When I said “we,” I was talking about the government losing the free trade deal.

The government has two choices. It could withdraw the Sunday shopping legislation if it wished. It does not have to do that because at the next election the electorate is going to hoof the government out anyway if it does not smarten up. Here is their opportunity to redeem themselves, to disprove that group of consultants who told them that everything is out of control, that they are involved in crisis management, that they are like a ship without a rudder. There are all kinds of beautiful things they said about the government, all of which I agree with, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Miller: It’s like a fresh wind blowing across Ontario and you know it.

Mr. McCague: It surely is a fresh wind. It is very draughty. The member for Haldimand --

Mr. Miller: No, not Haldimand.

Mr. McCague: Whatever it is. He wants to interrupt.

Mr. Miller: Norfolk.

Mr. McCague: Norfolk. I reiterate that the government does have the option of withdrawing these bills any day in the next couple of weeks. Everybody seems to want to leave this place within the next two weeks.

I notice today that in all parties, the attendance is very low. I guess the reason for that is that a lot of people made plans to go south or to take a family vacation and had it booked some months ago. It is not normal for us to be debating such matters as this in January, but this one is so important that the opposition parties feel obliged to be here to try to drive into the minds of those in charge over there that people are really serious. They do not want this legislation. Talking about constituents, I have given the government that message but I know it just drifted right over its head.

There is an organization, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The government likes to say almost daily that they represent the thoughts of the municipal councils out there. What did they have to say to the government on August 9, 1988?

They said, first, the current law is the best. “The municipal delegates unanimously rejected provincial delegation of Sunday shopping to municipal councils.... It is interesting to note that the association has received support from such large urban retail centres as the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the cities of Toronto, Mississauga, London, North York, Ottawa, Windsor and Thunder Bay.” That is what they said.

Everybody keeps talking about Sault Ste. Marie and how it voted for Sunday shopping. That should not be too hard for those people over there to understand. It is a border city. Niagara Falls is the same thing. People have been content and still are content to live with those places being open. They like to go to Sault Ste. Marie for a vacation and probably they would like to shop on that particular Sunday. They like to go to Niagara Falls and they like to go to Port Dover.

Is that in the riding of the member for Norfolk?

Mr. Miller: And your leader would go to Port Huron to do his Sunday shopping.

Mr. McCague: He might well do that, but where my leader goes and where his people tell him to go are two different things. What we are trying to do is tell the member where to go.

AMO goes on to say, “In addition, municipalities from tourist areas such as the district of Muskoka, the counties of Huron, Simcoe, Peterborough, the city of Niagara Falls and the village of Wasaga Beach have also rejected the government’s proposal.”

1610

They are quite happy with the status quo. No consultation, AMO says:

“The association is not being unduly difficult with respect to Sunday shopping.... The Solicitor General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs were advised of the association’s complete willingness and desire to review the present legislation for the purpose of correcting what the government has described as ‘inadequacies’ and ‘unfairness.’” Just a dream. “The association’s offer of co-operation and assistance was repeated at a meeting with the Premier and his cabinet on March 30, but was rejected.

“AMO is concerned that in instances where a municipality, under the provisions of Bill 113, opts to depart from the provincial scheme for Sunday and holiday shopping and passes its own enabling bylaw, the increase in the level of municipal retail activity will bring with it an increased need for such municipal services as police, fire, public transportation, day care and waste management. The need to provide such additional municipal services will mean an increased burden on the property taxpayer, as the costs of such provisions are not recoverable from increased retail activity.”

That is AMO’s side of the story, and it sounds very reasonable to me. That is kind of a learned opinion they gave.

There is another opinion here, given by the mayor of the city of Oshawa on September 29, 1988. I am sure that members of the opposition party will be well aware of who the mayor of Oshawa is. They always mention that with pride. That mayor too has a learned opinion which is in opposition to Sunday shopping.

The House leader is a very eloquent speaker. He has tried in this House to persuade us, the opposition parties and the general public who watch this presentation daily or periodically, that it is not a guillotine-type motion that he has introduced. You would not find any opposition party in any parliament in any province of Canada which would not agree that this a guillotine motion. It is closure at its best or at its worst, whatever connotation you want to put on it.

Mr. Miller: It is time allocation.

Mr. McCague: I understand. The member for Norfolk says it is time allocation. When the time allocation is over it is closure, so what is he talking about? It is just a matter of how long it takes to open the door and then shut it tight.

However, by about 1991 we will be a combined effort over here to invoke closure on the Liberal Party as the government of Ontario. I must say that the members of the Liberal Party are being very helpful to us with this kind of guillotine motion. They are doing the same thing to the public of Ontario as they are doing to us. It is time allocation and they are allocating their own time too, which is going to be very short.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Don’t hold your breath, George, old boy.

Mr. McCague: My voice is not quite as good as that of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, or I could stand back four steps from the mike and still be heard.

Anyway, let’s talk a little bit about Bill 114. It is unfair. It is discriminatory and it is totally unfair and unnecessary. Why is it unfair? The 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 the single parents.

Mr. Speaker, in your riding of Prescott and Russell you must have a tremendous number of people who are opposed to this Sunday shopping. I know that you could, in your office as the chairman of the committee of the whole House, maybe pair off with somebody over here or maybe you could be away, or maybe, as long as you are dressed the way you are in your pleasant frocks, you will want to go to your seat and vote when this comes up. You are probably going to be all right and you are never really going to have to indicate, like many others over there, what your constituents really think.

However, I just hope that you will see it as a duty of yours in the hours that follow your duties in this House to try to persuade your colleagues that there really are a tremendous number of people, probably 75 per cent, out there in the big, rural Ontario that we represent who are opposed to this legislation. I hope you will be able to see it in your heart and to convey that to the people in power.

This Liberal government has literally singled out a certain segment of our society, the nonunionized retail workers and small retailers, and has made them the unwilling target of a bill that will force them into unwanted situations, situations they normally would never have considered before, having had full discretion over their working preferences and choices in their chosen occupation.

Interjections.

Mr. McCague: Am I bothering the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere?

Mr. Faubert: Not at all.

Mr. McCague: I am glad the member is interested.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Faubert: I am just going to reread your speeches in the debate.

Mr. McCague: I will have some other things to say when that time comes.

All we hear from the government is that many people now work on Sunday. It is really a pathetic defence by this 94-member government to base the whole case for opening the thing up and making people work on Sunday on the fact that some people are now working on Sunday.

Sure, we have people working on Sunday. We have people in convenience stores, gas stations, pharmacies, providing essential services. But the vast majority of retailers, nearly 400,000 retailers in this province, do not work on Sundays and they do not want to do so. That message should be clear.

