Journal des débats 1989-janv-31 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1989, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. That is signed by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

Mr. Farnan: On the evening of January 30, the League for Human Rights of B’nai B’rith Canada held our 14th annual Media Human Rights Awards dinner. These awards are “for alerting, informing and sensitizing the public to the nature and value of human rights and the ever-present danger of this erosion and for energetically and persistently bringing forth issues where human rights of individuals or groups are denied or in jeopardy.”

Awards are presented in the radio, print and television categories and the quality of work in each field is of the highest professional standard. More important, these media professionals challenge us to be ever alert to oppression and prejudice in whatever guise it may appear.

I want to recognize particularly the contribution made to human rights by Barbara Aggerholm and Luisa D’Amata, reporters with the Kitchener-Waterloo Record for their courageous series of articles entitled “Bigotry in Our Schools” and “The Search for Racial Harmony,” for which they received the honourable mention award in the print category. Their work is significant in demonstrating the potential for people at a very young age to be exposed to prejudice.

In accepting their award, they recognized the courage of the young children they interviewed in researching their series. However, the courage of Barbara Aggerholm and Luisa D’Amata must also be recognized. The region of Waterloo has been enriched by their presence and their significant contribution to human rights.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Pollock: Once again we on this side rise to illustrate to the House the crisis that exists in the Ontario health care system. I refer to an article from the Belleville Intelligencer regarding the Belleville General Hospital where routinely patients are required to spend up to 24 hours on a stretcher in hallways because no rooms are available. Such waits come about in part because 25 per cent of the beds in Belleville hospital are occupied by people in chronic care beds who should be in nursing homes. Waiting lists for virtually every nursing home in the area are already long, and the Ministry of Health has indicated that there appears to be no relief in sight until well into the 1990s.

I have contacted the former Minister of Health and the current minister in regard to establishing a nursing home in the village of Tweed. Currently, 20 per cent of the residents of the village of Tweed and surrounding townships are senior citizens. The Tweed and Area Community Care Group has been tireless in its efforts to see a nursing home built in the village. Clearly, the construction of such a facility would free up much-needed beds in BGH and meet a serious shortcoming in the village.

It appears to me that in view of the situation at Belleville General Hospital, many initiatives must be forthcoming.

JEAN AUGUSTINE

Mr. Faubert: I rise to commend Jean Augustine on an encouraging start as she works towards fulfilling her mandate as chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

Ms. Augustine has already garnered unanimous board approval for a 14-point plan to tackle some of the pressing problems. A sweeping antidrug program has been implemented, calling for more policing, beefed-up security, a drug education program and the eviction of those caught dealing drugs. This get-tough program will help alleviate the supply and the demand for drugs in MTHA buildings. Other Augustine initiatives include improving the management of the agency, improving relations with tenants and regenerating Metro housing projects, all of which she has visited since her appointment.

I have had the pleasure to meet and work with Ms. Augustine in my previous capacity as co-chairman of Scarborough’s Committee on Community and Race Relations and as chairman of the National Action Committee on Race Relations. She was vital in the founding of the Etobicoke Multicultural Residents Committee, and her experience in the race relations field will certainly be an asset in her new post.

Jean Augustine always has been committed to assisting the disadvantaged in their struggle for a better life. Her own life story is indeed inspiring to those who would consider themselves disadvantaged. I am confident that her personal experiences, her dedication and commitment to community building, as well as her team approach to problem-solving will enable her to successfully fulfil her mandate. I commend the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) on what already looks to be an outstanding appointment.

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

Mr. Allen: Yesterday, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) and I pleaded the case of the Cambridge and District Association for the Mentally Retarded as one of many transfer institutions that get money from the government which determines their salary levels. As a result, their salary levels are falling behind those of equivalent workers who are directly employed by the ministry.

The problem at the heart of this issue is that the ministry workers are able to bargain with respect to arbitrated settlements down the road, whereas those in the transfer agencies bargain under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The result is that the ministry’s transfers can be relatively ignored in the bargaining process within the ministry but they cannot be in the transfer agencies.

As has been written recently, the denial of responsibility by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) in this respect violates an important arbitration ruling in 1976 by Kevin Burkett, who ruled that workers must be assured that their concerns and demands do not fall on deaf ears because decisions which determine the course of bargaining, indeed the end result, have been made prior to bargaining by persons who have no involvement in the process, namely, the minister and the ministry and the transfer percentages that they give to the one agency.

The minister, in writing to me about this problem, suggested that he had a solution. He said moving towards community-based delivery services would solve the problem.

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

Mr. Allen: All that would do is remove the gap by consolidating all your services at the low end of the wage gap.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Cousens: It happened last year, it happened the year before and it is happening again right now in the town of Markham and York region: overcrowding of schools. Each year, the problem comes back. It rears its ugly head because the people in York region keep moving into the community and they expect and they demand the services that they are paying for with their taxes.

Once again, I stand in this House and ask the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) to start thinking about the needs of our children.

In Markham, 700 people attended a meeting in a high school last week because of their children’s overcrowding in Brother André Catholic Secondary School. They are meeting again tonight at the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board to present their petition to the board asking for help.

1340

The number of students is 1,500 this year; next year it will be 2,200, and the year after that it will be 2,700. They need a new high school, and people know that what happens when you do not have proper accommodation is that the quality of education goes down.

We, as a community, demand more than we are getting. The board of education is trying its best. It will present its figures to the ministry, but I want the ministry to really know that it just cannot slough it aside. They have to put the money where it counts, in the classrooms for the children.

They are our coming generation; they need the help of this government. They do not need promises. We need money and we need that invested now for their education.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. McGuigan: It has been very popular lately for the opposition to criticize our health care system because of shortages, delayed operations, etc. It is true that there are delays of some surgical procedures leading to complications that we all truly regret. I sympathize with these individuals and their families.

I also sympathize with the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson). It is a real feat to be financially responsible without defeating the tax system and at the same time provide so much more money to the areas where it is needed most and face the opposition demands for more.

I want to rise today to congratulate our health care system on behalf of Bill McMurren, a constituent in my riding who wrote to us recently. Mr. McMurren’s son was the benefactor of a very gruelling but apparently successful operation. It was performed by Dr. Chakravarthi and lasted a total of 24 hours in two 12-hour sessions.

I believe in our health care system and in our health care providers, and I know Mr. McMurren believes in Dr. Chakravarthi and his dedicated surgical team at Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph Hospital in Windsor.

TVONTARIO

Mr. Farnan: I am in receipt of a letter from Gail Marian, who is the chairman of the TVOntario Action Committee for Renfrew County. Her group is requesting a transmitter to serve the residents of Renfrew county and provide access to TVOntario.

Their community is sparsely populated and predominately rural, which makes television an attractive means of bringing culture, education, information and entertainment to those who are unable on a regular basis to leave their homes or communities to visit larger centres. It affects the elderly, shut-ins and children. They need television which is thought provoking and addresses today’s social issues; in a word, they need TVOntario.

It is time the government responded and put an end to the 18 long years of anticipation of the residents of Renfrew county by supporting a TVOntario transmitter.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION / PROTECTION DU LOGEMENT LOCATIF

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I rise today to inform the House of the government’ s plans with respect to the Rental Housing Protection Act.

Before announcing the details of the new legislation, I would like to outline for members the background behind the bill.

In 1986, this government addressed an issue of fundamental importance to all residents of Ontario, the preservation of our rental housing stock. At the time, it had become apparent that the stock of rental housing in the province was rapidly being depleted. This was particularly true of affordable rental housing located in large municipalities. Conversions, demolitions and similar activities were removing rental housing at an alarming rate.

In response, the government brought forward the Rental Housing Protection Act, legislation which placed restrictions on those activities for a period of two years.

Last April, three months before the act was scheduled to expire, I extended the act for an additional year to allow for consultations on permanent legislation.

En même temps j’avais présenté un document de travail intitulé « La Loi sur la protection du logement locatif : directions à venir », qui proposait deux plans d’action pour l’avenir : soit d’abroger la loi et de prendre d’autres mesures, soit de modifier la loi et de garder les contrôles avec certaines améliorations.

Au cours des neuf derniers mois, l’adjoint parlementaire du ministère du Logement (le député de York Mills, M. J. B. Nixon) a tenu de nombreuses discussions avec des organisations de propriétaires, des groupes de locataires et des représentants municipaux.

In reviewing all the submissions which were made on this issue, three important factors have become evident to me.

First, it is clear that the market conditions which prompted this government to implement the Rental Housing Protection Act in the first place have not changed to a significant degree. Vacancy rates remain low in most major urban centres and the demand for rental housing remains high at a time of heavy in-migration to Ontario.

Second, it is apparent that we must provide a legal framework to restrict those activities which reduce the stock of rental housing in the province.

Third, it is clear that the existing legislative framework has generally been successful in preventing a reduction in the rental housing stock. For example, in Metropolitan Toronto, only 74 units have been converted since July 1986. In the city of Ottawa only nine units have been converted since that time.

I am convinced that the government must provide permanent legislation to protect the stock of rental housing and the security of tenants in Ontario.

Today, I am introducing the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, to replace the current legislation and to provide more effective and permanent protection for the future.

This new legislation builds on the strengths of the current act and addresses its weaknesses. In that regard, one of the most serious weaknesses of the current act is that it does not apply to vacant buildings.

During the past two years, experience has shown that a rental building can become vacant quite easily, particularly smaller buildings and rooming houses. Unfortunately, in some cases, the means used to empty a building have involved harassment or the illegal eviction of tenants. Such practices cannot be allowed to continue.

Under the new act the same protection will be provided to vacant rental buildings as is provided to buildings with tenants. As well, the section of the new legislation dealing with vacant buildings will be retroactive to today.

This action is intended to protect vacant buildings during debates on the new legislation. I am notifying all municipalities in Ontario of this measure and I anticipate their full co-operation in protecting vacant buildings.

Meanwhile, the new legislation continues controls on activities which serve to reduce the stock of rental housing in the province. Municipal councils are required to approve any proposals to convert, demolish, renovate, sever or change the use of rental housing in Ontario.

The regulations made under this act will allow a municipal council to approve a proposal if one of three conditions has been met: the owner of the property provides accommodation for the current tenants and comparable rental housing at the same rents in the same area; or the building must be demolished or renovated because it has proved to be unsafe for human habitation; or the council believes the proposal will not adversely affect the supply of rental housing in the area.

This final condition is an important one, as it ensures the protection of all rental housing in the province, rather than just affordable rental housing which is protected in the current act.

The new legislation allows for the decision of a municipal council to be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Restrictions on the conversion of rental housing to a condominium apply to all rental buildings in all municipalities in the province.

Restrictions on the conversion of rental housing to a co-operative apply to rental buildings with more than four units in all municipalities in the province. Restrictions on renovations, demolitions and other such activities apply to rental buildings with more than four units which are located in a municipality with a population greater than 50,000.

At the same time, the new act also contains a number of measures that will enhance tenant protection and improve enforcement of the legislation. In cases of harassment, the act provides for the first time for fines or a jail term to be levied against those convicted of harassing tenants. As well, a municipal council may not approve any change to the use of a rental building for a period of three years in such instances.

Meanwhile, new enforcement measures in the act permit the courts to return any units converted without municipal approval back to rental use and to re-establish tenancies in those units.

In summary, the protection of the rental housing stock in Ontario is a matter of great importance to the government. In 1986, we brought forward legislation to halt the depletion of this resource. Today, market conditions are such that the removal of the Rental Housing Protection Act would, without doubt, result in the rapid removal of rental housing across the province.

The current act has proved to be successful in halting activities which reduce our stock of rental housing. With the improvements we have made to the legislation, I am confident that the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, will enable us to protect the security of tenants in Ontario and to ensure the future of rental housing stock in our province.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Elston: It was just about this time last year that I announced that the government of Ontario had implemented one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the province, namely, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As the minister responsible for the legislation, I pointed out to my honourable colleagues at the time that this act would have a profound effect upon how the government of Ontario provides information to the people of the province.

1350

I am pleased to report today that the second phase of this act went into effect on January 1 of this year. The act now covers 26 district health councils, 22 colleges of applied arts and technology, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Ontario municipal employees retirement system. Information sessions have been held for these organizations over the past year in order to ensure that requests under the act are processed accurately.

The third extension of the act, to local government, will occur on January 1, 1991. In all, some 3,000 organizations in local government will eventually be covered by this legislation.

At this time, I would also like to advise my colleagues that staff in my ministry’s freedom of information and privacy branch, in consultation with co-ordinators from ministries and agencies, have updated and revised the directories on general records and personal information prepared for the purposes of this legislation. These publications are used by the public to exercise its access rights under the act.

These directories describe the organization of ministries and agencies, along with descriptions of the records and personal data which they maintain. This year’s edition includes a number of new features. In addition to being available in both English and French, the 1989 directories offer expanded subject indices for easier reference, information on access procedures for the disabled and new chapters for those institutions covered by the act as of this month.

Copies of these books will be delivered to all members at their legislative offices. If additional copies are required for constituency offices, I encourage members to contact the freedom of information and privacy branch of my ministry. The 1989 directories are also available for reference in government offices and public libraries in the province or may be purchased at the Ontario Government Bookstore.

This government’s commitment to be accessible to the people of the province and to foster an atmosphere of openness and co-operation remains strong.

RESPONSES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Breaugh: I want to reply briefly to the statement by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). It is interesting, because today’s version of what the government wants to do with this particular bill is quite different from yesterday’s version of what the government wants to do. Yesterday, they were being very creative. They wanted us to amend an act that had not been passed yet, which would have been parliamentary history of the first order, quite creative. It would have been an interesting exercise just to try to do it. Today’s version, which we were not really privy to until the minister read her statement, is somewhat different from that.

For three years now, people have been waiting for this government to plug some very serious loopholes in this act. The tack the government wants to take with this is interesting. I think the most interesting part is the three firm principles upon which the minister is standing today. I think they are interesting because she has an expectation that the owner of a property will provide accommodation for current tenants at the same rents in comparable rental housing in the same area. That ought really to be an interesting exercise.

All she is doing is asking a landlord now to go out on his own and find similar accommodations at similar rents in the same area. In most of the places where the vacancy rate is less than one per cent, that truly should be a fascinating exercise. To tell the minister the truth, I would not want to bet a whole lot of money that this is a very practical thing to put forward.

The second point on which she is standing is that the building must be demolished or renovated because it is proven to be unsafe for human habitation. I suppose there she is probably thinking of all the landlords around Ontario who have simply removed the furnace and shut off the water and now all of those conditions make it uninhabitable. These are the things that they have already done and the minister is simply pointing out that, as long as they continue to do those things and the council believes that the proposal will not adversely affect the supply of rental housing in the area, it will be just fine.

In most of the areas where we have difficulties with this, the vacancy rate is less than one per cent. It cannot get a whole lot worse than less than one per cent, so it is not going to have much of an impact. It will be interesting to see what they have done after all of the meetings and all of the private hearings that the government has had with this bill. One of the things that we said last year, when the minister asked for a simple yearly extension, was we thought that was fine but we would like to see a little public discussion about this.

We thought that it would be interesting, for example, to refer the government’s policy paper to a standing committee of the Legislature and let it hold public hearings, so we could have what we would normally consider to be a reasonably public process.

That has never happened. To date, all that has happened is that people have been able to make submissions in private to the ministry. A number of people have done that. It will be interesting to see whether this time we can actually salvage something of the legislative process when the bill is finally debated and send it out to committee where we can finally have those hearings.

People have been aware that there has been a very serious problem with this act for a long time. We are still not very clear as to what precisely the minister wants to do, but the principles upon which she has chosen to stand are certainly ones that are going to be very difficult to see implemented.

Probably what most tenants are worried about is that they have seen the track record of this ministry over a fairly lengthy period of time now and they know that it really does not matter that what a landlord does is illegal; there is virtually nobody around who will assist them, because the ministry has virtually abandoned them.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say just a couple of words about the statement by the chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) on the question of freedom of information and protection of privacy. I will be asking some questions today of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) about the ability of people to complain about doctors in hospitals and steps the government has taken to make that virtually impossible, thanks to the sheer incompetence of the government in this regard.

I looked forward to the statement made by the minister and say that we would also look forward to the grand day of January 1, 1991, when local government will finally be subject to freedom of information. We certainly would not want the government to rush into anything. We look forward to even further extensions of this important legislation.

Having said that, I must confess that sometimes I feel that, dealing with members of the Legislature, the government in fact is using freedom of information to prevent us from getting access to information, charging us more than we have ever been charged before. We are getting answers to our questions in Orders and Notices saying, “If you really want this, you should ask for it under freedom of information.”

This is, I think, an indication of how ingenious the government can be in response to a piece of legislation which clearly mandated the government being far more open than in fact it has been.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Harris: I want to respond, also briefly, to the statement by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) on the introduction of the Rental Housing Protection Act. We will be interested to see what indeed is in this particular act when it comes forward.

I also want to say that when this act was first brought in three years ago, it was introduced, with some fanfare and argument on the part of of both the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the minister at that time, as a short-term, interim solution to allow the government to get its act together in a number of other areas on the housing front.