The fact that most retail workers today do not work on Sundays means that with the passage of this unwanted and undesirable legislation, all retailers will now have to reconsider their chosen profession and take into account whether or not they want to work on Sundays. If they do not, they will now be forced to deal with rearranging their lives or facing their employer and, worse still, the employment standards branch.

It is a thoroughly devious statement and a very serious misconception for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and the Liberal government to state that under Bill 114 retailers will have a choice about working Sundays. They will not, in my personal opinion. They will not have a choice because they will have to go up against their employer, and nine times out of 10, when an employee has a battle with his or her employer, the employer wins.

Bill 114 is unfair because it creates unreliable procedures for retailers to follow, resulting in serious uncertainty for all within the retail sector.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You sound like a socialist.

Mr. McCague: Now, the member for Scarborough West is accusing me of sounding like a socialist.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It does bother me.

Mr. McCague: I know it bothers him, but the New Democratic Party does not have control of caring. I would say that every member in this House cares for his or her constituents. The problem is that when the Premier says “Jump,” his Liberal colleagues say, “How high?” and they have to vote for this horrendous legislation.

Ms. Collins: It’s a free vote.

Mr. McCague: The member for Wentworth East says it is a free vote. I tell members that this motion is a lot closer to being closure than the vote will be to being free. The Liberal members are just going to be told what to do. I am sure the member for Wentworth East would like to be in cabinet. I can understand how she might vote when this matter comes before the House, human nature being what it is.

1620

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We’re most anxious to vote for a Sunday closing bill. It’s a Sunday closing bill.

Mr. McCague: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is a bit exercised today.

Bill 114 is unfair because it creates unreliable procedures for retailers to follow, resulting in serious uncertainty for all within the retail sector.

I apologize to all the members of the NDP party if that sounds too much like something they might say.

This Liberal government offers the test of reasonableness, which is really an insult to any employee with a valid concern about working on Sunday. What an employer considers reasonable may be very different from what an employee considers reasonable. What the mediator from the Ministry of Labour considers reasonable may be very unreasonable for an employer or an employee. Any mediation process is subject to unfairness when it pits employer against employee in a setting both would rather avoid altogether.

In theory, an employee may have a platform to argue his or her case with this bill, but in practice most employees will not have the power or stamina to ensure that their rights are upheld. This occurs because many retail employees are uneducated and most have to take time to spend in lineups at the employment standards branch, struggling as they often are, juggling their time with two or three different jobs, school and their families.

The bill is discriminatory because it includes the premise that retail employees will have to declare their religious preferences, which may well be the determining factor in an employee’s decision to refuse Sunday work. I suggest that is an infringement on a personal right. It is something that does not appear to stand up against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which we cherish as Canadian citizens.

The members of the NDP party are a bit upset about the fact that some of the things I am saying are things that they might like to say, but I think the members of the NDP party will agree with me that we and they are here today to try to persuade this stubborn government that it should not proceed with bills 113 and 114. I make no apologies for joining with the opposition in trying to push that forward. My heavens, how stubborn can you be?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am getting confused by the honourable member’s address. He keeps referring to a party with which I am really not familiar. Perhaps it is a party that has status in the province and I am unaware of it. It is this NDP party.

I wonder if he could tell us what the NDP party is. I know there is a New Democratic Party, which I belong to, but I have not heard of the NDP party. Perhaps rather than maligning those poor people, whoever they may be -- maybe they are socialists, I do not know -- he might clarify this.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you be able to tell me under which standing order this is?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thought you had your book with you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McCague: I might have insulted the member. I agree that I did make a mistake. It is not the NDP party but the NDP. I have heard words that would fill out the full equation, but I cannot use them at this particular moment. In fact, I forget what they were. My apologies to the honourable member. Maybe he would stop interrupting and I can proceed.

The government must not realize just how much we cherish the right of our own religious preferences and the blatant discrimination in this bill and in Bill 113 posed by forcing the employer or employee to make his or her religious preference known. Currently, it is illegal for employers to ask potential employees their religious preference. If Bill 114 is enacted, employees may feel it is necessary to explain their religious preferences and beliefs to protect their jobs and refuse work on their chosen Sabbath.

Bill 113 will also place corporations, perhaps for the first time in history, in the predicament where it will be necessary to define religious preference within their corporate bylaws. This is astounding and a literally unbelievable suggestion on the part of this government. It infringes on some of the most sensitive and private rights of the citizens of this province.

I want to tell the members why Bill 114 is totally unnecessary. We say that without any reservation. Everyone from church groups to unions and unorganized labour, mall merchants and major corporations has made it extraordinarily clear to the standing committee on administration of justice that this legislation is seriously flawed, unwarranted and unwanted.

Only some nine or 10 groups have expressed an interest in Sunday work out of a total of more than 500 groups. The desires of the people could not be clearer. There is no mandate for bringing forward this legislation. As a consequence, there is no need to bring forward this bill, which only serves a political purpose, that is, to help the Liberals save face, which it unfortunately does not do with its proposed Bill 113, a bill that clearly no one wants or needs.

We cannot support Bill 114, just as we cannot support Bill 113. Instead, we stand firm in our support of the wishes of the people of Ontario.

I do not know what kind of polling the government has done on the issue of Sunday working and Sunday shopping. We have questions in Orders and Notices of various ministries, asking for the production of polls.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We don’t govern by polls.

Mr. McCague: The Minister of Agriculture and Food says they do not govern by polls. They take all kinds of polls. I do not know what they do with them. John Diefenbaker had a suggestion one time on what to do with polls. I do not know what the government does with the ones it is taking, but it will not give them to us. I do not know what kind of a poll they have that persuades them they should be bulldozing this legislation through this Legislature.

The House leader is trying to sell people on the fact that it has been talked about for so long. It really has not been talked about for very long at all when you consider that a full session in the afternoon is probably from 3:30 to 6 in committee, that it is the same in the House and that really the hours are rather insignificant compared to what one would be led to think.

Again, the motion, which I read at the beginning of my remarks, is strictly closure. What are some of the things that the member for Renfrew North said previously, when we were accused as a government of bringing in a closure motion? This could have been any year, but the member for Renfrew North 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, without which we have been able to function for the previous 115 years.”

He said that in regard to 1982-83. I could say, “I cannot believe we are seized in the winter of 1988-89 with some parliamentary crisis.” I do not see any crisis here. There is no demand from the constituents, from the people members opposite are the government of.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We were elected to carry on the business of the province and you people have been fooling around for nine months. That’s where the crisis is.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, would you mind asking the Minister of Agriculture and Food not to interrupt me?

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the member have a point of order?

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but we have badly lost our quorum in this House and I would ask you to recapture a quorum for the members. There is very limited interest on the part of the government.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1631

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member may continue.

Mr. McCague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) bringing to your attention that there were seven opposition members and seven government members here and that the Minister of Agriculture and Food did not like what I was saying and was about to leave.

However, when I was interrupted by my friend the member for Burlington South, I was talking about what the House leader and member for Renfrew North was saying. I think this really is a prize quote, because he said, and I will repeat it again:

“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, without which we have been able to function for the previous 115 years.”

True, in that statement he was talking about the motion, but really it could be said about this legislation, period. Why are we at it in 1988-89? Nobody is pushing them for it. They are pushing it down their throats.

“I really have to say that we must be protected from this kind of majority government stampede ... and arrogance.”

That is what he thought that day and that is what I think today about the government, so I guess we are not that far apart, given a spread of seven years. He did not think it was right then and he does today; I did think it was right then and I do not think it is right today. I do not know what the change of heart is, but that just happens to be the way I feel about it.

We are all in this House doing our job in bringing to the attention of a stubborn government the wishes of the people in each of our ridings. I cannot understand why they do not listen, but it is obvious that they are not going to. I said earlier and I repeat, for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that the report that one of his own colleagues did that was presented to the Premier recently, which tells about their lack of direction, how they fought free trade and lost, how they are fighting Sunday shopping -- I thought it was an excellent time for the House leader just to get up today and say: “We’re withdrawing this legislation. We’re convinced. The opposition parties have done such a good job of putting the facts before us that we are persuaded that we should not proceed.”

They do not have to do that, as I said earlier. They do not have to do that. Come 1991, or whenever the Premier calls the next election, we can do it then. They can wait for that inevitability, if they like, but it would be nice if they just kind of listened to the people whom they are elected to represent. They should withdraw it today, and let’s get on with some important business, something that is not affecting the lives of everyone out there, so many of whom have spoken to them and said, “We don’t want it.” I repeat, we don’t want it -- the members of the opposition party and the people they represent.

Things cannot be that much different in the riding of Huron. They cannot be that much different. They must be telling that to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but he may have his poor ear turned their way. I do not know.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Because we are being honest. We’re telling them what the bill is. You people aren’t. We’re telling them what the bill is all about. Maybe it’s time you people started levelling.

Mr. McCague: We are telling them all about everything.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Once you tell them what the bill is about, they are quite happy with a Sunday closing bill.

Mr. Philip: The Catholic bishops sure know what the bill is about.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Who is the next speaker over there?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Standing orders call for only one member at a time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on point of order: It is in the standing orders but I cannot remember and I wonder if you can clarify for me whether they say anything at all about a member interjecting while his mouth is full.

The Deputy Speaker: Interjections, whether your mouth is full or not, are out of order.

Mr. Jackson: Yes, but this time it is full of food.

Mr. McCague: I know that the member for Norfolk provided the food that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is eating. What are they, Delhi peanuts?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. McCague: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is being very provocative, and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you suggest to him that if he wants to say something, he can stand in his place and talk about this motion any time he so chooses. Maybe he would reserve his comments until I am finished. With those few short words, I am finished.

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

M. R. F. Johnston : Merci. Je suis fier...

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Second time around?

M. R. F. Johnston : Non, c’est la première fois que je parle... That is one of the problems in terms of this bill, I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Some of us who have been busy on other committees, who have had other responsibilities, other projets de loi to look after as our responsibilities as critics for the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and other things have not had a chance to speak on this bill.

The government is making sure that we are not going to get much of a chance to speak on this bill as well, so I am here to speak to the order, which is the adjourned debate on the government notice of motion 20, because that seems to be my one way of being able to address the issues around Sunday shopping that we, as members of this House, had been wanting to address for some time. I know most of the Liberal members have just been dying to leap into the fray here and get their words of wisdom on the record and explain to the people of the province why it is that their party promised one thing during an election and is now taking a totally different route and why it is betraying its past principles on this particular issue.

Mr. Miller: That is not true. Have you read the bill carefully?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have read both bills, and unfortunately, it looks like Bill 114, which I --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Am I being lured into a discussion with an interjector?

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I apologize if I allowed that to happen.

The Deputy Speaker: You will address your remarks through the Speaker and ignore the interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Norfolk and the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) have both been here for some considerable time, longer than myself. I bow to their accumulated wisdom on such procedural matters as that which is before us as they, as I have heard in their interjections to the past speaker, tried to make a very important distinction between closure or the act of guillotining the rights of the opposition and a quieter sort of motion of time allocation, which makes it sound so much more genteel, as if all we are doing is in fact putting down specific language about the amount of time in which the opposition members will have a chance to express themselves and their opposition to a particular point of view.

1640

Mr. Haggerty: How was your trip down south? You’ve got a good colour.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will have to ignore that because I would say to the member that it is always dangerous to raise matters of where members have been and I would rather not go into the details of that at this point.

I would say to the member that the colour of one’s skin at one time or another is not an issue. What is at issue is the nature of a promise by a government during an election and how that gets retracted once it gets a majority and feels invulnerable. That is what is at issue here.

It is the kind of thing that would have enraged the Minister of Agriculture and Food when he was once a member of the opposition sitting not three seats away from where I am at this point. It would have got him into high dudgeon about the arrogant Tory governments of the past, say in the 1981 period. Maybe some of us can remember some of the debate at that time when, for the first time in this House, the notion of time allocation, that sweet-sounding alternative to closure, was announced by a Progressive Conservative government. I well remember, as has been recorded by other speakers here, how the current government House leader led the fight for the Liberals of the day in this House, attacking the very notion that we should move towards this thing called “time allocation,” this means of curtailing, by a large majority, the actions of the minority within a parliament.

Mr. Miller: We really didn’t want to do it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hear from the member for Norfolk that the government really did not want to do this, but it not only has done what the Tories used to do, but even improved on it. Even the Tories did not have the gall to bring in time allocation on two bills at once, one bill which has only been dealt with in a very perfunctory fashion before a committee, let alone had any discussion at all in this House. I am speaking about Bill 114, to which there has been very little attention addressed as yet by any members of this House, because the primary concentration has been on Bill 113.

Unlike even the Tories, whom the government decried in 1982 for bringing in time allocation at that time and inflicting that particular parliamentary procedure on this House and assembly, this government has actually gone one step further. I regret that the Speaker of the House has concurred that the government has the right to bully this House in that kind of fashion.

So we have the preposterous situation whereby, even if it wanted to make the argument that Bill 113 has had sufficient discussion and that 63 days is appropriate, from the government’s majority view about the rights of the opposition, it cannot possibly make that argument around Bill 114. It has had merely -- I am speaking directly to you, Mr. Speaker, even though I am looking at the camera, because my profile is not as good as the straight-on, flat look on my face. I want you to know that I am speaking directly to you.