At that time, I believe, both the Premier and the minister indicated that this would be a disastrous thing to be long-term policy, that in fact its only effectiveness would be if it were a short-term solution to what would be a short-term problem, provided the ministry and the government were able to get their act together in a number of areas. Those statements made by the minister and the Premier at that time were one of the things that our party concurred with at the time of the original introduction.

Clearly then what we are seeing today, just by the very introduction of this bill, is an admission of complete, absolute, total failure on the part of the government to be able to address the problems that necessitated this bill in the first place three years ago. Indeed, most would argue, and I think fairly successfully, that in spite of whatever policy announcements the government has made, in spite of whatever money it has frittered away and wasted, the problem has progressively become worse and worse as every year has gone by.

1400

The minister makes the statement, “Today, market conditions are such that the removal of the Rental Housing Protection Act would without doubt result in the rapid removal of rental housing across the province;” clearly, a glaring indictment and admission that: “Look, we have made things worse in the last three years. We haven’t been able to address the real problems of supply. We have stated that’s the problem. We have come in with numerous programs. Clearly, we have failed, so we must come in with a new act.” In this case, one that appears to be saying it will have to be there for ever, which I assume is an admission that this government is incapable of solving this problem, for ever and a day.

The minister says as well, “The current act has proven to be successful in halting activities which reduce our stock of rental housing.” Clearly, that statement is wrong. The current act has not been successful in doing that. We will be interested, in the hearings, to get considerable input from across this province. The evidence is that the act, in combination with the other policies, has completely driven the private sector out of the rental accommodation market. Whether it be the individual home owner, the investor or the builder who wants to be involved in one, two, three or four units, clearly, the minister’s policies have been a disaster and have driven those people right out of the market.

As well, the minister says that the improvements they have made “will enable us to protect the security of tenants in Ontario and to ensure the future of rental housing stock in our province.” Clearly, the current piece of legislation, in combination with her policies, has done just the opposite. I will be interested in the hearings to see whether anybody, including the tenant associations, has any confidence that this bill is nothing if not an admission of total and absolute failure.

The minister appears to be continually spiralling sideways every time she gets on her feet in this House, and it is not good enough for the people of this province.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Sterling: In the short period of time, I only want to indicate to the Legislature what this government believes about freedom of information. On January 25, in response to a request of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) regarding information surrounding polling that the ministry had done, I have now received a bill from the Ministry of Transportation for $900.40 in order to produce that information for me. That is what they think about freedom of information. They use it as a protection, not as something to provide us with information.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will know that in 1988, the Provincial Auditor, in his annual report, referred to the fact that between 1986 and 1987, the Ministry of Health received in excess of 2,600 complaints from patients regarding problems encountered in various hospitals. Some of these complaints included such things as somebody having a serious pain in the abdomen and yet the pain persisting after surgery. It was subsequently discovered that the pain was due to an internal infection. In another case a patient was heavily sedated and prepared for surgery before it was realized that the attending surgeon was away on vacation.

In the light of that number and volume of complaints going to the ministry itself, I wonder if the minister can explain why, last August, her government changed substantially a regulation under the Public Hospitals Act. Under the 1980 regulation, which was in effect until 1988, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario could “require all members of the medical staff and hospital employees to answer inquiries concerning the admission and care of patients.” That power was taken away from the college of physicians and surgeons. The college no longer has the power to cross-examine and examine witnesses.

Does the minister not realize that as a result of this very, in my view incompetent decision on the part of the ministry, it now means that many patients are not able to get the college to effectively review their complaints and deal with them on a case-by-case basis?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The first question that I always ask myself is, what is in the public interest and how can we assure quality assurance and the principles of peer review? I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the college today has access to medical records and other materials related to patient care.

I have discussed this and many other matters relating to quality assurance with the college of physicians and surgeons and I would say that amendments under the Public Hospitals Act to empower the college to require interviews of doctors and others involved are in the process of being drafted.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has just given us a contradiction in the space of a single sentence. She has said that the public interest is being served and there are no problems right now, and she is also saying, “But I am going to produce amendments to make sure that the public interest will be served in the future.” The minister cannot have it both ways.

The college has told the press and it has told my staff that there are several cases involving deaths in hospitals which the college now feels it does not have the jurisdiction and the ability to investigate and deal with because the college does not have the jurisdiction to ask questions, to require co-operation in terms of the investigation and to cross-examine and to examine witnesses to incidents at hospitals. This means that many patients do not have the protection from the law that they want.

Can the minister confirm that the regulation was changed as of August 1988, that it took away significant powers from the college and that as of now --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the regulation been changed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, as I stated a moment earlier, that the college today has access to medical records and other materials related to patient care. Following extensive consultation, the regulations under the Public Hospitals Act were amended with the intention that further powers for the college would be made available under amendment to the Health Disciplines Act.

In the interim, following further discussions and because of the time involved in the legislative process, we intend to proceed under the Public Hospitals Act.

Mr. B. Rae: A one-year-old boy died at the Peel Memorial Hospital last year. His family lodged a complaint against the hospital and that complaint is not now being investigated by the college of physicians and surgeons for one simple reason: The minister changed the law. She withdrew the regulation.

The minister is shaking her head. She just told us that she did. She admitted that she did.

They have access to the records, but they cannot examine witnesses. They cannot question the nurses. They cannot question the doctors. They cannot ask any questions in the sense that those witnesses are not required by law to co-operate with that investigation. The minister knows that full well.

Can the minister confirm that none of the employees at the hospital and none of the doctors at the hospital is required by law to co-operate in an investigation by the college of physicians and surgeons? Yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The powers under the Public Hospitals Act are very clear and very strong. Whenever there is a concern about patient care, if that is raised, the minister has enormous powers to investigate as well. I would say again to the Leader of the Opposition that in the interest of public protection, the college of physicians and surgeons today has access to all of the files and records that are available.

We determined that appropriate amendments to the Health Disciplines Act were one approach. We believe that regulations under the Public Hospitals Act can also be the route to go in the interim, and I have said to the Leader of the Opposition that I expect those regulations as soon as possible.

Mr. B. Rae: The damage has been done and the minister admits it. She knows these cases are on hold and are not being --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. A question to which minister?

1410

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. A constituent of mine was driving by a development called Mid-Park Homes, which is at Keele and Rutherford in the town of Maple. On January 9, the price of the smallest house, which is appropriately called the Château, was $450,000. A week later, that same house was for sale -- and I have the price list here -- for $470,000. Some five days later, on January 21, that same house, the Château, was on sale for $490,000. That is an increase of $20,000 a week.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us why he has not brought in the kind of speculation tax which would stop this kind of speculation in the real estate market in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Minister of Housing can help my friend out.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows that a previous government brought in a law to deal with what it perceived to be speculation. It was administratively very, very difficult, and all analyses of it indicated that it did not work to do what it was meant to do.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister says a law was brought in to deal with what the government perceived to be speculation. I would like to ask the minister a simple question. If the price of a new home for sale in a development on January 9 is $450,000, on January 16 is $470,000 and on January 21 is $490,000, does she or does she not consider that to be a speculative increase?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: What I am concerned about is the problems people have affording homes, and I must say that most of the people I am concerned about are not shopping for houses at $450,000.

What we are doing in this government is using our resources to increase the supply of housing that people can afford. In order to do that, we are prepared to use government lands and also to use the development process to make sure that in the building that gets done, at least 25 per cent of the new units are available to people of low and moderate income. It seems to me that addressing the supply of affordable housing is the single most important thing we can do to make a difference for people out there.

Mr. B. Rae: If the price of a home, which has not even been sold, on January 9 is $450,000, a week later is $470,000 and five days later is $490,000, if the price went up that much every week for a year it would be going up over $1 million, and the minister is not prepared to call it speculation. If she does not call it speculation, just what is it? What does she call it and what does she plan to do about it so that this kind of activity will finally stop and people will be able to afford to live in this province when they want to buy a home? What is she going to do about it if it is not speculation?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is because I am concerned about the people who want to find a place to live that they can afford in this province, and in particular because I am concerned about people of moderate income who are having a difficult time, that this government has made its commitments and has made them very clear: to use the land we have to make sure that housing is more affordable and to make sure that from now on in the process of building any major developments in this province at least a quarter of the units get built with moderate-income people in mind.

What I am concerned about is making sure that housing is affordable to people of low and moderate income. We have a series of measures in place to make that difference. We will continue to do that, and that is going to make more difference to more people than anything else we might do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), my question is for the Premier. It relates to the now-infamous Public Affairs Management Inc. report, which indicated some predictions that have been quite accurate in terms of some of the steps taken by this government.

As an example, it indicated there would be amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It indicated as well that there would be amendments to the Power Corporation Act. It also went on to talk about certain tax options that might be considered by the government in the future.

I assume that since certain predictions were accurate, perhaps others may be equally as accurate. I do not know, so I turn to him who knows with respect to what may unfold in the future.

It indicated in the report that the onus for future taxation may fall more heavily on property tax, a so-called head tax as an example, or an industrial levy tax, whatever that might mean.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: Is the Premier considering raising or introducing a new form of taxation in his soon to be upcoming budget?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the question from my honourable friend, but he would not want me to be disqualified from this government, knowing the great respect he has for me, by revealing the budget ahead of time. But I will pass on any comments the member has to the Treasurer, and at the appropriate time he will share all that information with him. I am sure the member will be in a position to support the Treasurer in the future, as he has in the past.

Mr. Brandt: I do have a great deal of respect for the Premier. I want to say that is why I addressed the question to him. I know he has certain discussions with the Treasurer from time to time; in his next discussion with the Treasurer, he might want to remind him that in the 1984-85 fiscal year, the budget of this province was some $25 billion. In 1988-89 the budget for this government was $38 billion, which was more than a 50 per cent increase. That is up $13 billion in four years.

Does the Premier think that there is more room to extricate even more dollars from the taxpayers of this province when he has already forced upon them increases totalling some $13 billion in the relatively short and uneventful time that he has sat over there? I would ask the Premier, does he intend to continue this particular trend?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate my honourable friend drawing these matters to my attention. I remember when I was first elected here in 1975. The total budget was $10 billion. Guess what the deficit was that year. It was $2 billion. Twenty per cent of the entire budget was net cash requirements.

When we came in, when we formed the government and the Treasurer did his first budget in 1984, he had to go through all of the money and he found this incredible deficit in the order of $3 billion. Look at how our Treasurer has reduced that deficit. What we have is a model of fiscal rectitude.

At the same time, I am sure my honourable friend will agree, we have advanced the social programs in this province to an unparalleled degree in this country. Look at what we are doing in education. Look at what has happened in the environment. Look at what has happened in equal pay for work of equal value.

I can stand in front of my friend and say that the record of this government in terms of its management, fiscal and otherwise, has been exemplary. I am sure that my honourable friend, having the perspective that he does in this House, would agree and look with envy across the floor at this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I have to part company with the Premier in connection with his request to have me endorse the actions of his government. The Premier well knows that the only way he has been able to reduce the deficit of this province is by bringing in the largest tax increases in the history of this province. That is how he has done it. That is nothing to be particularly satisfied with.

Further in the report, on page 30, the report talks about a change in the way in which the government may deal with the current system of collecting fees for the Ontario health insurance plan. On page 30, it goes on to say that the government may be again thinking about some new form of taxation. This is where those very flexible minds across the way are particularly quick at coming up with new alternatives: new forms of taxation. They are very good at that.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Brandt: Could the Premier share with this House what new form of taxation his government may be contemplating to take over from the current revenues realized from OHIP fees?

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to my honourable friend that he has got his facts wrong again. The biggest tax grab in the history of this province was by his colleague the then Honourable Frank Miller, who brought in his famous budget to tax hamburgers. We had the common decency and the compassion to exempt those little children who eat hamburgers from these kinds of oppressive taxes brought in by his predecessors.

Let me say to my honourable friend that again, he has this real difficulty. On one hand he gets his members coming in here saying we have to spend more on this and spend more on this and spend more on this, and then he is saying: “Don’t raise taxes.” Is he saying we should drive up the deficit?

The province was given back its triple A rating, which was lost as a result of the financial promiscuity of that member’s party, as a result of the mistakes of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., which we still have to pay for, of Suncor and a variety of other things.

I say to my honourable friend that I think if he looks at the record of this Treasurer, if he looks at comparative tax rates across Canada in competing jurisdictions, he will find that we are very competitive, that we have a very socially advanced province and that we have competitive tax rates.

I say to my friend that he is not in any position, I believe, to give lectures to the Treasurer. The Treasurer may want to give him a lecture on how to handle his party’s finances because I can tell the member this: If he could bring down his party’s deficit the same way that the Treasurer has brought down his, the member’s party would be in very good shape.

Mr. Speaker: New question?

Mr. Brandt: Let me just say that when rent review goes from $7 million to $40 million, that is not the best expenditure of tax dollars in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, and to which minister?

Mr. Brandt: If he spends another $7 million on the insurance review board, that is not the best spending of taxpayers’ dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your question is to which minister?

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health. In the report that I just revisited for a moment with the Premier, it talks about some of the priorities for her ministry. One of the priorities that is mentioned in various spots throughout the report is an attempt to cut costs, as the Premier indicated this government is attempting to do, and which, of course, I disagree with in many respects.

An independent mediator came up with a proposal for doctors’ increases of 3.4 or 3.5 per cent, I believe it was. The minister unilaterally came in with a decision to pay the doctors 1.75 per cent, as she will recall. As a result of the intention of this government to hold the line on costs -- if that is in fact the Premier’s intention -- was it ever in the back of the minister’s mind that she was going to negotiate openly and fairly with doctors, or did she have her mind made up well in advance of any of those negotiations that nothing was going to happen in connection with the mediator’s report?

Hon. Mrs Caplan: I think I can say to the leader of the third party that in fact there has been much dissatisfaction with the negotiating process. The fact that a nine per cent or $265-million increase in OHIP was the result of a 1.75 per cent increase for physicians plus a 2.5 per cent utilization and a 4.5 per cent increase in physician numbers I think points out the fact that we need a new negotiating process so we can sit down and look at the whole picture. We have made a commitment to do that. I believe that, with a $265-million or nine per cent increase going into OHIP, we can ensure that physicians are fairly compensated for the important services they provide.

Mr. Brandt: The members of our party feel there are a number of areas where costs could be cut; but let me for a moment, if I might, share with the minister some of the areas that she is zeroing in on.

Physiotherapists in May 1986 were paid 15 cents less than doctors for essentially the same work in many areas. The minister said she intended to close that gap. The gap at the moment is $1.10. Optometrists, according to the fact-finder’s report, were to be paid the same fee for diagnostic work as ophthalmologists. What the minister did was to give, again rather arbitrarily, the optometrists a 4.3 per cent decrease.

Will the minister confirm to this House that it is her intention and the intention of her ministry to cut costs even if it means a reduction in the quality of health care in this province, an area we feel should not be cut, where there are other areas that are open --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I think the question was put.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Three minutes ago.

Mr. Brandt: There are other areas she can cut, not this one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This government’s commitment to health care and resources in health care --

Hon. Mr. Scott: We want a phone-in. Where do we phone for the leadership? What’s the number?

Mr. Brandt: What I want to know is, where does the minister intend to go?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Get that phone-in convention started now. We want to call.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting time for other members.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I said in response to the leader of the third party, this government’s commitment to health care is significant. I mentioned a $265-million increase to OHIP just this year, over $1 billion for physician services in the last four years, an increase in hospital spending to $6 billion this year, half a billion over last year and a 54 per cent increase since this government took office. We know that we are at $12.7 billion.

What I have been told by everyone who looks at our health system and acknowledges that it is the best funded national health system in the world is that good management will result in improved quality. Since my priority is improved and enhanced quality of care, I know that goes hand in hand with good management and good planning.

Mr. Brandt: I have to suggest to the minister it is not a lack of funds that is causing the problem but a lack of management of those funds. She is spending dollars in the wrong areas and spending them quite frivolously. I will give the minister all kinds of examples, if she wants examples.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: If the minister wants a long list of examples, and if Mr. Speaker will allow, I will share them with her now.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly will allow a supplementary question.

Mr. Brandt: Could I ask what the minister’s intentions are in the areas where she intends to cut the budget and where she intends to reduce health services in this province? Will the minister indicate whether the priority that is outlined in the report with respect to the future direction of her ministry is in fact correct?

“Addressing the issue of the number of medical practitioners and their distribution across the province and, in particular, the issue of freedom of location of practice,” it indicates, is one of the priorities of her ministry. We have raised this question with her before. Is it her intention to control the medical profession with respect to numbers and location in this province, as the report very clearly suggests she is going to do?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Brandt: Again, I remind her the report has been very accurate --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind you that you have asked the question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I must take exception with the very first statement that the leader of the third party made, because there have been no cuts, only increases, in health care in the four years that this government has been in office. To the member opposite, I would quote a respected epidemiologist and physician, who said:

“It’s very misleading to say that the problems with our health care system are due to lack of money. We know in fact that that’s probably the last problem that we have in our health care system. In Ontario in the last five years the per capita spending on health care after inflation went up 25 per cent, more than any other province. So one thing’s crystal clear; the answer to the problems we face in our health care system is simply not more money; we need to look at the way we organize our system.”