But the government has basically now said that it will even curtail legislative debate on a bill which has had almost no discussion at all in a committee and has had no discussion whatsoever in this chamber, because the government determines that it is a companion bill.

I would suggest to the government that while Bill 113 deals with this question of the right to shop, which stores can be open and how municipalities will decide, and has rightfully taken the brunt of the interest of that committee, Bill 114, which would deal with the after-effect of passing this legislation and gives no protection at all to retail workers who will now be forced, community by community, to start working on Sundays on a regular basis, deserves major consideration and withdrawal.

The government may proceed as it is going to and use its large majority to batter the opposition’s point of view and the majority of the people of Ontario’ s point of view, the majority of people who voted for the government in the last election, who believed that it meant it was going to stick with the status quo and just marginally improve that past legislation as the select committee of this House prior to that election had said. Even though the government is going to bring in that legislation, it is very dangerous, in my view, for it to bring forward a bill like Bill 114 to go along with it.

It is an inappropriate piece of legislation. It does not give any of the protections to workers that are needed if they are going to bring in this other draconian legislation to take away that one day of rest, that common pause day that this province holds very dear.

When I look at this notice of motion, as a member who has not been able to involve myself in this debate or to attend the committee hearings because of my other responsibilities here, but as a person who has been here for 10 years who represents a community that has expressed its point of view to me in a couple of riding reports stating, in a clear majority in each case, that it is opposed to extended Sunday shopping, I wanted a chance to speak at some length on this bill.

Yet I learn from this notice of motion that there shall be one sessional day 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 at the third reading stage, and that on that day they will take the votes accumulated, no matter how many there are, and members like myself are clearly not going to have a chance to try to convince the members of the Liberal Party that they should not be blindly following the party line at this stage but in fact should be very conscious of where the majority of the people in their communities lie on this particular issue, and that is, against the change of our present respect for a common pause day, even to the limited degree that we are able to enforce it now in Ontario.

It is a difficult thing at any time for a government to make a judgement as to when enough has been heard and that the fullest of debate has been had and that all members have had a chance to speak. I dare say, and other members of the House can correct me if I am wrong, no more than a handful of the 94 Liberals actually spoke on this. Other than those members who dealt with it in committee, has any member of the Liberal caucus actually had a chance to express his or her point of view on this?

Mr. Philip: One.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Have they even put forward their rationale for this amazing change which has taken place -- not only a change but a changed promise, going into an election stating a very particular point of view and then bringing in legislation which is counter to that point of view afterwards.

Only one. Only one out of 94.

Mr. Philip: The House leader.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The government House leader has spoken on this. What kind of abuse of the process of this assembly is that?

I suggest to the members that it may be that the committee took a long time, in the government’s view, 60-some days, to look at this issue; especially, as I said, the Bill 113 section of it. The government may have that perspective, but in terms of this House and how this House operates and what it is for -- that is, a forum for members who are elected by specific ridings to express the points of view of the people who have elected them -- the members have not had that chance. They have had that taken away from them in an abhorrent abuse of their power, a restriction to one day of time allocation.

The member for Niagara South, who has since left, said in an exchange in the past that in the old days, with closure, it would be brought in the middle of the night and things were done in that fashion.

I really ask the members: In substance, what is the difference in saying we are going to have one day for all of them, any of those Liberal members, to be able to express themselves on these two pieces of legislation, or members like myself who have not had a chance to participate in this process to involve themselves, when we know that the tradition here will be that those who have been most active in the committee will be the ones who rise and speak for the parties on that day and the time will end with the vast majority of us never having expressed ourselves in this Legislature at all?

This is not time allocation; this is closure.

Mr. Miller: We have faith in the bill.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, it is not just a matter of faith in the bill, because --

Mr. Miller: We can make a decision --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) again is provoking me and, through you, I will respond to his challenge.

It is not just a matter of having faith in it. He should have the right to be able to express himself in this House, other than through interjection. If he thinks the government’s position on this is so great, then the standing orders do not allow him, in fact, to make that point of view of his known through interjection, even though that is what he has been reduced to. The standing orders allow them to rise from their seats, in proper rotation, and express themselves, and they have not had a chance to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is impossible, it is completely impossible for more than a tiny number of your caucus to express themselves in the time that your government has decided is appropriate for the allocation for third reading.

None of them participated in second reading that I can recall. Correct me if I am wrong again, but I do not recall anybody talking at second reading. Most of them were not involved in the committee hearings at all. They had other responsibilities -- the perpetual pursuit of parliamentary assistantships, for example. They have not had a chance now on third reading and their own government has cut that out.

1650

If it were a matter of saying that, for some reason or other, it was absolutely crucial for us to be out of this House and doing other matters by the end of next week, that would be one matter. I am on a committee that is scheduled to travel after that point and that could be an argument that is being made. In point of fact, I learned from my House leader today that the government has now come forward with at least two new pieces of legislation.

One brand-new piece of legislation for the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) is going to be introduced, and she wants some part of it passed before we rise from this place. We also have the health services act. The Ministry of Health is now going to be brought on to our table as well, so we will be extended for at least another week, one would presume, disrupting easily half the committees of this Legislature and the work they are doing.

The argument that this is necessary so we can get out and do our business is poppycock. Instead the government wants to bring forward, for instance, a health services act, knowing that there is no committee for it to go to. All the committees that can sit are already booked to sit, have already been agreed to by the various House leaders.

It cannot be dealt with during the interim at all. There is no need to bring it in. For the Minister of Housing to insult this House by suggesting that she should be coming in with legislation now at this point and demanding passage of certain parts of that before we rise is an affront to me as an opposition member and an example of incompetence by the executive council of this province, in terms of knowing what it wants to get through and how it is going to order its business.

It is a slap in the face when added to this notice of motion that wants to give us one day to discuss two important bills, on one of which, Bill 113, the government has reversed its position; and on the other, Bill 114, there has been virtually no discussion of the labour relations aspect, the impact that bill is going to have on the people of Ontario.

This is not the time to deal with the substance of legislation. I am here to speak to a motion that is before me and I regret that because of it I will very likely not be able to speak in the coming debate when we have the one day to deal with the bills.

Governments bring in closure for a number of reasons. They bring in closure when in fact they are truly being stifled by an opposition stopping legislation for which they have a mandate. Any government, whether it was New Democratic, Progressive Conservative or Liberal, would always need to have that goal.