That quote is from Dr. Michael Rachlis.

Mr. Harris: We’re saying if you double your budget, you can’t manage the problem.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Get the hookup. What do you call? What’s the Tom Long number?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if the Attorney General would allow other members to ask a question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: What’s the number for the Tom Long campaign?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the Attorney General want to ask a question?

1430

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Health and it is concerning a case that my leader raised a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Charlton. I am sure she is now familiar with the case since it was raised in the House.

Mr. Charlton was the patient from Windsor who was awaiting triple bypass surgery at Victoria Hospital in London. He had his surgery yesterday in Detroit because he could not access the Canadian health care system. Dr. Sakwa, who is the doctor who performed the surgery, said: “We feel he probably had a 10 per cent chance of living. With the degree of damage he had to his heart muscle, there is a good chance he would not have survived.”

When this question was raised, the minister said to my leader that anybody who required emergency care in Ontario could access the Ontario health care system. Mr. Charlton was an urgent case. He did not access the Ontario health care system. He had to go to the American system. Is the minister satisfied with that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I said to the leaders in this House and to numerous individuals as we have discussed this, upon arriving at the Ministry of Health and determining that there was a need to increase the capacity in the cardiovascular system, we moved quickly to do that. We made funding available.

I am told now by cardiovascular surgeons across this province that in fact emergency cases -- and they prioritize emergency, urgent and elective -- are available on an as-needed basis and without any wait at all. They are working very diligently, together with the ministry and the hospitals, to bring on that funded capacity. We expect that within a few weeks we will see a stabilizing and a decrease in the existing waiting list.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister did not answer my question. Does the minister remember a phone call that I made to her a year ago regarding the fact that my father was on the waiting list for a triple bypass? She said that there was a particular problem in London and that the rest of Ontario was fine. That is exactly what she said, and she suggested that people like my father who were on the waiting list should come to Toronto to access the health care system. There is still a problem in London. The problem is not just in London; it is all across Ontario.

Is the minister now saying that the only alternative for people down our way is to go to Detroit and have their bypass surgery? By the way, Dr. Sakwa has said he will take the OHIP rate, so the fact of the matter is there are people there who are going to have to go --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, to correct the member opposite, I would say to him that at the time I informed him that this procedure is performed in a number of centres across the province, in Hamilton, London, Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and Kingston. I can tell him that with the increase in capacity both in Hamilton and in Ottawa, as well as in Sudbury and Toronto, the information I have from the cardiac surgeons, the experts, is that the waiting list should stabilize and in fact be reduced over a very short period of time.

Regarding London, I would say to him that when we asked the hospitals what they needed, the University Hospital in London said to us, “We need $570,000,” and it got it. When Victoria Hospital said, “We need $400,000 to improve cardiac care,” it got it. We spoke to the hospitals. We asked them. We responded appropriately, and I am told that funding is in place and that the capacity for surgery, as well as cardiac care, across the province is in place.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier concerning the Meech Lake accord. The Premier will be aware that the current logjam, if that is the right word, with respect to the ratification of the Meech Lake accord centres on a number of outstanding issues that are not addressed in the initial document. I understand the Premier has had an opportunity to review these concerns with four or five other provinces. An article in the Globe and Mail by Thomas Walkom indicates the Premier favours some kind of parallel accord as the mechanism to perhaps deal with some of these outstanding issues.

I would ask the Premier, if that is the case, why he rejected the proposal that I first raised last May and his party then totally rejected, that being a proposal of some form of companion resolutions to address the outstanding issues.

Given that he rejected it at that time, am I led to understand that he would now favour that mechanism directly, or some form of companion mechanism, to help resolve these outstanding issues on Meech Lake?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate my honourable friend’s question. I think one has to distinguish between sort of two types of, shall we say companion resolutions. One would have legal efficacy as part of Meech lake, another could be, shall we say a political companion accord, or it could be a companion resolution of the type that was passed in this Legislature. I recall that at the same time we passed the Meech Lake accord here, we passed a resolution of this House to go on to look at certain areas of the accord for further discussion.

I guess we have to get our terminology straight as we discuss this. As I recall, my honourable friend suggested his companion accord should be entrenched into the Constitution, as opposed to a political accord on the side.

Just because my honourable friend has asked me the question, I could say there have been reports lately that some five provinces, including Ontario, were involved in some special negotiations, and he may have been going to ask me about this anyway. That is not the case, I should say to my honourable friend. There are no sort of formal talks going outside of that, because so much depends on the political situation in two provinces particularly. As the member knows, Manitoba is a unique circumstance and currently in New Brunswick there is a committee hearing on this matter.

There have been informal discussions -- there is no question about that -- on a bilateral, not a multilateral basis with the various provinces. But as I said to my honourable friend, I do not see that there is a magic breakthrough now at this moment. I am sure the discussions will continue, particularly over the next year and a half, as the time line dwindles on this whole matter, and there may be some commonality along the lines my friend was talking of: a companion political accord, shall we say, as opposed to a legal accord.

I will keep my friends posted on those discussions, get their advice on the matter and see if somehow or other there is a resolution somewhere in the next year and a half.

Mr. Harris: I appreciate the clarification on the five provinces. I was not suggesting they were a form of negotiations, but I understand that there are some discussions going on.

Let me refer to the main report of our select committee on constitutional reform. It is key, I think, that the very first three recommendations that the constitutional committee passed unanimously -- all three parties -- all dealt fundamentally with recommendation 1, “The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario establish a standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs.”

The purpose for that recommendation was a recognition that the process that led to Meech, albeit it maybe had to be done that way, for future negotiations was flawed; that since legislatures had to approve any future amendments they should be involved and that indeed our committee could begin, in a nonpartisan, all-three-parties way, to look at these outstanding issues and begin to liaise with other legislatures, and indeed the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Harris: I would ask the Premier: If he is serious about what the committee recommended unanimously, why is it that he has not acted on that recommendation to establish this standing committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs that was referred to, with a view to developing a framework for discussion on these outstanding issues, which in fact we think should be discussed --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say right at the outset I agree with the recommendation of that committee; and let me say something else: I think that committee did extraordinarily fine work. I think all members of this House can take some pride in the intellectual leadership that was shown by Ontario, by the committee and by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in this entire discussion.

I can tell my honourable friend that the companion resolution that was passed in this House, or whatever you want to call it, the resolution passed in conjunction with Meech Lake, has been viewed by many as a potential document around which a consensus could be built for the second and third rounds of constitutional discussion. So it is being viewed very seriously by sister legislatures.

As I recall, the member for York North (Mr. Beer) and this member and other members of this committee, were invited to go to New Brunswick to discuss these matters. I would frankly encourage the members of the Legislature on that committee to go, share their concerns and share their discussion with the members of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly.

1440

The question then becomes, with respect to the constitutional committee, what is the agenda item? It was contemplated, I think, that there would be a different procedure for constitutional change in the future, assuming that Meech went ahead. Then the question would be, what is the agenda of that? It appears that the main agenda item, assuming Meech would go through, would be on Senate reform and other things. It is clearly the government’s intention to put those matters into the hands of the standing committee and work very closely with it.

I agree with my honourable friend. I think that is a constructive way to start, assuming the first step is made, to continue the progress on constitutional reform.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have in front of me the annual report of the Shepherds of Good Hope in Ottawa. The Shepherds of Good Hope provide a soup kitchen for underprivileged people in the Ottawa area.

According to this report, last year they served 78,000 people compared to 75,000 in 1987, and 62,000 in 1986. From the figures, it is clear that this service is being used by more and more people. Also, there has been a very supportive response from the community, with many people volunteering their time and businesses contributing foodstuffs. Despite this encouraging community response, one can and may ask whether soup kitchens should indeed be a permanent feature of our social service network.

Can the minister comment on his own outlook on soup kitchens and how his ministry is dealing with the social conditions that give rise to soup kitchens?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not expect that any society would find favour with the necessity for soup kitchens. I certainly do not, speaking on my own behalf and as a minister of the government.

We have been told, despite the fact that we have put additional resources into a number of our communities and provided additional resources for those who are on income assistance, that the problem is not getting any better. One of the main reasons we had conducted the social assistance review was to assess how we should deal with this particular situation. Members know that the response to that is under way at the present time.

The second difficulty we have, we are told by those who run them -- and I have visited the soup kitchens myself -- is that many of their clients are people who live in some kind of emergency shelter and therefore do not have the capacity to make their own food or provide hot meals for themselves. Therefore, we have begun to move to convert a number of emergency shelters to permanent housing.

The honourable member is probably aware of the fact that we did that in Ottawa just this past year. We did it here in Toronto in the past year. We have set up access to permanent housing for people who live on the street.

Mr. Daigeler: We certainly appreciate the work that has been done in this area. I am aware that recently his ministry contributed capital funding towards some of the shelters for the hard-to-serve people in the Ottawa area.

Can the minister advise the House whether there are further initiatives that may be taken, especially with regard to the hard-to-serve, to possibly integrate them back into the community?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The hard-to-serve people in the community generally fall into two categories. The first are those who have access to temporary shelter but because of their behaviour, which is caused by many factors, they are simply not able to continue to stay there because they are so disruptive to everyone else.

The second hard-to-serve group are those who choose for a number of reasons not to want to use the existing facilities that are available. We have recognized that. In many cases, there are legitimate reasons they behave in this way. That is why we have been working very closely, particularly with the churches in most of our large urban areas. In Ottawa and in Toronto in particular, the Anglican church has been extremely supportive in being our partner in setting up permanent shelter for these kind of people.

In both of those cases, women have particular difficulty. The two most recent ones that were done provided spaces for women. I believe there were 20 spaces in Ottawa and something like 16 to 20 spaces here in Toronto. We are encouraging other agencies in other communities to do the same thing. We are quite prepared to work with them.

It is also our hope, as I mentioned in response to the first part --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERPAYMENTS

Mr. Allen: To allow the minister to continue on his feet, I will ask him a question about the Robert Finlay case respecting Manitoba overpayments to social assistance recipients, which were judged by the Supreme Court to be cases of undue hardship. Manitoba was given 30 days to desist in that practice of collecting those overpayments or lose its Canada assistance plan transfer moneys.

The minister will know that he has $65 million in cumulative cases in Ontario, $13 million in the past year up to December; that they average about $1,000 in family benefits instances and $350 in general welfare assistance; and that they represent about 20 per cent of the case loads and social assistance in those two categories.

I wonder if the minister can stand before us today and tell us precisely what his response is going to be to the Supreme Court judgement, and whether he himself will not be desisting in collecting overpayments, as the court has ordered Manitoba to do?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The $65-million figure that the honourable member refers to is a cumulative figure that goes back to roughly 1965 when these programs were initiated and when the federal-provincial agreement, CAP, was initiated.

The honourable member is probably aware of the fact that part of the condition under CAP, by which the provinces get cost-sharing, is that they do recover overpayments, or at least they make an attempt to do so.

As the minister, I go before my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and Management Board every year and present a list of several millions of dollars of outstanding overpayments which we do not believe we can or ought to collect, so we write off a number of those every single year.

As a general rule, if the overpayment is the result of administrative error on the part of my staff, and that happens, we generally write that off. If it is a result of information that ought to have been provided by the client and which the client knew he or she ought to have provided, then we do make a very serious effort to collect those.

We still do that today. Obviously, as a result of the Manitoba hearing, we have to review our practices. We are in the process of doing that and when we make a decision I will share it with the honourable member.

Mr. Allen: The minister’s answer certainly does tell us that the practice still persists, that even in cases of administrative error there are collections. I do not want to let the word go out that this is a matter of fraud that we are talking about. In most cases, as in the one I want to put to the minister, it is quite otherwise.

For example, Sheila Crowe Perfitt, dealing with the London office, which I believe has a bad habit of being rather rigorous on this score, receives $475 a month and only has $2 left after she has met all of the set payments, rent, utilities, heating bills and so on.

When she applied for a training course, she got a $105 advance, which would have been deducted normally from her family benefits. That was not the case in the first month, and the welfare office sent the collectors after her to repay that amount. They refused to collect because they said their minimum was a $5 repayment, they could not go below that, and the lady had a $2 balance in her income.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Allen: Therefore, it went back to the welfare office which insisted --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Allen: Will the minister not concede that he should issue an absolute rule to all offices, not to collect overpayments --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I could remind the member and the minister that they may wish to continue this at estimates later this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Given the fact that we are in estimates this afternoon, I suspect that the subject of your admonition is probably what is going to take place. Let me again point out that the requirement under the Canada assistance plan is that we do collect overpayments. We are simply obeying the rules of the game, if you will.

Now we have a new ball game, as the court has made a ruling. Obviously, we have to pay attention to that ruling. Obviously, we have to consult with our federal funding partners to determine how, not just in Manitoba but in Ontario and all other provinces in Canada, we are going to deal with that ruling.

I simply reiterate to the honourable member that in fact where it is our fault, we usually do not collect. Where it is information that ought to have been provided to us and the client knew he or she ought to provide it, then we do make an attempt to collect. That very well may change.

1450

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Solicitor General and it has to do with illicit drug use in the province. We heard a great deal of rhetoric in mid-October of last year when the so-called Black report was tabled in the Legislature. I would like to talk about action to back up the rhetoric. I want to quote from recommendation 9 of that report, “That additional” -- stress the word “additional” -- ”funding be provided to the Ontario Provincial Police to increase the complement of the drug enforcement section by 32 members and four support staff.”

Would the minister bring us up to date on where that recommendation stands?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to inform the member for Leeds-Grenville that all seven recommendations that deal with the drug programs are being thoroughly studied and most of them have been, to some extent, implemented. However, there are costs associated with each and also problems of co-ordination with other ministries.

We have been meeting with other ministries on a regular basis. Drug enforcement officers have been put in place at border points such as Windsor. Four places, I believe, specifically have already been acted upon and many other of the steps have been followed. But I would like to point out that co-ordination and study are necessary to make sure that the best steps are taken on a permanent, ongoing basis.

Mr. Runciman: This government is quick to condemn or cast aspersions on police across this province at every turn. It is about time it started providing our forces with the necessary resources to fight the growing crime problem across this province, much of it drug-related.

I want to read a quote from Wib Craig, the head of the criminal investigation division of the OPP, this weekend, “A recommendation for the drug squad to be expanded by 32 officers is mired in political red tape at Queen’s Park.”

The police are frustrated. Police across this province are frustrated. When is the government going to take action on this recommendation from one of its own members? When is it going to do something substantive and meaningful to fight the drug crisis in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I said, actions have already been taken. Some programs have been put in place. This particular police officer expressed his opinion on one of seven recommendations that happened to deal with his specific line of duty in the police area. Obviously, he would like to see his program given the top, probably the only, priority.

I would like to inform the member that we had one of the top drug criminologists of North America, who is employed in New York, Professor Kelling, who spoke to the police commissions here in Toronto and who emphasized very strongly that the most important aspect of fighting drugs was prevention programs and not the kinds of programs the member is referring to.

We recognize both things must be done, but we must study which programs should be given priority and in what way they can most effectively be delivered.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Your attention would be appreciated.

WINTER ICE CONDITIONS

Mr. Owen: I also have a question for the Solicitor General. She might recall that in February of last year, I raised an issue involving Lake Simcoe and other inland lakes in this province and the problem we were having with heavy vehicles falling through the ice. That is still happening this year.

The difficulty is that there are pressure cracks, thin ice and open water areas. When heavy vehicles go under, the people are entrapped and cannot get out. With snowmobiles, they are usually able to roll or somehow escape. There is a real problem with the heavy vehicles. I am wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to look into this problem with the Ontario Provincial Police and whether she can advise us whether anything can be done about the difficulty.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The problem of cars or trucks on the waterways is not easily resolved. In the first place, the waterways are under federal jurisdiction for both policing and the regulations around them. It would be possible to examine -- we have considered it since talking on this issue before -- particular provincial statutes regulating vehicle operation, which of course would be under a different ministry. But the policing in itself would be extremely expensive when we consider the kinds of waterways we have throughout this province. The sense of what can be done in this area is that it does not seem it would be very productive.

Instead, the OPP considers programs delivering educational information and warning and trying to make people realize the danger of waterways when they are frozen are much better. Of course, this danger is for anybody, whether it is a child on skates or someone in a skidoo or a heavy truck, depending on the degree of freezing. We cannot make rulings by the size of the vehicle. It would be more appropriate to educate people as to the hazards.

Mr. Owen: I wonder if I can share with the minister the experience we have had in our area; that is accidents do not seem to occur to the people who live in our area. It is invariably the visitors coming into our area who are not familiar with the conditions who are the ones to lose their lives through that risk.