But another situation in which they do it, and that is what is happening here, is when they are getting too much heat; when they have changed their position, when they do not have a public mandate yet have a majority, when in fact they are bringing forward legislation which is the opposite to that which they asked for when they went to the people for a mandate, and when they are tired of having that being said to them publicly in the House and want that legislation to be out there and quietened down for a long period of time before another election so they are not caught with the hypocrisy of a position such as that.

In my view, that is what the government is doing at the moment. It is taking a position which is counter to that which it promised. It is not giving clear parliamentary debate for Bill 114, which needs to be debated. It is doing that because it is embarrassed about its current flip-flop and wants this issue to go away.

Regrettably, the very nature of what the government has done with this legislation means it will not go away. This whole approach it has taken guarantees that it will be very much an issue going into the next election. It may have gone into effect entirely in Metropolitan Toronto and it may all be open Sunday shopping before the next election, or it may be that one or two municipalities have held out as we go into the next election and there are people in each of those areas, whether it is Scarborough or North York, who will be saying: “Why is this so? This is unjust. It’s unfair to our businesses. It’s unfair to the way we want to operate as workers.”

They will come forward at that time and they will chastise the government for it. This is not going to go away. The government’s change in position, its turnabout on this is going to come back to haunt it, whether it brings in closure of this sort or it does not.

Mr. Miller: We can make a decision --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am being heckled and I missed it.

Mr. Miller: This is not Sunday opening; this is Sunday closing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You don’t believe that any more than we do.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West is the only one who has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Gosh, you are a lovely talker, Mr. Speaker. I do love it when you say those things.

I will close my remarks by saying that in the 10 years I have been here, there have been only a few dramatic utilizations of this benign approach to closure known as time allocation. I never believed that democrats -- as I presumed both the Premier and the House leader to be, when they attacked as viciously as they did in 1982 the beginning of this approach -- would ever come forward with a new angle on it all.

That is to say, they are not just bringing a closure on one bill which has had 63 days of hearings, but they are actually bringing in closure on a second bill which has had virtually two days of hearings and no discussion in this Legislature and which will affect the employment standards of all those people who are now going to be forced by their legislation over the next number of years to work on Sundays.

That is something I would never have expected Liberals to have done, and certainly would not have expected some of the democrats among the Liberals on that side to have brought forward at this time, just for the convenience of the executive council of this province at the moment.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased that this is my first opportunity to speak on the issue of closure of the debate on the two pieces of Sunday shopping legislation. I would like to echo the sentiment of my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) that it is not easy for all members of the opposition to divide themselves between their busy schedules and legislative duties. But we do believe it is essential, when an opposition member wishes to rise in the House and convey the concerns of his constituents, that in no way should that process be limited or inhibited.

I think I am concerned, as a relatively new legislator of only four years’ duration in this House, that I am listening to debate on the part of two opposition parties and I am listening to interjections from the governing party on this issue, and I think Shakespeare summed it up when he said, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

I expressed some concern to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, because at a critical moment in parliamentary history in this province, in fact in the last session when there was minority government, not a single piece of legislation could be passed, not a single parliamentary activity could be passed, without the agreement and support of at least one other political party. That is unlike today where the government, with its massive majority, can do whatever it wishes. A form of closure was presented in the last parliament, and it needed the support not just of the governing Liberal party, but also of the third party, the New Democratic Party.

It is interesting, and I would like to speak briefly from Hansard of June 19, 1986. The debate was on the now-famous Bill 94, which is one of many things that have led to the problems associated with our health care system. At that time the Leader of the Opposition, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), said:

“We are faced with a choice today. I take pride in the fact that we have consistently been the ones to say to the Liberal Party, ‘This is the next step you are going to take.’ If this is what it takes to get this bill through, then we are prepared to see that it gets done.”

Closure was an element of convenience in that debate. I am not suggesting that this type of conflict of principle, this reversal, is exclusively in the purview of the New Democratic Party. It would be wrong for me to say that. All political parties have invoked closure of one form or another, but what is disturbing for me, as a legislator, is that its frequency in this country and in this province is what is at stake.

1700

I guess it is disturbing that when a government has that massive majority it uses it in such a fashion as the member for Scarborough West has indicated, in that it told the public of Ontario that it supported a common pause day and it ran an election on the promise that it would preserve and protect the elements of restricted access Sunday shopping.

I am concerned when members of the Liberal Party in Ottawa, after having had an election run on the issue where all political parties advanced their positions --

interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Burlington South is the only one who has the floor. All members will respect the standing orders. The member for Burlington South may continue.

Mr. Jackson: In fact, it was during the federal debate on closure on free trade. I want to suggest that free trade was subjected to a national election, a referendum of the people, with the facts clearly before them with all three mainstream political parties taking their position in a public fashion.

The Prime Minister of this country agreed to a leaders’ debate on the subject and even the defeated Leader of the Opposition admitted at the end that the conclusion was that the public had spoken and that the public’s wishes should be respected. That, I submit to members, is sorely absent from the circumstances here in Ontario surrounding Sunday shopping.

That is why I am concerned when members of the Liberal Party, in fact a former Liberal member of this Legislature, Don Boudria, stated in the House his opinion on the processes of closure and time allocation. He said:

“Let me speak briefly to the acceptability of the motion proposed by the government. The minister promised to speak to the procedures and promised to demonstrate the precedents making this motion acceptable. I submit the minister has done neither. First, he spoke about a variety of things, some of which had nothing to do with that procedure, and more importantly, he promised that he would demonstrate the acceptability of the motion based on parliamentary precedents. He admitted later that his motion was deficient. He chose to add further assurances to the House, hoping that it would satisfy the deficiencies that are in the motion offered to us.”

I submit that the government may as well have heard the same speech here in Ontario from the opposition because the Speaker’s ruling was clearly deficient and we still hold by that position.

I am further interested in comments made by a member, John Nunziata, affectionately referred to as the mouth from York South, who in federal Hansard states very clearly:

“The motion of the government would result in a very serious and marked departure from the rules of this House. I would submit to you, sir, that you ought to consider in the circumstances what the extenuating circumstances are that would warrant such a serious departure from the rules of this House.”

He went on to say, “I would ask you to take into consideration the rights of newly elected members of this Parliament and, as you know, approximately 130 members of the House are newly elected.” In other words, the new members did not participate in this debate previously.

This House is full of new members, virtually all of whom are Liberals. Virtually all of them campaigned in the last election as they were told to do, to take a position in support of the statement of the Premier that a common pause day would be upheld and respected. That is what they campaigned on. Now that that position has changed, they are surprisingly absent from this debate. Yet their Liberal colleague in the House of Commons is pleading with the government there to allow all of these new Liberal members an opportunity to state their concerns and their convictions as articulated by their constituents.