I have talked to the OPP. I realize they say that sometimes the people in our area should have the right to go on to the ice since they are familiar with it. I wonder if the minister could discuss this problem of licensing these particular vehicles in our area. I know it involves another ministry, but could that be looked at as a possible solution?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The present vehicles that are around are not forbidden from going on the water and many would take great exception to being so forbidden. Once again, this is not a major problem. The number of drownings that occur through large vehicles going through the water is not nearly as serious as for smaller vehicles or even children playing. Once again, the whole effort should be on education, on training people about the danger of these things and reminding them that what seems to be a solid surface may not be. Education is seen by the police as the most productive way of dealing with this.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. I have asked the Attorney General on a number of occasions why his ministry and the government will not fund agencies, organizations, that allow divorced or separated parents, specifically the noncustodial parent, to have access to the children.

I want to ask him today about the Lakeshore Area Multi-Service Project, referred to as LAMP. I have a list of about 40 orders from judges. There is Judge Fisher, October 6, 1988; Judge Morrison, February 4, 1988; Master McBride, December 8, 1987. The list goes on and on, not easy to find, 40 judges -- provincial court, Supreme Court, district court, masters of the Supreme Court -- who have all said access shall be exercised through LAMP, the only way access shall be exercised.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Hampton: If the courts and the judges recognize this to be a vital program in terms of custodial parents and access parents, why will this ministry, and specifically why will this government, not give these organizations some funding so they can do the job the courts consider it necessary for them to do?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has responded to this question. I simply adopt the response he has given with this additional note -- it would not be for the Ministry of the Attorney General to sponsor programs of this type in any event.

As the honourable member knows, this is one of a wide variety of volunteer programs that exist across the province that provide very useful service. LAMP has existed, along with many other programs, for many years without the support of any government programs.

The Minister of Community and Social Services, impressed by this kind of facility, has established a pilot project that is now working to evaluate this kind of exercise to see whether the government, as a matter of policy, should take the principle of supported access province-wide. He is watching that pilot project. I am not certain what his timetable is, but I want the honourable member to know that when the evaluation takes place, I am quite certain the minister will bring it to cabinet and the matter will be reviewed so that a decision can be made.

1500

Mr. Hampton: The Attorney General is correct when he says this kind of organization was originally funded voluntarily. That is true. The fact of the matter is, though, that it is basically performing a very large support service for his courts. His courts recognize these groups are indispensable to parents achieving some kind of justice in custody cases.

The Attorney General says he cannot fund these kinds of things. His ministry certainly funds legal clinics. He has said on a number of occasions that his ministry plays a lead role in support of the drunk driving efforts of this government. He obviously funds programs like that. Why cannot his ministry, or his ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services together, support this kind of very worthwhile project for parents and children who are obviously in need of the service, especially when his courts recognize the viability of the service?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have not made myself clear, I guess, and neither has the Minister of Community and Social Services. There are literally hundreds of volunteer agencies across the province that litigants in the court take advantage of. Most of them are not funded by government.

When a project is developed that has a lot of credibility and appears to be useful, the universal practice of prudent and sensible governments is to set up a pilot project to evaluate its utility as a step on the way to determining whether it should be adopted as a matter of government policy and provided in communities, not only in Toronto but all across the province.

This government, impressed in a general sense with the kind of work this kind of facility does, has established such a pilot project. When the term of the project is completed and it is evaluated, we would be able to develop, if appropriate, a province-wide funding mechanism. The honourable member surely agrees it would be imprudent and wasteful of taxpayers’ money to start spending it until we have some assessment about whether it meets a need and whether that need should be met all across the province.

Mr. B. Rae: So all those judges are wrong. Those 40 judges don’t know what they’re talking about. All those judges don’t know what they’re doing.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will not respond to the honourable leader’s question.

Mr. Speaker: A mini-question, the member for Burlington South.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. It concerns the negotiation process behind the transfer of a school between the public and separate school boards in the city of York. The minister and his government were signatories to an agreement that would compensate the York Board of Education with $5.5 million for the transfer of York Humber High School to the separate school board.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Jackson: His ministry is reneging on that deal. We now find out that he has gone to the York board and placed additional conditions that were not agreed to in the original agreement. My question is, why is the minister backing away from a negotiated settlement that has his signature and his promise on it?

Hon. Mr. Ward: My answer to that question is we are not backing away from it. In fact, we stand by all the commitments we made through the negotiation process between public and separate boards. The member for Burlington South once again is wrong.

PETITIONS

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

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

“We, the undersigned, petition the province of Ontario and the Durham public school board to provide a junior kindergarten program in the Durham Board of Education.”

It is signed by nine petitioners.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Owen: I have a petition addressed:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.”

It is signed by 252 teachers.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Correctional Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $21,600,200; operations programs, $372,668,200.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Ms. Hošek moved first reading of Bill 211, An Act to revise the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

JOHN ZIVANOVIC HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr76, An Act to revive John Zivanovic Holdings Limited.

Motion agreed to.

SUDBURY HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Campbell moved first reading of Bill Pr60, An Act respecting the Sudbury Hydro-Electric Commission.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report on Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, of the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) adjourned the debate. Are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate?

Mr. Hampton: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, because I was on the committee when this particular bill was considered by the committee. I got to sit through the number of representations made by people from communities all across the province. I was one of those fortunate enough to be able to hear from cross-sections of the Ontario economy, to hear from local business persons, to hear from church groups, to hear from trade union groups, to hear from women’s groups, to hear from municipal groups, to hear from developers and shopping mall owners, to hear from tourist associations and on and on.

1510

It is no exaggeration, I think, to say that whenever the committee travelled in connection with this bill, we had a full agenda. We could very easily have extended the time period for listening to and questioning the many groups that appeared before the committee and we could have received, if hours had permitted, several more submissions from groups and organizations that wished to appear before the committee but could not find time on the timetable.

I sat through many of those hearings, many of those deliberations, the long clause-by-clause. Therefore, as I said, this is a debate that I am pleased to be able to take part in. I want to return to the fundamentals of this issue because I think it is really the fundamentals of the issue that people are concerned with out there, and it is really the fundamentals of the issue that I think the government has attempted to cloud over in many ways or attempted to hide behind a smokescreen.

The fundamental issue for us -- I think I can of speak for all the members of my party here -- and the fundamental issue for so many of those groups that appeared before the committee is the desire to have a common pause day in Ontario. Simply put it this way: a day away from the commercial marketplace, a day away from competitive business pressures. You can call it a day for the community; you can call it a day for greater family interaction; you can call it a day for personal reflection, whatever you wish.

There were many groups which appeared before the committee that referred to it in those terms. In fact, I think the diversity of description of a pause day was one of the things that impressed many members of the committee; even some Liberal members of the committee, I think.

If you were able to speak with them privately and out of range of a television camera or a newspaper reporter or a radio reporter, many members on the government side would admit privately that they were not impressed with this legislation. The more you could engage them in conversation, the more you were likely to find government members who worried about this legislation.

It is quite clear what is happening here, what the government intends; and it is also quite clear what the people of Ontario intend. The government intends to have some kind of rule by the marketplace. Yes, the government may call it the local option, but we all understand what the local option means in terms of competitive business pressure, when everyone from the automobile dealers of Ontario to the Canadian Tire dealers of Ontario to the local chambers of commerce to trade union groups all come before you and say, “The local option means rule, and rule by competitive business pressure.”

It is pretty clear that there is an understanding out there in the public as to exactly what this bill means when you shred it or strip away the boilerplate that the government has attached to it. People understand it to be a return to the marketplace. People also understand that, if anything, in the last 30, 40 or even 50 years, what we have done in terms of employment standards legislation, overtime legislation, health and safety legislation and labour legislation were all attempts in some way to curtail as much as possible some of the employment abuses of the competitive marketplace; also to leave some room for simple humanity, some room for the family, some room for individuals to do something other than work; in other words, to provide an opportunity so that life was not dominated by the competitive marketplace.

Yet what do we have here? We have a government that says it is a progressive government. We have a government that says it is a compassionate government. We have a government that says it cares about family life and quality of life. Yet when you strip away the boilerplate from its bill, it is doing exactly the opposite of what it says it intends to do.

To paraphrase it best, I think the best example I can give would be a Catholic priest who appeared before the committee in Sudbury. He did not come to the committee with a large brief full of statistics or anything like that. He came to the committee and he said: “Look, what this bill means is that there will be more business conducted on Sunday and there will be more work on Sunday. That is what it means. When you get to the bottom of it, that’s what it means. It means more work on Sunday.”

He said in his view, and I agree with him and I think many people in Ontario agree with him, what we really ought to be trying to do is to free up the common pause day even more, not load it up more as the government intends to do. Then he said to us: “Look, if you really want to know what it is like to work on Sunday, when you have to work every Sunday, I can tell you what it is like to work on Sunday.”

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Hampton: That is okay, Mr. Speaker. I realize the member for Ottawa West will not get up and publicly state his position on the bill, so we will have to be satisfied with his contributions from the sidelines.

Mr. Chiarelli: I mailed out 22,000 householders last month dealing with Sunday shopping.

Mr. Hampton: Since he does not want to put his voice on the record, then we will have to let him make his contribution this way.

The priest from Sudbury said: “Look, I have a great knowledge of what it means to be required to work on Sunday. I work virtually every Sunday. If you want to know what it is like, it stinks.” Those were his exact words, “It stinks.”

Then he went on to delineate why it stinks. He said:

“I don’t have a family in the customary sense. I don’t have a wife and I don’t have children, but I do have a family. I have brothers and sisters. I have parents. I have aunts and uncles. I have good friends. That’s my family. If my family have social events, they usually hold them on Sundays. That is the time when they usually hold these social events. I can never go because I have to work. Even if it is an event that is held late Sunday afternoon or perhaps Sunday evening, if I am not saying mass I have other pastoral duties to look after, so I am shut out of those kinds of activities.”

The next thing he went on to point out was:

“Do you want to know what it is like to have a day off, a pause day other than Sunday? Do you want to know what that is like? Well, I can tell you, because my day off is Monday. That is my pause day. That is the day when I am supposedly free to engage in different types of social interaction and be with my friends.”

Mr. Fleet: Monday as a common pause day now?

Mr. Chiarelli: Work on Sundays and sleep on the justice committee.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would just like to suggest that the members on the left are interjecting way too much. If they wish to speak on the bill, I think they have an opportunity to do so, do they not?

The Deputy Speaker: I want to remind all members on both sides that the standing orders call for only one member to have the floor at a time. If other members want to participate, they can participate before or after, but not during.

Mr. Hampton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling, but I really do not mind. We have begun to realize now that members of the Liberal rump feel that the way into the cabinet is to pass a lot of wind whenever anyone else gets up to speak, so we understand when the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) and the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) want to make interjections at all times.

Mr. Fleet: I’m supporting the bill. That’s on the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

1520

Mr. Hampton: The priest from Sudbury pointed out in graphic detail what it is like when your common pause day is not the same as, or cannot be the same as, the common pause day that has traditionally developed in Ontario. He said:

“I get up Monday morning, I try to call a few of my friends and I find they are all at work on Monday. I try to set something up for Monday afternoon or Monday evening, but I find that most of my friends are saying to me, ‘Well, you know, we just finished the weekend and we’ve got to get back in the swing of things in terms of work. I have to do some shopping and I have to get some things done like that.’ Basically, my day off of Monday, my pause day of Monday is virtually useless. It too stinks.”

Taking a cue from that priest in Sudbury, who has some intimate experience with what is going on, I think it is fair to say that a great number of people out there do understand what the government hopes to accomplish or is trying to accomplish and also the boilerplate disguise the government has added to the whole issue. The priest in Sudbury certainly saw through it. He had something more to say. I wish we could have had Hansard there to record his words, because his words would be worthy of looking back on in about 10 years.

He said:

“Look, I’m a priest. I deal with social problems, I deal with family problems, I deal with people problems every day. A good part of my time is taken up with talking to, counselling and assisting families in trouble, families on the verge of separation, families that have separated, families that may have problems such as alcoholism or families where one or both of the spouses are unemployed or encountering similar problems.

“There is no secret to the kind of counselling I provide. One of the keys to my success in counselling, and one of the keys to the success of other people who do the kind of counselling that I do, is to tell the families who are in trouble to spend more time together, to take more time to be together.

“Where we see a successful resolution of the problem or a successful resolution of the dispute is when the family members can take more time to be together, to talk, to do recreational things together; when the parents spend more time with their children or people generally spend more time with their extended family. That is where we encounter the greatest success.”

Let’s look at what this bill can do to those kinds of undertakings or those kinds of attempts. The one time of the week when people are able to do this or the customary time when people are able to do this is on Sundays. Over and over again, those people who were able to succeed, those people who were able to come out of their family difficulties said, “Yes, we took more time together.”

He said, “When did you find the time?” They said: “Well, we spent Sundays together. We’d go to a picnic together. We instituted a practice of having Sunday dinners and everybody had to be home for them. We found the time on the day when it is customarily available and we made use of that time.”

His conclusion was that really this bill will not break the camel’s back, will not be the most horrendous thing to happen; but from his point of view, we will look back on this bill -- say 10 years hence when we are in a greater mess in terms of family life, in terms of quality of life, in terms of our social life generally -- and we will look at it as one of the key decisions, one of the key things that got us into a mess.

Fundamentally, for him, he said: “Look, this bill is not the worst thing that’s ever been introduced, but it’s a wrong bill. It’s on the wrong side of the issue. In terms of where we want our society to go, in terms of what kind of society we want to have, this bill takes us down the wrong road and this bill will put us in the wrong place.”

Mr. Fleet: It is a good bill, Howard.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Hampton: I wish, as I said, that priest’s comments and recommendations could have been recorded in Hansard, because he made a great deal of sense. I could not help but note, looking across the hearing room that day, that almost all the Liberal members on the committee were in some form or another nodding their heads in agreement, that he had really had an impact on them.

To me, that is the heart and the substance of this debate. This bill takes our society down the wrong road and five or 10 years hence it is going to put us in a place where we do not want to be. Instead of setting aside more time outside of the pressure of the competitive business world, instead of contributing to a better quality of life, instead of contributing to a better quality of working life, instead of contributing to a better quality of family life, it will do the opposite.

I think I owe that priest in Sudbury a great deal of respect and I owe him a great deal otherwise for clarifying the issue for me and for putting it before us in very commonsense terms. That is where the government wants to take the province on this issue. That is where they want to take us.

I want to go into greater detail as to why we are really opposed to the reporting back of this bill. It is not just the substance of the issue. It is not just that we think this bill is a regressive bill. It is not just that. It is not just that it is going to take our society, Ontario society, down the wrong road and it is going to put us in a place five or 10 years hence that we do not want to be in. That is an issue of substance and it is an important issue, but there are a couple of other issues here as well that need to be discussed.

The second general set of issues that need to be discussed stem from the way that the government tried to fudge or tried to hide the fact that it was dramatically changing its position from the position that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated during the election campaign of 1987.

He was asked on August 5, 1987, if he and his government supported a common pause day in Ontario. It was very clear what was meant in that question, because the Retail Business Holidays Act had come through some court tests and had been subject to some scrutiny. It was very clear what the debate over the common pause day was, and he said clearly and unequivocally, “Yes, we support the common pause day.” No ifs, no ands, no buts, no variances; just a plain and simple, “Yes, this government supports the common pause day.”

What a surprise when only three months after that, in November 1987, the government announced that it was going to change the legislative regime which provides for and supports the common pause day. What a surprise. At first the government tried to say, “Yes, we are still in support of the common pause day and this legislation is actually going to tighten things up.” That is what they said.

Then, after the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, after trade unions, after church groups, after chambers of commerce, after business groups had all had an opportunity to review the bill and saw it for what it really was, the government switched its disguise to calling it the municipal option.

First they were going to tighten up the legislation, then when it was discovered that their smokescreen was not working --

1530

Interjections.

Mr. Fleet: He likes it, he is smiling.

Mr. Hampton: Mr. Speaker, they really are passing a lot of wind.

Mr. Chiarelli: Just trying to keep you awake, Howie.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, may I remind all members of the House of the standing orders?

Mr. Pouliot: Especially the far left.

Mr. Fleet: You guys are on the far right, eh?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When it calms down I shall ask the member to continue his speech, and he is the only one who has the floor right now.

Mr. Hampton: When it was discovered that the government’s disguise, the stated disguise of tightening up the act, was not going to work, then we fell into the language of the municipal option. How wonderful it is that this municipality can do its thing and that municipality can do its thing, and the municipality over here can do something entirely different.

That did not fool anybody either, because as I said everybody from the chamber of commerce, the automobile dealers, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to the major trade union groups saw it for what it is. It is a type of deregulation. It is a type of throwing away something that was previously protected, throwing it open to the pressures of the competitive marketplace.

Mr. Fleet: He’s enjoying it; don’t stop him now.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hampton: I suggest that is what this Liberal government has tended to become. When they have a problem that is a little bit difficult throw it off on another level of government, or throw it open to the pressure of the competitive marketplace and throw up the hands and say, “There is nothing we can do.”

Mr. Fleet: What were they supposed to do in Sault Ste. Marie?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Do I have to remind all members at every two- or three-minute interval to please respect the standing orders of the House?

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I fully realize, with the highest respect, that the very presence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) brings out the worst in people, but the member for Rainy River is speaking, from the heart, words of wisdom on behalf of the people of his riding who are appalled and shocked at the presentation of Bill 113.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Speaker is also speaking from the heart. The member for Rainy River may proceed.

Mr. Hampton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you have a very big heart indeed on this matter.

That was the second line of defence, to call it the municipal option.

Mr. Adams: What was the first? I’ve forgotten.

Mr. Hampton: For the benefit of the member for Peterborough, who does not seem to have much of a memory, the first line of defence was that the government was going to tighten things up. When everyone read the fine print and saw that there was not a lot of tightening up, then the government fell into the disguise of the municipal option.

Mr. Fleet: What was the vote in Sault Ste. Marie?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for High Park-Swansea, please.

Mr. Hampton: The government tried to trot out its municipal option disguise across the province of Ontario. It thought, “If we can swing this, we’ve got it made.”

First we started out here in Toronto. We heard from groups in Toronto. We heard civil liberties groups, we heard trade union groups and we heard large organizations which represent the province at large, which came before the committee and said, “Look, the municipal option that the government is speaking about is really no option at all.”

Whether you were talking to Sears department stores or Woolworth department stores or Marks and Spencer or the chamber of commerce or the automobile dealers’ association or the Committee for Public Justice or the Catholic, Anglican or United churches, they were all very clear.

They said, “Look, this is really no option at all. What you’re really doing is throwing the avenue open to competitive business pressures. If there is somebody out there who thinks he can make a buck at another operators’ expense by opening on Sundays, he will do it under this legislation, and the government is promoting it. That is what they said. The government was obviously hopeful that things would improve on the road. So then we went on the road. We went to Ottawa, we went to Kingston, we went to Collingwood and we went to Hamilton. We went to Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury.

It started to happen over and over again in every community we went to, whether it was the local chamber of commerce, the local business improvement association or people from the Catholic Women’s League of Canada. Wherever it was, whatever small city or small town it was, people came forward and said: “Yes, we see the legislation and we do not see it as any viable option. We do not see it as going in the direction we want our society to go in. We see it, again, as market deregulation, throwing everything open to competitive business pressures, letting competitive business pressures decide, fully and absolutely, when people will have to work, when families will have time together and what will happen to our quality of life.”

Mr. Chiarelli: The NDP don’t trust local politicians.

Mr. Adams: The NDP are out of touch with reality.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Adams: Never listened to people in their lives.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the member please respect the standing orders?

Mr. Hampton: I must really be hitting home with some of these backbench Liberal members because they seem to get most upset on some of these issues. Again, if they are so upset, I wish they would stand and put their positions on the record. I wish they would say, one way or another, yes, they support the legislation and why they support the legislation; or say no, they do not support the legislation. Instead, they act like a bunch of rabble at the back of the crowd who insist on making all sorts of noise but make no sense.

The committee visited those small cities and towns across Ontario. Again, whether it was the Catholic women’s league, the local municipal council, a regional municipal council, several municipal councils in the area, small business organizations from the area, chambers of commerce, business improvement associations or whatever, they all came forward and said: “Look, we see this bill for what it is -- deregulation of the marketplace, throwing the quality of work life and the quality of family life open to business pressure, letting business and competitive pressure decide what these things will be like, what quality they will have and what content they will have.”

When they said that, what was the response of the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General? His response was: “None of these people can be real. Where are the real people?”

Mr. Fleet: Not over there, that’s for sure. You are as unreal as they get, Howard.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask members to respect each other and also the chair. When the chair has the mandate to have standing orders respected, I would ask all members to at least respect that.

Mr. Hampton: Really what happened was when the last leg of the subterfuge was discovered, when it was pointed out that the government’s line could not confuse people anywhere in Ontario, then the final line of defence was to say that none of this was real, that none of these people were real, that none of these municipal organizations were real. The trade unions and the business improvement associations were not real.

Mr. Adams: What were the first two lines of defence again?

Mr. Hampton: Mr. Speaker, you should really do something about the memory of the member for Peterborough. Obviously he does not have a very good recall of anything other than his own rabble.

Mr. Chiarelli: Howie, you can’t even define Sunday shopping.

Mr. Fleet: It’s just that your speech is so forgettable.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

1540

Mr. Hampton: That is the sort of process we went through. To say the least, it took away from the integrity of the committee system, because when group after group did come before the committee -- and very diverse groups, as I said, came before the committee -- and gave us their point of view, at the end of it or near the end of it the government’s response was to declare: “All of this is unreal. These organizations are all unreal. They don’t speak for real people.”

There is something very wrong with that. In a democracy, if you come as the executive of the Catholic Women’s League of Canada, the leadership of your trade union, the reeve or mayor of your municipal council or the president of the chamber of commerce, one of the presumptions in our society is that you have some legitimacy, that you have been elected by your members and that you represent their point of view.

We did not hear dissenters from the chamber of commerce saying, “No, the president doesn’t speak for us.” We did not hear dissenters standing on the sidelines saying, “The president of the trade union doesn’t speak for us.” We did not hear dissenters from municipal councils saying, “No, the reeve doesn’t speak for us,” or “The mayor doesn’t speak for us.”

They all agreed that this process was very real and that the representations being made by the presidents of the chambers of commerce, the presidents of the trade unions, the presidents of the business improvement associations or the reeves or mayors of councils, all these people agreed they were legitimate and the representations they were making were honest, true and real.

Really the saddest part, I think, about the government’s performance in terms of the committee stage was to try to undermine the democratic legitimacy of those people who are duly representative of their organizations when they came before the committee and pointed out their community’s or their organization’s point of view. That was the saddest part of the committee stage, when there was an attempt to undermine the opinions and views presented by these groups and organizations.

Our opposition to what has gone on here is really twofold. We oppose the bill and we oppose the substance of the bill fundamentally, because no matter how the government tries to dress it up, no matter what language it uses --

Mr. Chiarelli: And all the amendments.

Mr. Hampton: Some of the Liberal rump here say, “What about the amendments?” No matter how it tries to sprinkle in a few amendments, the fact is that in fundamental terms this bill is taking the society we call Ontario in the wrong direction, and five or 10 years down the road will put us in a place we do not want to be. We will look back on it at that time and we will recognize it as one of those small steps, one of those small decisions that was made in the wrong way. For that reason, we are opposed to the substance of the bill.

Equally as important, we are opposed to the way in which the government has done this. From the day during the election campaign of 1987 when the Premier answered the press, “Yes, we support the common pause day,” from that day on we have been opposed to the way the government has handled this issue, because how can you defend the government when three months later the government rises in this Legislature and says, “No, we don’t support the common pause day”?

Mr. Faubert: When? When did they say that? Absolute nonsense.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Hampton: How can you support the government when that is in effect what it does? Further, when its position is called by all those groups out there in our society that recognized what was happening, the government says, “It’s the local option.”

Mr. Black: You should be ashamed of yourself. How can you look at yourself in the mirror.

Mr. Fleet: You haven’t read the act.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chiarelli: You’re talking fluff now, Howie. It’s all fluff.

Mr. Hampton: Then when the complaints flow in about the fluff of the local option, they respond, “All these criticisms are unreal.”

Mr. Faubert: Fluff and nonsense.

Mr. Chiarelli: Define Sunday shopping, Howie. You can’t do it, can you?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Hampton: We oppose the reporting back of this bill, as I have said, for those two fundamental reasons. One, we oppose the substance of the bill. It takes us in the wrong direction and will put us in the wrong place. And we oppose it because of all the shenanigans the government went through from August 5, 1987, onward in terms of trying to ignore the issue, cover the issue, dress up the issue, hide the issue or finally to say that those who were opposed to the issue really had no basis for their opinion, really had no social reality or real social basis in terms of putting forth the opinion they had. Those are the reasons we oppose it.

I say that the government ought to be ashamed of what it is doing and the government ought to take time now, before it is too late, to finally, once and for all, do the right thing. If, as they said on August 5, 1987, they are in favour of the common pause day and throw out this legislation and truly tighten up the act in terms of enforcement of what is there, we will be much better off.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am pleased once more to express my strong opposition to Bill 113. I would like to start by just quoting “Today’s Quote” from the Toronto Sun, January 31, 1989. This is attributed to the Premier and the quote is, “Nobody has ever maintained that this government is perfect.” That is the understatement of this year, if not this century. “Perfection” is one word that will never be used to describe this government.

Having said that, I will start on my speech.

The report by Public Affairs Management Inc. states that the Liberal government has only two items on its agenda, and those are the free trade issue and the Sunday shopping issue. I am not sure whether the report is accurate or not, but let’s assume that it is and move on from there.

Since free trade is not debatable at this time, I would like to move to the second item, which is the Sunday shopping issue, which is Bill 113 and its companion piece of legislation, Bill 114: Sunday shopping or Sunday closing or Sunday opening, but it is something to do with Sunday.

I would like to just ask one question: Why is Sunday shopping such a priority with this government and this Premier? Why, why, why? Who does the Liberal government hope to serve by forcing through Bills 113 and 114?

I have personally tabled many petitions in this Legislature strongly opposed to this legislation. I have received countless letters and phone calls and talked to people personally expressing their very strong opposition to this legislation.

I have, in all honesty, talked to some people who have supported the legislation and felt that Sunday shopping was a good idea. In fact, on my way down to Toronto on Monday past, I stopped at a retail store. In discussion with some of the clerks, one of them said to me that she looked forward to the opportunity for this legislation to pass and the stores to be open in Toronto so she could shop in Toronto.

I indicated to her that I felt this would be difficult, because she would be working in her own store if this came about. She was quite annoyed at this and said: “I have no intentions of working Sunday. I just want someone else to work Sunday to look after my needs.”

That is the feeling of many people who support Sunday shopping. If it turns out that they have to work themselves, most of them change their mind.

Just as an example of some of the problems that were brought to my attention, this past Sunday my son and daughter-in-law were at our home. My daughter-in-law, Paula, works at Sears in Guelph. The people at Sears are very concerned that if the stores open in Cambridge or Kitchener-Waterloo, or indeed even in Toronto, their store will open as well and they will have to work Sundays.

1550

I pointed out to her that this is not quite accurate, that we have legislation, Bill 114, saying that you do not have to work on Sunday if you do not wish to. She thought I was kidding. She said, “You don’t really believe that, do you?” I said, “No, but some of the Liberal members think it will happen and it is just ridiculous.”

She pointed out that Sears has not hired very many full-time people in quite a few years. They are all part-time. They are given an agenda, the hours they will work. If they do not like them, then they get someone else to do it. What will happen, in her opinion, is simply that people who do not take their turn working on Sundays will not be given an opportunity to work any hours. In other words, they are not forced to work on Sundays, but they are told, “If you do not work, then you do not work here.” That is the reality they are quite concerned about. I agree with them and I think most people would accept that proposition.

On the second point she raised, I had a great deal of difficulty explaining it to her. In fact, I could not. She said, “I thought the government had public hearings and had a committee listen to input from the people around this province.” I said, “Indeed, they did.” She said: “Well, for example, from Sears we sent in numerous resolutions and statements that were opposed to Sunday shopping. I understand many other bodies did the same thing. Did the committee not hear what they were saying?” I said the committee did hear what was told to it, but unfortunately the members of the government party on the committee did not pay any attention.

She was very concerned about that. Indeed, she was so concerned that she felt that it was nothing but a charade, that the government did not really intend to do anything but just go through the motions of doing something. She considered it a farce and a charade. In my opinion it was a very costly charade that meant nothing. Paula was so very disturbed by this Liberal government and its members that I do not think she will vote for the Liberal member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) in the next election. I do not think she voted for him in the last election, however, so do not construe that as a threat. Indeed, it was not.

This open, fair-minded Liberal government has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of the vast majority of the people it was elected to serve. This government believes it is all-wise and has the divine right to rule as it wishes.

Mr. Fleet: That was Bill Davis’s line.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: If it was Bill Davis’s it certainly has been picked up quite adequately by the member’s present leader.

Mr. Fleet: We wouldn’t recognize it.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The reason I feel compelled to speak once more on this piece of legislation is because of the Liberal members in this assembly. If they would represent their constituents and speak on behalf of the 94 ridings they represent, then the opposition members would not have to speak constantly on these same points we have tried to raise. As has been pointed out by numerous members, if the Liberal members do have points to express, they have opportunities to express them, to get on the record.

Mr. Fleet: I am. All my interjections.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Unfortunately, very few of them have exercised this option.

Mr. Fleet: I am in favour of the bill. What more can I say?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: As soon as I am finished speaking, the rotation goes over to that member’s side or to the side of any Liberal member. Any one of them can speak. This has occurred on numerous occasions and they have declined that right.

Mr. Fleet: Sit down and watch. One of us will speak.

An hon. member: They are not allowed to speak.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: They are not allowed to speak?

An hon. member: No, not from the heart.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: That is too bad.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Order, please. There appear to be a number of private conversations and miscellaneous heckling of the speaker. Out of respect for the member for Wellington, could he please have the floor in an uninterrupted way.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was referring to the fact that very few of the Liberal members wish to speak on this resolution. In fact, in this case we are at the bill itself, Bill 113, so I do hope they exercise that right in the next few hours.

I would like to make reference -- I stand to be corrected and I do this understanding there could be a mistake, but I am prepared to accept that. In April of this year, our research people posed a question to the constituency office staffs for the Liberal MPPs. The question was, “Does your member support Sunday shopping?”

Of the 82 responses, 13 said yes, 27 said no, 11 were unsure and 31 refused to comment. Those who refused to comment or did not know the answer suggested a letter be written to the member or requested the Queen’s Park staff be contacted or the member be contacted directly. As I say, that may be incorrect. Certainly, that was last April. I hope the numbers would have changed by this time, but if they are not accurate numbers, possibly the members could correct the comments in a few minutes.

I would like to make reference to a couple of letters. One is from the office of Cardinal Carter and I will read it into the record. It is dated January 17 and reads:

“Reverend and Dear Father:

“The Sunday retailing issue is again before us. It is expected that bills 113 and 114, which would almost inevitably lead to wide-open Sunday shopping, will be voted on in the provincial Legislature within the next 10 to 12 days. We are therefore appealing to you and to your parishioners to contact your local member of the provincial parliament by telephone or in person.”

I assume this letter was addressed to all the parish priests.

“We hope that you will make every effort to inform your parishioners at this critical time. It is crucial that your concerns and their concerns about the preservation of the common pause day be voiced now.”

It was signed by Cardinal Carter.

This is a matter that causes concern, to have to bring religious matters into the House when sometimes people feel that religion and state should be separate. I will make reference to that in a minute, but I would like to mention how it affects me personally.

My secretary in my constituency office, Mary Heffernan, is a devoted member of the Catholic church. Her priest, Father Leo Speagle of St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Mount Forest, read this letter to his parishioners. Mary Heffernan said she was approached by many of the congregation expressing their concerns to her and asking her to convey them to me.

I felt they were so strongly opposed to it that I should reflect that view here. That is why I wanted to mention this. As I said, it relates not only to the cardinal’s letter, but to the personal plea by Father Speagle from Mount Forest.

I am sorry the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), the House leader, had to leave, because I am sure he would be interested in the cardinal’s letter.

I made mention of the fact that church and politics often create a problem, but really I think we have a complicating factor, because in this legislation we have a religious clause that does that very thing. I would like to make reference to that.

1600

This is an editorial in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on Friday, September 2. The headline is, “A Weak Clause in the Sunday Bill.” It goes on to say:

“The legislation would allow a store to be open on Sundays if it is shut on another day because of the owner’s religion.

“Determining a store owner’s religion is not always easy. What happens if there are several owners who have different religious views? What happens if a person changes religion primarily for business reasons? What happens if someone who is truly religious is not a member of a religious organization and therefore has no documentary proof of being religious?

“Questions of this nature apparently are on the mind of at least one Liberal member of the legislative committee that is holding hearings this summer. Ron Kanter said this part of the bill was difficult to draft. He said, ‘There is a concern that people don’t manufacture religion for the purposes of the bill.’

“He also said that if the bill is passed in its current form, the courts will ultimately have to decide if a store owner had manufactured religious beliefs to stay open on Sundays.

“The courts may have many jobs to perform, but determining a person’s religion is not one of them. Religion is a personal matter.

“The religious exemption clause in the shopping bill has not been thought out well.

“The committee should advise the government to take a fresh look at the legislation.”

I concur that religion should not be drafted into this legislation. It causes me a great deal of concern.

I would like to leave this part of the discussion by reading into the record another comment from another religious leader. This is a Toronto Star article dated January 25, 1989. The headline is, “Senior Bishop Attacks Premier on Sunday Law.” I will just quote two paragraphs of it.

“A leading Anglican bishop has accused Ontario Premier David Peterson of being ‘unreasonable and irresponsible’ for pushing through proposed Sunday shopping legislation.

“Archbishop John Bothwell of Niagara, the Anglican Metropolitan or senior bishop of Ontario, yesterday told the Star that it appears bills 113 and 114 will be passed even though surveys have shown that many Ontarians are against Sunday shopping.”