We have heard from the government House leader as the only official spokesperson for the government in this matter in this debate. Many of us who wish to discuss the issue of closure separate from Sunday shopping are looking for some hope that at least more Liberal members would feel impelled to participate in the debate and to speak their conscience.

I think what is concerning us is that this is a whipped vote, in spite of their protests against it, and therefore it is a whipped silence. When there is an imposed silence, an imposition by one government leader on his caucus, he has badly denied access in this House to a serious and balanced debate.

Therefore, it is inappropriate for that same government to turn and say to the opposition, which is prepared to stand and debate the issue -- it is wrong for it to inhibit and close with a time allocation our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents. We did articulate our position in the election, we were duly elected and we are still hearing concerns that are not being allowed to be raised in this House.

I had an opportunity to serve and listen on the committee that travelled this province, the third and final committee. I was shocked and amazed that after two weeks of the hearings that I heard, only one person came forward who was even modestly interested in supporting the legislation. I thought the government would have scared up some support.

The fact remains that there are still elements of that public dialogue which have not been fully discussed and examined by the government of the day. I have an opinion that bad legislation, by definition, is legislation that says one thing and does something exactly opposite or different. Clearly, there are elements of this legislation which give rise to that concern.

I have, for example, a concern that the government states that no retail operator in a mall will be forced to vacate his premises or turn away from his business as a result of this legislation. In cross-examination and documented evidence, when we interviewed Cadillac Fairview, it indicated that clearly it was possible for a retailer to be separated from his lease before its expiry date because he failed to open on a Sunday. Now that was documented.

It has to do with the fact that we have escalator clauses in our leases in malls in this province. If a retail tenant does not earn enough income during a period of time, then he is forced to leave by virtue of not attaining a certain income level, because the landlord gets a percentage of that profit.

The landlord says this does not constitute a ground for dismissal. He says it is because his profit picture is not positive and that is why he is being asked to leave. The truth is that if Sunday becomes a more active business day and the tenant chooses, for religious or any other reason, to keep his doors closed, he will suffer the financial penalty and be forcibly and financially evicted from a mall residence.

That has been clearly exposed to the government, yet the government persists and insists that small business in those circumstances is not at risk. The government has buried its head in the sand on this issue. I ask all members of the governing party who have their constituency offices in malls if they themselves are going to keep their mall offices open because of the imposition of the mall environment of staying open on Sundays.

The second area which I believe has not been fully exposed and discussed is the fact that this government, through its leader the Premier, is able to clearly state that it has no opinion on whether wide-open Sunday shopping will be bad or good for this province. The Premier is very careful on that point. On the other hand, the Premier has a very clear opinion that the municipal option does not equal wide-open Sunday shopping.

The selective opinions of the Premier are cause for considerable concern, because as we have established through the media and the public, it is clear that the script, as it were, for the government members is to support the assumptions and assertions of this Premier on this subject. I have had occasion to meet with members of this House for breakfast or luncheon or socially and I know many of them have opinions that differ from the government’s. I know that those different opinions exist, so it strikes me as odd that the only opportunity we have had to hear those opinions has been through interjections in this House and quite frankly during question period when there was a considerable amount of interjection as well.

1710

That is why, near the end of the committee hearings on Sunday shopping, I called upon this government to send one of its committees -- which was actually on its way to New Brunswick to study opposition-free legislatures -- I asked this government if it would consider sending several of its representatives to the public hearings in that province. The Liberal government of New Brunswick, faced with no opposition, was conducting public hearings to move away from a local option approach for wide-open Sunday shopping. They were moving clearly in the direction of a tourist exemption, because they realized that the experience in New Brunswick was clear, that local option equals wide-open Sunday shopping.

We have Frank McKenna and his new Liberal government, who in his throne speech made references to wide-open government, throwing open the windows of power for everyone to see there were no doors, no bars, that they had an open government, making a statement strangely similar to the one we had gotten from this Premier four years ago when he ascended to power.

I was disturbed and upset that this government would not even accept an opportunity, when a legislative committee was in the province at taxpayers’ expense, to drive even a couple of streets or a couple of miles to the public hearings in that province and come back at least with the model of the legislative reforms being brought in by a massive majority Liberal government in this country. Instead, what have we gotten? Closure. Why? Does the government fear the truth? Does it fear the polls?

Mr. Mahoney: If it was closure, you couldn’t be speaking.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased that the member for Mississauga West has seen fit at least to utter a two-word interjection. We hope that he would engage in this debate in a more meaningful way. I know that the member’s campaign literature clearly stated his support for the position the opposition is taking.

Mr. Mahoney: What?

Mr. Jackson: You didn’t support the Premier in the last election. How on earth did you ever get elected?

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his remarks to the Speaker and ignore the interjections, of course.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Jackson: I have registered my dismay at this legislation, primarily the fact that it does not do what it suggests it will do, and I consider that bad legislation. Although I may have developed opinions before I saw the legislation, after the process of public hearings I certainly came away with an understanding that it was bad legislation.

The questions remain unanswered. Hopefully, with this forum in this House and the opportunity for all members to share equally in the debate with as open a mind as is possible for all of us, we would have been able to amend and improve, particularly in the areas of the complications for the labour force in this province and, as we have indicated and established in the practice of escalator clauses, where it will force a repressive move on small business in mall environments. It is clear that will happen. Certainly, the interests of the large chains will be better served and the interests of small business will not be served.

I could go on. I have many more concerns. I have tabled petitions. I have participated in public debates, certainly during the course of the last election. But today I wanted to put on the record my regret that a government has resorted to closure of convenience through time allocation and that most Liberals sit in deaf silence waiting for the next cue from the Premier as to where they stand on this issue. We would hope that all members reflect on what has happened when they surrender their voice of reason and their arguments in this House. If we do not have any defence when closure is imposed on us, if we have no defence against the government’s ability to change the rules for its convenience, then I ask what defence, if any, do we have as publicly elected representatives.

Mr. Charlton: I rise to speak on this government notice of motion with some anger and some frustration in my system -- my political system I suppose it has become.

We have heard a number of my colleagues, specifically the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) last week, and some of the other members who have participated in this debate, read into the record a number of quotes from Hansard, many of them from the government House leader, some from the present Treasurer and some from the Premier himself during debates in 1982 and 1983 on the question of time allocation.

I should point out to the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) that his colleagues from the Liberal caucus who were present at that time and took part in those debates referred to those time allocation motions as closure in the same way that members of the opposition refer to them as closure here this week.

I think in this debate we need, first of all, some understanding of what brought us to the point we are at with this time allocation motion.