I am quoting from the Star. Maybe they have made a mistake, but I understand the Premier also reads the Star and is very much affected by what the Star may say. Hopefully, he has read that article as well.

I will move on. I only have a few more minutes. The municipal option sounds pretty good and I am very supportive of local autonomy. Most of my municipalities would like more control, more local autonomy. They would like control of their destiny.

They use the example that land use and planning are possibly areas where if this government would give them some say, it would mean something, but in the needless bureaucratic delays and red tape in receiving approvals for sewage projects, housing and industrial expansion -- nearly any form of development -- the government refuses to give them any say in that.

They are quite willing to give them the responsibility to deal with this issue, because they do not know how to handle it. They are treading upon the municipalities in placing this legislation that they will not even address. Most of the municipalities have repeatedly stated that the present legislation, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, would be satisfactory with a few amendments and some good common sense. Of course, the government lacks that.

If the government feels so strongly that it needs Sunday shopping, then I submit it has a similar responsibility to provide services to the public. The courts are overworked at the present time. Perhaps working Sundays would reduce their workload. Instead of building new schools, the schools could be open seven days a week. That would solve part of the education problem. I mentioned the other day in this Legislature that the driver examination centres could be open on Sundays to cut down on their workload.

Are the liquor stores not important to our tourists? I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) that question in the House about a year ago. The minister said Sunday opening would be up to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. However later, after the Premier’s staff briefed him, he did an about-face and said the government would not permit the sale of alcohol even in municipalities that opted for Sunday shopping.

When I questioned him in the House the next day he said they thought the number of hours the liquor stores were open now was appropriate and they did not contemplate a change. I agree with him, but why do the retail stores have to open seven days a week if the LCBO retail stores do not have to?

Mr. Black: They don’t have to.

Mr. Fleet: They don’t have to open, Jack.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just a minute then. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I will try to talk to this rump on the left and point out that when those members say the retail stores do not have to open, I accept that. But they do, because of many other factors, though not the legislation. The legislation allows the municipalities to decide if the stores will open. Then why not allow the retail LCBO stores to open as well? I say to the rump, let the government give the LCBO stores the right to stay open if their municipalities request it.

However, at the recent conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) refused to accept a resolution from AMO requesting the government reconsider its plan to let Ontario’s towns and cities decide if they want Sunday shopping. That is the fair, open-minded government we have. At the same conference, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) said: “The current situation has been a hodgepodge. The tourist area option to open is important because of the emphasis on tourism in Ontario.”

“If you do not want to be open, you do not have to be,” he added. How will the tourists like one town wide open and one town closed tight? “That is local option, and that is good for tourism.” I think not. If the government is concerned about tourism, why should the retail stores be open Sundays but not the LCBO? Is that not hypocritical?

Mr. Faubert: No, it’s accurate.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Is that permitted? If not, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it.

Mr. Breaugh: Frank says it’s accurate, so it must be okay.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to make something very clear because there is a tendency for things to be taken out of context. I want to make it clear that I do not advocate or support any of these institutions being open on Sundays. Their employees are entitled to spend their Sundays with their families, but so are the retail merchants and their employees. Surely all reasonable members of this Legislature concur with that thought, even the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert).

Mr. Faubert: Agrees with that.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Agreed.

Mr. Faubert: Right.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Let the record show he has agreed.

Mr. Breaugh: He is only the temporary member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Faubert: For the next three years, anyway.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Temporary.

1610

I feel qualified to express my views on this legislation because of my personal experience. I spent over 30 years in the retail business. It is a very similar type of business to that of the many thousands of people in this province, small business people, who will be affected by this legislation. I hope I can speak on their behalf.

I also had the opportunity to serve on a municipal council for several years, and I think I can speak for many of these small councils that will be faced with this major decision of how not only to determine the issue but also to police it. It is quite a responsibility for these municipalities.

Mr. Miller: Did you pace yourself? Did you run your chamber yourself?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The Speaker advised me not to listen to interjections.

Mr. Miller: I think that’s the way it was run. You didn’t have governments tell you.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I will disregard the one from the member for Norfolk.

In closing, I would like to state my support for the recommendations of the select committee on retail store hours, especially two key recommendations: “The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario” and “The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act...should remain that of the provincial government.”

Mr. Smith: It’s under the municipalities now, six days a week.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: If there are problems with the present law, as legislators it is our job to fix those problems, not pass the entire issue on to another level of government.

Mr. Black: That’s what we’re doing.

Mr. Fleet: Is that the punch line?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Did you catch that, Mr. Speaker? Their heckling was rather loud.

The executive of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario agreed 58 to 3 in late November. Does that indicate they have the support of the municipalities? Maybe they do have support from 3, but 58 said no.

Mr. Fleet: Sault Ste. Marie was one of the three.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Sault Ste. Marie was one of the three. I imagine Niagara Falls might be one.

In late November, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) said it would be the chicken way out to hand the issue over to the municipalities. However, on December 1, 1987, the same Solicitor General said, “It is the intention of this government to introduce in the new year legislative changes allowing individual municipalities to regulate Sunday opening.”

The question before us then is, will the chickens come home to roost? I can assure members that our party will do everything we can to ensure that this does not happen, that the legislation does not go through; but unfortunately I have a feeling that by six o’clock tonight we may see something different. It is now up to the citizens of this province to do their share to see that the results of this legislation bear fruit.

The Premier has stated that he wants to lead the opponents of Sunday shopping into the 21st century. I submit that while he wants to lead the opponents into the 21st century with Sunday shopping, they are not fussy about going.

In final conclusion, I would like to say that by coincidence I was watching a program on TVOntario last night and the program dealt with Ontario in the last century. The topic was responsible government. I found it quite intriguing because it zeroed in on the very problem we have here. It pointed out that a government’s clampdown leads to abuse of power, and that is what we have here. It is one individual, possibly with a few staff members, advising what is in the best interest of this province, cabinet listening to that irresponsible advice and then making decisions that are not reflective of the views of the people in this province.

This is exactly what has happened with this piece of legislation. It was mentioned earlier that the government was committed to an agenda that had two topics, one free trade and the other Sunday shopping. It is now dealing with Sunday shopping and hoping to finish it in the next week.

Mr. Cleary: The bottom line.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The bottom line or the punch line is quite simply that good government should be that the cabinet is responsible to the Legislature and the Legislature is responsible to the people. The people do not want Bill 113; they have made this abundantly clear. This Liberal government is not responsible to the people.

I am sorry that the Liberal rump on my left laughed at my remark when I said the Legislature is responsible to the people. It was my understanding that this is what this process is all about. I think the members on this side of the House, from my seat up --

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington inadvertently, I am sure and quite sincerely, misinformed the House. There was no laughter at that comment. There were other interjections to which there was laughter, but not at the comment the honourable member referred to.

I would also say that we did enjoy his comments, even if we did not always agree with them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): That is not a point of order. It is very difficult for an opposition member to give an address when he is being heckled from three sides of the House. I have asked before that respect be given to the member for Wellington. I hope that will be the case.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: In conclusion, I would like to respond to the point the member for High Park-Swansea made. If there is any way that I reflected in any sense anything of a nasty nature against the members, I do apologize because I certainly did not mean to imply that. I think they are misinformed. They are not really acting responsibly, but it is nothing much more dangerous than that.

Having run out of things to say at this time, and since the time is now within a few hours of voting, I will finish so that some other members, hopefully from the Liberal Party, can put their views on the record,

The Acting Speaker: It is now in rotation and there is an opportunity for government party members to speak.

Mr. Kanter: I am pleased to rise and respond to some of the comments of both opposition parties and to speak in support of this motion to adopt the report of the standing committee on administration of justice on Bill 113.

I know there were some members who had the opportunity to travel with the committee very extensively, as I did. The member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) was a member of the committee for part of the time. The member for Wellington was not. There are other members in the chamber who were also members of that committee on either a regular or substitute basis. I want to remind all members of the very extensive committee hearings on this matter.

We held public hearings in 14 communities in this province. We were in Toronto and we were in every part of the province -- the north, the east, the west and central Ontario. We listened to the priest from Sudbury who was mentioned. We listened to employees of many firms. We listened to former municipal councillors. We listened to pensioners. We listened to steelworkers. We listened to people in many diverse communities and we heard many diverse views. There is no consensus or agreement on this issue. There are strong feelings about the issue on both sides.

The committee wrestled with the issues that were presented to us. In fact, we devoted 23 days to clause-by-clause examination of this bill. It is a bill, I would remind members, which is a relatively short one. It contains but eight clauses. It is in itself an amendment to the earlier Retail Business Holidays Act. I would suggest that rarely have members of this House devoted so much time and attention and care and concern to any piece of legislation as we have devoted to the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

I want to make a point. I think it is an important point and one that reflects on all sides of the House, I think the committee hearings were effective as well as extensive, It was not just a case of listening; it was a case of acting on the concerns that we heard from many constituents representing varying views.

1620

I remind all members of the House that there are now nine amendments to this bill -- a bill which has eight clauses. Seven of those amendments were moved by government members. We accepted two amendments from opposition members. In fact, I accepted a subamendment to one of my amendments from the official opposition. So there are a total of 10 amendments to a bill that has only eight clauses. I think that is some indication of the extent to which the government went to listen and respond to the concerns that were raised through the very extensive and very effective committee hearings that we held on this bill.

I would like to say that, in part, I think there were some very effective proposals made by opposition members. There were one or two areas where perhaps they strayed from the main thread of the bill -- I will get to those later -- but I want to commend all of the members who took part in this debate and the committee hearings. They were extensive. They were effective. I want to commend all of the members of all parties who took part in these very extensive hearings.

I want to just emphasize the three main areas where amendments were made because, after all, what I understand we are debating this afternoon is a report on the committee hearings on this bill. That is what is before this House. There are three main areas of change that resulted from our committee hearings: first, stricter enforcement of the provincial closing bylaw; second, a more accountable local option, and third, a more realistic way of dealing with pharmacies. I would like to deal with each of those issues.

First, I think it is widely recognized by all members of the House that there are some serious shortcomings in the current Retail Business Holidays Act. One of the most obvious shortcomings is the relatively low level of the maximum fine of $10,000. To most of us, a fine of $10,000 would sound quite substantial, but I understand that to a major retailer who might want to defy the law and be open on a Sunday or holiday, its gross sales could be many times the $10,000 amount.

We have made some very substantial amendments to tighten enforcement. We have moved to increase the maximum fine to $50,000. We have also moved to accept gross sales of the business on a Sunday or holiday as an alternative. I want to emphasize the wording “gross sales of the business.” We are not talking about a percentage of profit. We are talking about the entire gross sales. Certainly, if a fine of that type were levied on a business, it would suffer a loss on that day because, obviously, it is going to incur some costs of doing business on that day. It is a very tough fine and a very substantial increase over the current law.

We have also amended the law so that a breach of a municipal bylaw will result in the same fine, up to $50,000 or gross sales of the business on a Sunday or holiday. Again, it is a tremendous strengthening of the law in its enforcement aspect.

We have accepted another amendment so that coercing or counselling a person to contravene a provincial law or indeed a municipal bylaw will result in the same fine, up to $50,000 or the total gross sales of the business. This is designed so that if it should be found that a mall owner or lessor or someone else should be coercing or compelling a person to break a law, he too would be subject to a very substantial penalty.

I would say that the committee worked very hard to make the enforcement of this law tougher. That was something where there was general agreement between many of the deputants coming before us and members of all parties. I think the committee worked very hard to strengthen the enforcement provisions.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is wide-open Sunday shopping.

Mr. Kanter: It is interesting to hear an interjection from the member for Windsor-Riverside, who comes from a community that has exercised the local option for lo these many years. It is interesting that at one point the member for Windsor-Riverside was quoted in the press as saying that perhaps his party should reconsider its formerly held views. I understand he was whipped into shape by whatever powers that be in the official opposition, but I think it is interesting that the member for Windsor-Riverside is one of those interjecting in the debate at this time when the type of local option to allow for local variations is precisely the one that this government has continued.

However, I am getting a little ahead of myself. I want to talk about pharmacies. Pharmacies have been a very difficult part of this bill to regulate. I think most members of the committee on all sides agreed that it would be wise to try to permit the sale of prescription drugs in this province on Sunday in all communities,

However, at the same time we realized there was a major irritant to those responsible retailers who want to stay closed on Sundays to find that there were very large stores, superstores, selling hardware, foodstuffs and all manner of goods, that were able to be open on Sunday simply due to the fact that they had a small prescription counter.

All members of the committee grappled and struggled with the issue of what size a traditional drugstore is, how big it should be and how small it should be, what it should sell and what the regulations should be. The predominant view of the committee was that pharmacies in the province up to 7,500 square feet should remain open.

I want to emphasize that this decision was reached only after very, very extensive research conducted by the impartial legislative library research service which was serving the committee.

We had one piece of information, dated September 27, 1988, which surveyed about 1,000 of the 2,000 drugstores in the province. The survey showed that about 69 per cent of the pharmacies in the province were under 5,000 square feet, about 25 per cent of the drugstores in the province were between 5,000 and 7,500 square feet and after that the numbers dropped off very rapidly. There were a few between 7,500 and 10,000 square feet and less than one per cent greater than 10,000 square feet.

There was some concern over that information. There was some concern whether that information was complete and whether it reflected the wide variety of drugstores in all of the communities in Ontario. All members of the committee requested the research staff to conduct a second survey broken down by districts. We looked at 11 of the 15 geographic districts which the province is divided into under the Health Disciplines Act.

We looked further at the effect of closing drugstores, let’s say, less than 5,000 square feet. We found that would result in a complete closure, a loss of service, in about 25 per cent of the communities surveyed. We found that if we did that, communities such as Cornwall, Lindsay, Barrie, Georgetown, Fort Erie, Wingham and New Liskeard would not have any prescription drugs available on Sunday.

As a result of that fairly extensive information, the committee decided that 7,500 square feet was a reasonable figure to ensure that most municipalities would have prescription drugs available on Sunday but that the very large, really department stores, mini-department-stores or not-so-mini-department-stores that also sold prescription drugs would not be able to be open.

I think that was a motion that generally found favour with many of the deputants who appeared before us. We did hear that one of the opposition parties, not the official opposition but the third party, wanted to increase the size of drugstores still more. They wanted to increase the size of drugstores to 10,000 square feet.

We felt, on balance, that would not be fair to the many other types of merchants who wish to remain closed on Sunday. That is why, after very careful consideration and independent, unbiased research, we made the change that we did in the bill to pharmacies. We are allowing those pharmacies that may be larger than 7,500 square feet either to reduce their size to that figure or to apply to their local councils to see if they might obtain a proper and legal exemption.

1630

I want to emphasize how much better that is than the current situation where there is virtually no regulation in the area of pharmacies, where the law contains a regulation that restricts the number of employees in drugstores which has proved unenforceable, absolutely impossible to enforce. It is our view that the replacement of a test of the number of employees with a square-foot test, a realistic, tested, surveyed figure in terms of the number of square feet is a much more effective way of regulating pharmacies in a fair and enforceable manner.

The third major area of change is that of adding greater accountability to the local option in the bill. I was very interested, as we travelled about the province, to examine the way local option has worked in this province for the past 15 years. Local option is not a new thing either in the regulation of Sunday retailing or in the regulation of other types of activities in this province, but I was particularly interested, as we travelled around the province, to see the great deal of flexibility and common sense that people of Ontario have applied in going the local option route.

For example, we were in the town of Collingwood, which was open on Sunday, which permitted Sunday shopping. We were in Orillia, and I thought Orillia was a particularly interesting location, because Orillia at one point had Sunday shopping in the downtown area and then decided it did not want it any more. Barrie had never had Sunday shopping. It was interesting, because I think it showed very clearly that some of the dire consequences that were predicted -- that the local option would lead to the domino effect, that the local option was irreversible -- were very clearly refuted by the experience of the people of Ontario.

We went to other communities. We heard evidence about the Niagara Peninsula where some municipalities are open and some are closed. Stratford is open during the festival season. Thunder Bay has a very interesting and, to my mind, unique sort of opportunity for people who are handicapped to shop on one Sunday in November. Certainly my colleague who represents that area is aware of the fact that this is just one of a package of things that the community does to help the handicapped. I thought it a very creative use of the local option in that community.

We learned subsequent to the committee’s hearings, the clause-by-clause hearings, that there were two votes, two referenda during the municipal election. One of them was in the community of Sault Ste. Marie, which had had some practical experience with Sunday shopping, and Sunday shopping was endorsed by a majority of those voting in the referendum. Another was in Brantford. In Brantford, which has not had a local option in the community itself, although there is one in the nearby community of St. George, Sunday shopping was rejected by a referendum.

I do not think that anyone who followed that committee or took part in that committee or indeed who has taken part in this debate should be surprised by the results, because the reality is that people in this province are divided in their views on this issue. There is no consensus.