I have listened to the Premier, the government House leader and some of the government members, through interjections, talk about the amount of time that has been wasted on Bills 113 and 114.

I want to say to all of the government members that the very fact that we are even dealing with this legislation and that we have wasted vast amounts of legislative time over the course of the last year on Bills 113 and 114 is a reflection of the bankruptcy of this government; that it has nothing better to do with its lime than to deal with these kinds of legislation.

I find myself getting angry when I hear the government House leader saying that they have to move time allocation so we can get on with other important business. He is trying to sell a crock to the people of Ontario. It is the government party, the majority party in this House, which orders the business of this House, not the opposition parties.

The government party orders the business of this House, and the government of this province is at liberty to deal with any business it so wishes. The government party in this House is not obliged to bring forward the two pieces of legislation which it knows the opposition is going to oppose in every way that it can until the other business it wishes to deal with has been completed.

So let us not hear from the government any more about how the opposition to Bills 113 and 114 is holding up other important business. That is the choice of the government, not of the opposition benches, and it is part of the procedural scam which we have been through before and which we are going through again here now.

1720

I think back to the debates in 1982 and 1983, and I am not going to do as my colleagues have done, start reading all kinds of quotes from those debates into Hansard here today, but what I would like to do is discuss the difference between those allocation debates and the one we are having here today.

My party and the Liberal Party, at the time the official opposition, opposed those time allocation motions. Having said that, I have to give credit to the former government, now the third party, for having at least seriously considered the importance of the measures around which it felt it necessary to bring in time allocation.

I listened to my colleague the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) earlier this afternoon. I think he spoke somewhat shyly when he tried to compare the two occasions and the two debates around time allocation. Whether or not we in the third party at the time, in 1982, or the Liberals in the official opposition felt that the bill to restrict wages in the public sector was a necessity, the government had committed itself to a program and had to find a way to implement that program and did it very carefully, in a very seriously considered way.

I remember the trepidation with which the government of the day moved into that particular phase of the debate around, I guess it was Bill 179 or Bill 187, whatever it was. At any rate, the debate was a debate of significant importance, and time allocation was only brought in on a very important matter after very considerable effort on the part of the opposition parties to stall that legislation.

In this circumstance in 1989, having run through most of 1988 we have a situation where we have a piece of legislation which the vast majority of the public in Ontario opposes and where the municipalities, upon whom the result of this legislation is going to be imposed, oppose the legislation. We have a government that is supposed to be electorally accountable ignoring those whom it is supposed to be responsible to, and we have an opposition doing its best to bring some accountability to bear.

As one of the other speakers earlier this afternoon said, there is no pressure anywhere in this province to see this legislation passed by closure. It is more the other way. In fact, there is serious sentiment right across this province that the Legislature is wasting its time considering these bills at all.

I have to reflect. I think back just a few weeks when the Premier stood in his place in this House and referred to Bill 113 as an exercise in democracy. I guess that is one of the things that happens when you get as large a majority as the Premier has achieved in this province in the last election. You go beyond being an elected Premier and become the regal head of state who decides what is best for his subjects, regardless of their opposition and regardless of their protests. He will impose this democratic procedure on the municipalities of Ontario whether they like it or not, whether it will work or not, because he is right and no amount of opposition can tell him he is wrong.

Let’s take a brief look at the two bills that this time allocation motion deals with. Bill 113 is a piece of legislation which, if you sat down and debated it with somebody like the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), somebody who is normally very learned and very competent in terms of the law, all of a sudden he would have great difficulty, because this is a piece of legislation which internally is in conflict; internally it is a contradiction.

On the other hand, perhaps, having said it is internally torn, we have a piece of legislation which is perhaps very skilfully crafted. We have a bill that toughens up the provincial regulation on Sunday shopping, as long as it is left in the provincial domain. We have a piece of legislation that, when it passes, before any municipalities have an opportunity to opt out of it and create bylaws that exempt certain categories of property from it, will force a number of commercial enterprises in this province that presently are open, legally open, on Sundays under the present Retail Business Holidays Act -- hundreds of those establishments -- to close under the new provincial regulations in it.

We have also got a piece of legislation that, while it toughens up the provincial perspective on Sunday shopping on the one hand, creates this local option. The municipalities, or in the case of the regional areas of this province the regional governments, have the option of opting out of the legislation, creating their own bylaws; bylaws which can create any rules that their hearts desire, anything at all with no restrictions.

We have a situation where, as I have said, hundreds and hundreds of commercial operations in Ontario that presently are open legally on Sundays will be forced to close under this bill when it passes. What have we done? We have created the automatic lobby to start the opting-out process.

All of those commercial establishments that get closed by this piece of legislation when it passes will be the businesses that go to their local municipalities or to their regional governments and start the process of lobbying those governments to opt out, to pass a bylaw that exempts them so they can remain open as they have been in the past.

The municipalities will have no choice but at least to consider those requests. These are commercial operations that have existed in their municipalities; they have employed people on Sundays. The municipalities will be forced to take a careful look at those requests. But we all know what happens when this matter gets referred to one of the municipal committees for consideration. The others in the municipalities, those who are not now open on Sundays but would like to be open on Sundays, will be jumping on that bandwagon and putting their additional requests before that committee.

Some municipalities will fight off the temptation and make little or no changes, at least initially, but some municipalities will pass bylaws that exempt certain categories of businesses from this new act, Bill 113. When that happens, the members know what will happen in the municipality or region next door.

1730

The member who spoke before me was the member for Burlington South from the region of Halton. I and my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), who is also here today, are from the next abutting region, Hamilton-Wentworth. If our region or if Halton passes a bylaw exempting certain categories of business from this bill, the other will be forced to consider at least the same.

What will be the temptation in that circumstance? If Halton creates a five-point exemption, then Hamilton-Wentworth will be forced to consider at least that same five-point exemption. But the temptation in that circumstance will be to say: “Let’s go Halton two better. Let’s go for a seven-point exemption,” because that will give Hamilton-Wentworth a little bit of a competitive edge.

What are we going to get into? We are going to get into the municipalities and the regional governments of this province creating laws by competition; not laws by representative -- good, well-thought-out local policy -- but competitive laws as each of those municipalities seeks that elusive competitive advantage.

The government says that is not what is going to happen. My colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), when he was speaking earlier this afternoon, said it was not going to happen overnight, and it will not happen instantly, the day after Bill 113 passes. It will be a bump and grind process over a number of years, but it will surely lead to a situation where we will have to review it, as New Brunswick is presently reviewing it, 10 or 15 years down the road.

We will be reviewing that situation because we are not going to like the mess we will have created out there. We are not going to like the competitive way municipalities play each other off against the other. We are not going to like the way that from time to time the commercial enterprises in our own areas lose business because they are one bylaw behind the commercial enterprises in the municipality across the border.