There were, however, some problem areas identified in the operation of the local option over the years and these are some of the problem areas that the committee worked very hard to improve. I think the most important single amendment that this committee moved was one to make the local option more accountable to people who live in local municipalities, because since 1975 and up to, I understand, the last couple of weeks, municipalities have been able to open up in whole or in part without any notice or participation of local citizens. I think that is wrong; I think that is inadequate; I think that is one of the other inadequacies of the former legislation, and the committee went a long way to fix that.

The committee put in a notice provision. Any proposal to open up or close down services or retail businesses on Sundays has to be advertised in the local press and has to be the subject of a public meeting. Anyone who wishes to speak at that public meeting must have an opportunity to speak, a tremendous increase in the amount of accountability and the extent to which people who are interested in this issue can speak out on it.

It seems to me tremendously easier not perhaps for my constituents, but for constituents, for example, from the constituency of Rainy River or perhaps the constituency of Wellington to go down to their local city hall or their local town hall and to speak out on this issue at the local level rather than having to come down to Queen’s Park, which may be a great distance.

One of the things that really surprised me in this entire committee process -- I am trying to give as impartial an account of the committee decisions as I can -- was the fact that the official opposition voted against public notice and public hearings on this very important subject.

I had been led to believe, perhaps falsely and incorrectly, that the official opposition liked to represent themselves as supporting public access, public involvement and public participation. Here was the most important opportunity to allow every individual resident from every individual city that was even contemplating a change in its Sunday shopping legislation, to let the average guy have a say, and the official opposition voted against notice and hearing.

There were a number of other positive and constructive provisions, changes and amendments that we made to this bill. One of them involved the possibility that municipal councils could adopt a plan and set out criteria. We heard a great deal about the desirability of having criteria. The only problem was that nobody could agree on exactly what they should be.

There were tourism groups that felt shopping was an integral part of tourism in all parts of the province. There were labour groups that felt we should be much more restrictive and allow Sunday shopping in resort areas but not in other tourist areas. There were some religious groups that thought we should cut back the current tourist exemption and some religious groups that felt that current exemption was okay.

There was a great deal of diversity from different interest groups and different geographical groups. There was a group that made a representation before the committee and has subsequently suggested there be a limitation on the size of stores open in various local communities.

I want to be very clear that the part of the bill that enables municipal councils to adopt a plan or criteria will permit local councils to do all of these kinds of things, to deal with criteria on a rational basis. They can consider their regulations with respect to store hours on other days of the week as well. This is a power they now have. They can look at it and they can deal with it as part of a comprehensive package.

I have had some experience, as many other members have, as a member of local council. In the area of zoning bylaws, there are often similarities between different municipalities and there is a possibility of establishing a model Sunday closing bylaw which the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or other groups might want to initiate and advertise or publicize. A number of municipalities of similar size or similar interests might adopt a similar sort of bylaw.

We have asked that all municipalities review their existing tourism bylaws within a five-year period. There were some rather surprising municipal bylaws. There were some situations where a single furniture store or a single fruit stand in a municipality had been declared a tourist zone or a tourist area and some people felt that was not fair to other businesses in the municipality.

We also passed an amendment to ensure that traditional tourism businesses such as laundromats, motels or restaurants could remain open without any impact from their local municipality.

I have heard the speeches by both opposition members today. I have certainly heard speeches on other occasions from other members of the opposition, but I would like to comment on what appears to me to be a slight amount of inconsistency perhaps in the arguments of the opposition parties.

I heard, for example, the member for Rainy River say that the fundamental issue was the desire to have a common pause day. I would ask the member for Rainy River -- I know he is not here in the House now, but hopefully he is following this in the electronic media or he will read it in print on some suitable occasion -- what steps he has taken to ensure that there is a common pause day in or near his riding.

I understand, for example, that the local option has been exercised in Kenora. That is quite close to the member’s riding. I ask whether he has taken steps to close Kenora down. I ask what steps he has taken, as a member of the Legislature, for industries in his area, be it the lumber industry or the mining industry, to ensure that there is a common day of pause for all the members of that industry. Surely, if a common day of pause is important for members in the retail industry, it is no less important for members of other industries.

1640

Members of the official opposition made a great deal of their opposition to the local option. I am sorry that the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) is not present in the House at this time, because we had a very interesting interchange when the committee was visiting Brantford.

A member from Cambridge council appeared before our committee, and I asked this particular person who is currently serving as a member on the Cambridge council whether there had ever been any local options approved by that municipality. I was told that there had been. This was an opening in Cambridge to help the textile industries, I believe, to show off their wares.

I pursued it further because I knew that Mr. Farnan had been a member of that council. I pursued the issue with the member from Cambridge council and I asked who on the Cambridge council had introduced that motion. I found that it was Mr. Farnan who had --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is a tradition that members are not referred to by name.

Mr. Kanter: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely correct. It was the member for Cambridge, currently sitting in this House, in a slightly earlier life, who sponsored a motion in Cambridge city council to support a local option, to support an exemption from the Retail Business Holidays Act on Sunday, June 8, 1986, that was later approved by the regional municipality of Waterloo.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kanter: If I might be permitted to continue, it seems to me that there is some inconsistency between the words of the members of the official opposition, and indeed the third party, and what is actually happening in their own ridings, in the ridings they represent.

I notice the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and refer to the fact that downtown Windsor is open. As for the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), I notice that not only is his municipality open, but there was a referendum, which I have referred to, which supported its being open. The member for Rainy River I have already referred to.

Regarding the members and the leader of the third party, it has often been mentioned that Point Edward is open. I had always wondered where Point Edward was and I had an opportunity to visit the constituency of the leader of the third party, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

I had thought that perhaps Point Edward was some isolated, little location cut off from the rest of the city, some little waterfront location or something like that. I was quite surprised to discover that Point Edward was an older community, perhaps one of the founding earlier parts of Sarnia, an integral part of the city of Sarnia. I discovered that Point Edward, as is well known, has utilized the local option for some time now.

The member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who spoke previously, talked about all the concerns he has about the local option. Yet the town of Fergus and the village of Elora have exercised the local option right within his very constituency, right under his nose. Right in his very backyard a municipality is exercising the local option.

I was interested to find that virtually every single member of the third party -- the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) is here. The old town of Markham, along Highway 48, exercises the local option. In the east part of the riding of the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), who took part in many of the proceedings of this committee, in Cobourg there is a local option operating.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. As I did at my last stage in the chair, I shall remind all members of all parties of the standing orders which call for one member at a time and one member only, with comments from other members before or after but not during.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Oh, we can make comments after?

The Deputy Speaker: If you want to make a speech. There is no question period afterwards. If people want to make a speech afterwards or before, they can make it, but not during the time that a member has the floor. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Kanter: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have tried to suggest that members opposite are not quite as unfamiliar with, nor indeed are they quite as unaccepting or as opposed to, the local option as they would perhaps let some of their constituents believe.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member may proceed.

Mr. Kanter: I have concentrated primarily on the amendments to this legislation made by the committee, because I think that is the most appropriate issue to discuss, to highlight during this debate. In closing, however, I would like to remind members of some of the provisions of the bill that remain in effect in the main body of the bill, because I have been talking to some extent about the local option which is the exception to the basic rule maintained in this legislation.

Section 2 of the bill prohibits people from carrying on retail businesses on Sundays or holidays with the fairly minor exceptions of convenience stores and small pharmacies. Some of the other provisions of the bill I have referred to in passing: the much stricter, tougher enforcement provisions; the provisions of the bill which allow advertisements to be taken into account; the provision of the bill, and I think it is a very significant one, which permits the government or the municipal council to obtain an injunction against people who have been open illegally in a flagrant manner, permitting us to avoid the very lengthy court procedure. I think the bill is greatly strengthened in those regards.

I want to refer, for just one moment, to the comments of the member for Wellington on the religious provision of the legislation. I would agree with him that religion and politics are always a very difficult mixture, as I am sure members can understand from the issue of the Lord’s Prayer or other issues. But I would submit that it is acceptable, perhaps even desirable to reflect religious differences and divergences in practice, to reflect, permit and encourage them through legislation like the Retail Business Holidays Act rather than trying to ignore or deny the diversity of this province, as some -- not necessarily the member for Wellington -- would do.

I have tried to indicate in a very short time why I feel that Bill 113, as amended, is the most appropriate legislation for this province. I have tried to show how Bill 113, as amended, continues to provide a province-wide law requiring most stores to be closed on Sundays and holidays; how the government has assisted the enforcement of that province-wide closing law; how we have included higher fines, changes to the rules of evidence, the power of injunction to increase the enforcement of that stricter, province-wide closing law, and how, where we have allowed a municipal option to continue, we have strengthened accountability so that the average person now has a say where he did not used to have a say.

Perhaps some members of the official opposition find that a funny, ludicrous, hilarious proposition. I think it is important, I think it is at the heart of democracy and I think it is very important that it be exercised at the level people have the easiest access to.

I urge all members to support the motion before us and adopt the report on Bill 113, as amended by the standing committee on administration of justice.

1650

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to be able to say just a few words on Sunday shopping on the motion to adopt the report of the justice committee. Having just listened to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, I can understand why the Liberal government is so confused, totally preoccupied and almost petrified over one issue, Sunday shopping.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Paralysed.

Mr. Mackenzie: Paralysed, I guess, after I have heard the remarks that have just been made.

I would also like to say that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick really insults the intelligence of the members of this House, the members of the committee that travelled around this province, and certainly the delegations that appeared before that committee and the public as well when he tries to sell us the song and dance that they listened hard, considered everything and gave serious consideration to the presentations that were made.

That is patently false, and people know it. The groups know it, the religious groups know it and the unions know it. He may be able to convince himself, and that may be part of the problem the Liberal Party has right now, but it is not the truth. The public in this province knows darn well a bill is being shoved through that a majority of people do not want.

They also know the amendments that have been made are not that substantive, certainly not in the face of a bill that is going to see a local option that is going to have some domino effect, whether it occurs in every part of this province or not. As I have said in other presentations to this House, we have been through that situation in my own community in past years.

He is simply not very convincing when he tries to tell us how seriously his party took this set of hearings, and as I say, it is not going to wash with the general public.

I might also say that I am told by some of my colleagues from conversations just in the last couple of days with a couple of Anglican ministers -- maybe they are a little naïve; I hate to say it -- that they were firmly convinced the other day when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said his members always have a free vote on an issue like this, that it meant there were going to be some great surprises and that a lot of the Liberals were going to vote against this legislation.

I just want to tell those Anglican ministers: “Sorry, you’re whistling in the dark. The Premier didn’t mean it. It was a joke. The party whip is out on this issue.”

I wish it would happen, but I will be the most surprised member in the world if a single Liberal has the guts to get up and oppose this bill, although it is obvious some of them at least are upset about it. They may not be totally opposed to it, but they are not overly happy with it. There is not one of them who is not going to have the party whip decide exactly how he is going to vote on it, so I just want to assure some of my friends and colleagues who have been dealing with some of the religious community that there is no truth to the consideration, which they took seriously, that the Premier meant it when he said there would be an open vote on these bills in this House.

This is one time when I personally am pleased and proud to be able to stand on the no side of an issue. It is not always the case. When you are in opposition, you sometimes --

Mr. Black: All you ever do is oppose.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: Well, it is the role the opposition plays too, but some of the government members do not understand that because they do not like opposition. They do not like somebody saying: “Hey, maybe you don’t have all the answers. Maybe there is another side to an issue that is genuinely held by a large number of people in Ontario.” That seems to rub Liberals in particular the wrong way and I sometimes wonder why.

But I am proud of it, and why? I think it is the public’s side of the issue; I know it is of the groups I talk to. Admittedly, that is a lot of the unions, but also a lot of community groups and some of the concerned citizens’ groups in my constituency. We are in pretty regular communication, not that I am myself a strongly religious person, with a number of the churches in my community. All of these groups I am dealing with, which is a substantial number, are not in tune with the government on this bill, so I think when I say the public’s side, there is at least some merit to the argument I am making.

Maybe I would go so far as to admit that I may even be on the old-fashioned side of this issue, because I think that just may be a factor in Ontario. Surely, to preserve the Canadian tradition of a family day, a common pause day, has something good about it, with all the complications it may bring in and with all it may mean to some of the other religious groups in our community.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the value that has been established for an awfully long time in Ontario. Surely, we are not in such a mad rush in this province of ours -- “a mad dash to deregulation,” my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) said. I guess I would just say to commercialism, an approach that is so rampant in the United States today. I do not think it is in Ontario’s best interest to sacrifice tradition and tried and true approaches, old fashioned values if you like, for greed and commercialism, and maybe added to that a little bit of convenience, which I will admit.

Where is the urgent public pressure for this kind of legislation, for this particular bill? If the government has support for it, it certainly does not have majority support for it. It is much easier to find the opposition than it is the support for this legislation. Just at a time when many people in our province are trying to take a look at how they might make life a little easier, to cut down on the hours of work or extend the time off, statutory holidays or vacations, the Premier and this Liberal government all of a sudden say: “Hey, we want to extend it. We want to open up on Sundays as well.” We are really going to lengthen, in many cases, the hours of work.

This government said it would not change the common pause day. Because it was said during the last election, it could be called, if you like, an election promise. Alas, Liberal promises are now known for what they are worth -- con jobs, worthless, and in some cases outright lies.

The many groups that appeared before the committee that was holding hearings on Sunday work have also been close to being slandered in this House and held in contempt by some members of this House. I have listened to some of the windy rump on the other side of the House saying, “Oh, all the groups that appeared before the committee were the same people.” If I were the Catholic Women’s League from my town or some of the other groups that appeared across this province -- there were some common organizations that appeared or organized several hearings, but to hear members say, “Oh, they are all the same people,” is an insult and a slander to those groups that appeared before that committee.

I did not name the members. I could name at least two of them who took that position when my colleague the member for Rainy River was speaking.

I just wonder if that, as much as anything else, does not signify the kind of arrogance we are now facing with the Liberal government in Ontario. I ask that for once this government listen to the people of Ontario rather than the mall owners and the developers. They were certainly the strongest proponents of this legislation.

Why should deregulation and the marketplace rule? Why should the Liberals in Ontario be following this approach that has become the trademark of the Mulroney Conservative government federally, where it is doing the same thing with deregulation and free trade? It is part and parcel of the same kind of approach. What makes this government any different from them?

The Liberal agenda and direction has been to push this legislation hard at the expense of many more important things that need to be done in this province that have been delayed. It is not just in my fields, safety and health or plant closures, but in the health field and a number of other issues. I guess it is why the papers are saying they have lost some direction or program.

I ask the question, as I have asked it a number of times, where is the terrific pressure coming from for this kind of legislation that is so divisive and that they are going to live with for a long, long time? Once they get to the local option, if they do not think they are going to have individual areas of this province having one heck of a fight on the local level and then screaming at the government, they are making a mistake in their approach.

1700

I guess it is no wonder the honeymoon is finally starting to dissipate a bit for this government in Ontario. I wish the government would think for a minute what it is doing in a broader sense than just this legislation, because the arguments have been made, maybe not effectively enough in this House, that it is going to have to look at increases in day care once people have to work on Sundays. It is going to have to look at some communities where they are talking about cutting out some of the public transportation altogether on Sundays. It is going to have to look at the transportation services. It is going to have to take a look at all kinds of other services.

My colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) made a very good argument when he said those food centres, or whatever he called them, that are in the big shopping malls, which are not really covered -- they are not retail workers in this bill; they are not covered in either provision, the nonprotection provision or the Sunday work provision -- are going to have to open. We know they are not going to stay closed if the mall owners force the shops to open in the various shopping centres across this province.

What about all of the other groups that are going to be affected? Apart from the personal feelings that are involved and the desire not to have to work on Sundays, has the government tried to start costing what might be the municipal costs in terms of additional services that will be needed?

I guess some of the members would be inclined to laugh and say, “Hey, you are assuming.” If they do not think that is a likely extension of this legislation, then I think they may be sadly mistaken on yet another account. That is not just an additional problem the municipalities will face; it is an additional problem for the taxpayers because if they have to provide these additional services, we will see the municipalities having to deal with it on a tax basis as well.

I do not know where the government gets the need for this piece of legislation and why it has let it dominate this House at the expense of almost every other major issue that is so important to the people in this province.

I am proud to stand up here and say I do not think the government is right. I think it has made a terrible mistake. I think this bill is wrong. I do not think the people of Ontario want to see the wide-open commercial approach we have in so much of the United States today. I think that is the wrong approach. I think this government is wrong about it and I am very pleased to be able to say that we will vote against it.

I am sorry once again to have to tell some of those people who thought maybe the Liberals would be given a free vote, that the whip is in, that the Premier, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and this Liberal Party have decided their members are going to have to support this new law and decide that we may have to work on Sundays. I think the government is going to regret it and I am sorry that is the case.

Mr. Cousens: There is a great deal one could say about this bill and the impact it is going to have on the province. I believe many members of our party have tried to express that over the last great number of years as the issue has been discussed and debated, not only in committee but here in the Legislature. Now, coming up possibly for the last time, we have the last chance to have a kick at the cat and put our views on the table.