We all know what the legislative process means. We all know that it takes time, that legislation does not get created and passed instantly. It is no different for the municipal and regional governments in this province. Each of them, as this process emerges, will go through cycles of benefit and cycles of disbenefit, none of which will make us ultimately happy.

Why is it that in addition to the public and religious opposition, and the trade unions’ and working people’s opposition to this legislation, even the vast majority of retailers in Ontario were not in favour of this kind of disjointed approach to Sunday shopping? Even those retailers who favour Sunday shopping would rather see the government of Ontario do it province-wide than go this local option route that creates the bump and grind of commercial politics at the local level.

Mr. Haggerty: You’ve got no confidence in the local councils. That’s what you’re saying.

Mr. Philip: The local councils have no confidence in you.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Charlton: I say to my friend that the local councils have no confidence in the government. They have told the government point-blank, clearly, that they do not want this legislation. The government is forcing it down their throats, treating them like babies and spoon-feeding them.

Mr. Philip: What does the member from Mississauga have to say about it?

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

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could move now for a few moments to Bill 114.

Bill 114, which is also covered by this time allocation motion, is a joke. I have heard a number of members comment on the bill this afternoon. I am going to take a slightly different tack.

Two weeks ago, I joined my colleague the member for Hamilton East in the Ministry of Labour estimates in the standing committee on general government. We had the opportunity for the first time to question the Minister of Labour directly on this piece of legislation. We never had that opportunity in the standing committee on administration of justice that dealt with the bill because he was not there, and we never had the opportunity in this House because he did not carry the bill here in this House.

First of all, I want to recommend to all the members on the Liberal side that they dig into their Hansards from the general government committee and look at the responses of the Minister of Labour to the questions we raised on Bill 114, because those responses substantiate everything we have said and everything the trade unions have said about the inadequacies of this piece of legislation.

The Minister of Labour in his own words said this bill does nothing to protect even retail workers. When we raised with him what will happen to a retail worker who refuses Sunday work, his response was that he will not have to work on Sundays until there is an arbitrated decision by the government, by the Ministry of Labour, on whether or not the employer’ s request for Sunday work was reasonable.

The bill then goes on to set out the criteria that will be looked at in that process. I want you to think about this, Mr. Speaker, and I would like your colleagues on the other side of the House to think about this as well. An employer applies to the government and sets out a proposal for Sunday work because an employee or employees have refused under Bill 114 to work on Sunday. The employer goes before a hearing that will arbitrate whether or not his request is reasonable.

If that hearing finds the employer’s request unreasonable, that hearing officer is going to set out in his decision the reasons why the employer’s request was unreasonable. That employer is then going to turn around and make a new proposal for Sunday work for his employees and the employees are again going to refuse Sunday work and there is going to be a second hearing a year later. But in this proposal for Sunday work, the employer is going to have dealt with all the reasons why the hearing officer said his original request was unreasonable and all those employees who thought they had won the right to refuse Sunday work are going to be working on Sundays.

The only thing Bill 114 does for them is to delay the inevitability of that fact. There is no protection, just a little breathing space, nothing more.

What is worse is that this government, this Minister of Labour, does not even understand what Sunday shopping means in Ontario. He gives us Bill 114, which specifically refers to retail workers and does not mention anybody else.

What about all those people who work in the malls, the mall maintenance people? They are not retail workers. They are not classed as retail workers. They have no protection. What about all those security people who work in the malls? They are not classed as retail workers. They have no protection under Bill 114. What about all the service companies that service the retail stores? Those employees are not classed as retail employees and those employees have no protection under Bill 114.

What about all the employees of the companies that maintain the equipment of the commercial operations, the cash registers, the accounting machines and so on? They have service contracts with those stores but those employees are not retail employees. They are service employees who work for NCR Corp. or whatever the name of the company happens to be, and they have no protection under Bill 114 because they are not even mentioned.

1740

Who is it the government has protected? It does not even understand what Sunday shopping is going to mean in the other sectors that support the commercial retail sector in Ontario. It has ignored all those people totally. Then it wonders why we are fighting this kind of legislation to the last straw, and it wonders why, if it wants to get it through, it has to bring in time allocation. The reason is it is bad legislation. It does not do what it says it is going to do, and it does not do for those it has not even taken into consideration what it professes to do for the retail workers.

Time allocation motions, which amount in the words of the government House leader to closure, are motions that should never be brought without very serious reserve on the part of the government that brings them. I am going to have to suggest that not only has this government not seriously considered the ramifications of using time allocation in a trivial situation like this one to force through bad legislation, legislation which ultimately is going to come back to haunt it, but that it certainly has not considered it as carefully as I give credit to its predecessor for doing in 1982 and 1983.

Even though I opposed the time allocation legislation back then, I at least concede that the government of the day more seriously considered its application than this government and this government House leader have considered it here today.

I think there has been an agreement to vote about now, so I will end my remarks by saying that this party can never endorse the kind of bad, silly, unproductive legislation this government is about to force through this House. We will continue to do all we can do to make this government stop and think.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the government House leader wish to close the debate?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It has been a very interesting debate over several hours. I have had the pleasure of listening to my colleagues --

Mr. Philip: Where will all the Liberals be?

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- including my very good friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who has favoured us once again with his views on this matter. I really do not think it would be either useful or productive if I were to rethresh the straw of this debate now, some four and a half legislative days long.

I want to say simply in conclusion that I appreciate honourable members have taken the time to express their views yet again on this procedural matter. I repeat that what the government has sought to do with the introduction of government notice of motion 20 is simply this: to say that as a government we have put a very responsible new framework for the more efficient and more enforceable regulation of retail store hours before this assembly and the province.

My colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), ably assisted by her parliamentary assistant the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter), together with the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), have listened very carefully to what the some 200 presenters have said by way of their submissions as a result of that process. As a result of that process, a goodly number of amendments have been accepted to reflect the constructive criticism that has been offered by the people in this assembly and elsewhere across the province.

We want now, as we conclude the debate and take the question, to move this debate on to the next stage. The people of Ontario expect that we are going to get on with this business and with other business before the Legislature and before the province. In conclusion, I repeat that I thank honourable members for their submissions in response to government notice of motion 20 and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we as a government are quite prepared now to have the question taken.

1755

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Conway’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Beer, Black, Brown, Callahan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Kozyra, Leone, Lipsett, Mahoney, McGuinty, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Offer, O’Neil, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cureatz, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Mackenzie, McCague, Philip, E., Pollock, Runciman, Sterling, Wiseman.

Ayes 59; nays 21.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

30 janvier 1989