I guess to me it is rather sad that it has come to this point where we are forced into a final debate and this bill will become law very shortly. There are going to be long-term ramifications for the province because of changes that are going to come from the implementation of this bill.

It is unusual in that, here in Ontario, the province has never before allowed freedom of social legislation to be with the local municipality as it will be with Bill 113. When it comes to other social legislation such as consumer protection, education, employment, health care, human rights and public safety, the government does not allow the municipalities to set different standards depending on different local demands. Ontario has uniform standards that apply equally to all and are enforced equally across this province. The same should be done with legislation that governs retail business holidays and a common pause day.

I am very concerned with the way this bill will impact on our families, the way it will impact on the common pause day and negatively impact family life by allowing different social standards that will discriminate against retail workers and their families. Many of these families are led by women who already are in vulnerable situations due to the lack of quality child care, adequate public transportation and recreational facilities for youth, especially on weekends.

Yet notwithstanding these points and so many others that have been tabled, this House is about to make into law an act that I believe is one of the most negative things I have seen. I suppose there have been other bills during my last eight years --

Mr. Miller: It is a stronger bill than it was before.

Mr. Cousens: It is not the most negative. As my good friend the member for Norfolk is indicating, there have been some that have been worse and they have come from this government as well.

My point here is that this bill has the impact of long-term effects no one really fully knows or understands, because once each municipality starts interpreting its own rights and regulations and setting up its own domino effect, who knows where it is going to end? I listened to the previous speaker, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). I know how he feels when he touches upon those issues.

It is surprising there have been so many studies on this. The studies have come out almost unanimously in favour of there being a universal pause day here in Ontario. We have had two legislative committees prior to the one that is reporting now, the select committee on retail store hours and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Task Force on Extended Shopping Hours. Both these studies, after much consultation with the communities, with the people in Ontario, came back and said, “No, we really do not need to make these changes.”

I wonder where the support is coming from. In the Liberal caucus, a number of MPPs have said very clearly that they are opposed to Sunday shopping. Statements have been made by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), and others have come out in strong support of maintaining a day of rest.

I am surprised that as many as 56 Liberal MPPs are said to have said this to the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. Certainly, in the report it gave on August 11 to the standing committee on administration of justice, the coalition indicated that 56 Liberal MPPs had told it they were personally opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Faubert: What question was that?

Mr. Cousens: Asking them for their position on Sunday shopping.

The net result of this bill is going to be to open it wide all the way and we are seeing these same ones who have spoken out of the other side of their mouths now coming along saying, “Hey, no worry.”

Mr. Black: You are misleading the public, Don.

Mr. Cousens: I know the public is not going to be happy in the future when it starts seeing this province change from what it has been. We have a chance to protect something of our heritage, something of our past, something of our families. Never mind all the different nationalities, religions and cultures that are asking for it; I am saying people have asked that we continue to maintain something special about Sundays.

It is surprising that the justice committee has come along, and having received as many presentations as it did, not just a few -- in fact, 522 interest groups made presentations, written and oral, to the committee during its time of hearings. Only 30 groups or so expressed support for Sunday shopping. The vast majority do not support the legislation before this House today. They come from many different fields. They use many different arguments. They use the reasons and the rationale that are really part and parcel of what is the fabric of our province today.

One of the presentations was made by Dr. Bradley Miller, a psychotherapist and family counsellor. He said:

“The common pause day gives parents and children a perceived sanctuary of time in which the pace is reduced and anxiety is lessened, thus creating an environment more conducive to positive interchange. One might say that the pressured realities of the workweek are tempered by the oasis at the week’s end. It would be tragic if we, through legislation, would breach the sanctuaries that have taken us so long to enshrine and, through destruction of the common pause day, plummet ourselves back to a less meaningful way of life. Past societies have revolted at such oppression, yet do we invite it? Their melody may seem more subtle, but the processional effect is the same modern serfdom -- a giant step backwards.”

1710

He says it rather eloquently, and he says in a clear way the need of rest for people for a combination of reasons, for reasons that have to do with their own mental health and their own wellbeing.

When you start looking at the kind of concern that is expressed by people across the province, they make their concerns known from the personal point of view. You hear business people raising their point of view. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said on August 10:

“Our members were obviously persuaded by the domino argument, which suggests that making such shopping legal in one municipality eventually forces Sunday and holiday shopping to be permitted everywhere. They, of course, would be in the best position to judge whether competitive pressures in a permissive environment would force Sunday openings. All retailers must clearly size up their competition on every competitive aspect, and store hours would be reckoned into the calculation.”

The domino effect is probably one of the most persuasive reasons to business people, who know that when one municipality decides to establish its own regulations to open up Sunday shopping, the neighbouring municipalities will almost be forced to do so out of competitive market pressures. It is a very simple reality that this domino effect will start circulating right across one metropolitan area, one urban area, and right through the whole province. That begins then to change this fabric of private time, that day of rest, that pause day that we have traditionally enjoyed, for the large part.

I know there are many, many people who have to work seven days a week and who are working on what we now have as a holiday. To me, it is a hardship for them, and yet there is a necessity for so many services that this continues to be the case.

I listened with care to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter). He was saying that some ridings have the tourist areas and they are open already. There is some accommodation that is now possible under the present act, but what we are seeing now through this act is a whole ripple effect that will begin to carry the change right across the province. That is one of the main reasons I oppose it.

You start having large corporations as well making their point just as clearly as do the small, mom-and-pop shops.

Although the Hudson’s Bay Co. favours Sunday shopping, it is against the proposed Liberal legislation. The Hudson’s Bay Co. said: “It is our opinion that the proposed legislation -- and in conjunction legislation, existing provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act -- has been badly drafted and will produce a discriminatory and unjust law which will be impossible to enforce.”

They have the lawyers, the staff and the experience to know just how inept the government is in trying to make everything happen the way it wants to have it happen.

The Canadian Tire store: Who among us has not been there or to some of our small, locally owned associate stores across the province like those of Canadian Tire? They said, “If you want to ensure wide-open Sunday shopping in this province, this is the most effective method to accomplish it, having a lower profile than a provincially administered statute and a more gradual implementation.” They support the thesis I made earlier, that once it starts it is going to press onward across the province.

Then where did the Association of Municipalities of Ontario come from?

“The municipal delegates unanimously rejected provincial delegation on Sunday shopping to municipal councils. It is very 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.”

Many other communities would join in that desire that we retain Sunday as a day of rest and a day for repose, a day of quiet.

All members of this House have received correspondence. I have letters here from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am just surprised that the 94 Liberal members have not openly and publicly endorsed the views of some of the correspondence they have had; they have not done so in this House. In this House, they will have an opportunity to vote. Maybe then their consciences will force them to do what is right and what is good for the province. I really respect that. I think that is what has motivated members from our caucus and indeed our forefathers and people who have been in this House before us.

The point made here by the Archdiocese of Toronto, the office of Catholic Family Life, is: “Wide-open Sunday shopping would deprive so very many retail workers, both unionized and without union protection, of their one certain day with their families. Small and even large retailers stand to be pressured by competition into opening on Sundays if their own or nearby municipalities are open. Their relationships with their family and friends are endangered.”

They say much more in their correspondence, but that paragraph represents the core of their concern, their view, their passion for life and for quality life.

Mr. Wiseman: What church was that?

Mr. Cousens: That is from the Archdiocese of Toronto, and that is signed by the director of the office of Catholic Family Life. I know it has the support of Cardinal Carter and his staff.

I have a letter from a professor at University College in Toronto. He says very clearly: “In North America and in Canada, and in particular in Ontario, we desperately need some sign that commercial activity has not become our institutionalized religion. Allowing retail activity to go on virtually nonstop, would give a priority to commerce that it does not deserve. Indeed, I find shopping every day more of a threat to our culture, our sense of ourselves, than any free trade agreement.”

I have letters from others. I have one from an engineer, a friend of mine in the riding. He wrote:

“To change the present laws, as I see it, will only further corrode the fact that Sunday, to many people, is a day of worship, but more than that, is a day on which families get together. We have had enough corrosion of the family unit without adding to it by supporting such a negative policy as open Sundays.”

The council of the Christian Reformed Church has come out with a very strong statement as well: “The provincial government must not abandon its responsibility to maintain a common pause day for all Ontarians.”

I have a statement here from the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, They “wish to join with the majority of Ontarians, our colleagues in the retail business and workers in the province, in voicing strong opposition to the proposed legislation of Bill 113. We believe that if the option clause is passed into law, then it will only be a matter of time before Ontario will have wide-open Sunday shopping and that the common day of rest that many Ontarians have come to expect and enjoy will be eroded and there will be a negative impact upon the quality of family life in this province.”

Why have the other members of this House not listened and heard? Why have they not understood the passion that these people have for life and quality of life for their families, for their beings, for their existence? Why should there be 94 members in this House who are close-minded to it?

I have to say there is no pressure for this bill. There is no pressure from the municipalities. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has said it does not want it. There is no pressure from the courts. The courts came along and they said to Paul Magder --

1720

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. May I remind the members once again, as memory is collectively failing again, of standing order 24(b). The member for Markham may proceed.

Mr. Cousens: The point I am making is that there is no pressure for this bill, not from the municipalities, not from the courts. The courts in fact, during the Magder decision, came back and emphasized the benefits of a common pause day. There is no pressure from the people of Ontario. In my own riding, we have completed a poll. Over 65 per cent of the respondents came out strongly supporting the position I am expressing now in this House.

Mr. Faubert: Did you take it in Unionville?

Mr. Cousens: I took this poll right across the riding. I will tell the honourable member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that I asked four questions and in all questions, they came up with a strong statement.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order,

Mr. Cousens: The questions are rather clear, and I am being asked by my friends, in the party that is in power this week to specify.

First question: “Do you think that the province should transfer responsibility to municipalities for the regulation of Sunday shopping?” The response: 31 per cent said yes, 65 per cent said no and four per cent had no opinion.

Second question: “Are you in favour of more open and available Sunday shopping?” The response: 36 per cent said yes, 61 per cent said no and three per cent had no opinion.

Third question: “Would you or a member of your family be willing to work on Sunday?” The response: 33 per cent said yes, 64 per cent said no and three per cent had no opinion.

Fourth question: “Do you presently have a pause day each week?” The response: 84 per cent said yes.

I am also in possession of a letter that came from Reverend Stanley South and a number of Presbyterian ministers from Nobleton who were commenting on a poll that was done by our friend Charles Beer of York North. Charles is not in the House now.

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member that we have a tradition not to mention members’ names.

Mr. Cousens: The letter says: “The vast majority of people in Ontario are as opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping as are the voters of York North. Seventy-three per cent of those responding to your own survey on this issue said they did not want it.”

Where is the member for York North today in representing his constituency when in fact 73 per cent of the people who responded to his survey were opposed to it? I just have to say I am concerned.

Where is the pressure? The pressure is not coming from the municipality. It is not coming from the courts. It is not coming from the people of Ontario. It is not coming from the retailers. It is not coming from the retail employees. It is coming from the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), and a few other people who have changed their positions.

I am delighted that the Solicitor General is in the House at this time. She was part of this committee, the select committee on retail store hours, which issued its second report in 1987. Terry O’Connor, MPP, was the chairman and one of the members of that committee was the member for London South (Mrs. Smith) who is presently the Solicitor General. I am sure she has heard this said before many, many times in the House.

It says in this report on page 10:

“In conclusion, the committee heard and reviewed these various viewpoints on the Sunday shopping issue, but strongly and unanimously concluded that the principle of a common pause day in support of family values was worthy of continued support.”

On that note, I am saying they have changed their minds. They have reversed their view. They had plenty of chances.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable minister is just squeaking away. The fact of the matter is they have reversed their point of view on this one.

It touches on family values. It touches on everything we stand for. I have to say that I oppose it now. I opposed it when they brought it out in the first place and I will oppose it after they pass it. I will continue to fight it as long as I am a member of this Legislature because it is regressive, backward legislation and does nothing to make for a better life in Ontario.

I am ashamed that this Legislature is going to pass it. I am sorry there is nothing I can do to stop it. If I could, I would.

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

Ms. Hart: I am one of the members of the standing committee on administration of justice who has lived with bills 113 and 114 week in and week out since late July of last year. That gives all of us -- me included, I hope -- some small expertise on the subject.

At the outset, I would like to tell the House how I felt at the beginning of the process. Frankly, I was not committed one way or the other. Personally, I had no burning desire to shop on Sunday or indeed at any time. York East is one of those urban ridings where opinion was pretty evenly divided one way or the other, and that allowed me to be fairly open-minded at the beginning of the process.

In the process, that approach evolved to becoming very committed to these bills, 113 and 114. What was that process? Why did that happen? We had two months of hearings, morning, noon and night. We went to 14 communities across the province. We heard from people of all backgrounds and descriptions.

I and the other members of the committee did a lot of extracurricular reading on the experience in other provinces and other states. Then we had 23 days of clause-by-clause, and this for Bill 113, which only has eight sections. There was endless debate, with amendments proposed from all sides and, very importantly, nine amendments were accepted to Bill 113.

Like many other members of the committee, I am confident, I did a little informal field work. I made some Sunday visits to places such as the Byward Market in Ottawa, Spadina in Toronto, Queen’s Quay, some of the large discount drugstores and also bookstores, all of which were open on Sunday.

I also took into account the views of my own community. It was a matter of great interest to me that no residents of that community appeared before the justice committee. Two businesses did, but the managers-owners of those businesses, Home Hardware Stores and Shoppers Drug Mart, did not live in East York.

I did hear, like most members, by telephone and by mail both for and against this legislation. I would like to make several observations about what I heard. Quite a number of those against the proposed legislation contacted me more than once, and a disproportionate number of those people, since I was keeping track, came from outside my riding of York East.

The municipality of East York was very clear that if the decision were up to it, the councillors would not vote to open retail stores on Sunday. What impressed me most when I had an opportunity to talk to people was that they really knew very little about the actual bills, 113 and 114. There was very little appreciation, for example, that 113 mandates Sunday closings, with a few exceptions.

There was also little appreciation that the status quo was just not good enough. We saw in the press, “Why not just leave things the way they are?”, but we heard again and again, particularly from retailers, that the current legislation just was not working.

We heard that there was a need to close down violators and now, with this new legislation, we can levy substantial fines against violators. We can bring injunctions to close down violators. We can also use their advertisements in the newspapers as evidence, which is something we could not do before and something that gave the prosecutors a lot of difficulty in obtaining convictions under the current law.

We also heard that there was a great need to clarify holidays such as Boxing Day. Few would argue either this year or last year that there was much confusion surrounding the holiday we call Boxing Day.

1730

After some discussions, callers tended to agree that Bill 113 was a major stride forward in enforcement, but the biggest source of their understanding, by far, was the local option. We already have the local option. The municipalities set hours of opening six days a week. They also permit Sunday tourist exemptions.

Many, many deputants thought that was just fine. In fact, I am reminded of one mayor whom we heard in Orillia. Her whole municipality was open on Sunday. She thought that was working. The municipality was able to make the decision, and she wanted no changes. That is local option.

More than 100 municipalities right now are open, in whole or in part, in just that way. On Sunday, you can buy groceries and flowers at the Byward Market, which a deputant agreed with me was a big favourite among the locals, not the tourists. You can buy a ski jacket at Harbourfront. You can buy gourmet groceries on Bayview. You can buy any type of book. You can buy hardware at a flee market in Durham. Many, many products can be bought on Sunday.

In approving these exemptions, the municipalities have recognized shopping as a recreational activity that is not just for tourists but also for local residents. Let’s be straightforward about it. Why demean the municipalities by forcing them to hide behind the tourist rubric? Why not allow them to articulate their own policies after consulting their own residents? What is wrong with a little sunshine on this issue?

The committee process was of great value. We heard the fears and the nostalgia for another time, but it is not this time. Many communities are open right now. It reflects the differences, community to community, and I believe strongly that those differences are a good thing. Bills 113 and 114 applaud and facilitate those differences. The committee listened, and even the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), who was so forceful in putting forth her viewpoint, conceded that all the members of the committee were listening to the deputants.

By making amendments, accepting amendments and voting on amendments, the committee responded to what it heard from the public before it. It responded by providing a notice process for the municipalities. It listened to the communities that said the drugstore exemption was not good enough for them, because the only drugstore that could be open was larger than 5,000 square feet. It listened to the fact of the need for healthy fines, the need to take into account gross sales in setting those fines. It was a process which responded and it was an effective process.

I am a member of a church which worships on Sunday morning. I value that time and I do my very best to keep it free. Shopping is not a choice that I would personally make. For others, particularly those who worship on Saturday, Sunday is the only time when working people can do all the errands, including shopping, that keep a family functioning smoothly.

Ontario society has changed, and different members of our society have different needs. That is not to say that we value family life any less than our forbears. Because of the constant flux around us, I dare say we may even value family life more. We just have different ways of spending our family time. My own grandfather would have been scandalized to see me playing cards with my daughters on a Sunday afternoon, or going to a ball game or to a concert, yet each of those activities helps in forging family bonds.

I am quite prepared to concede that each community may take a slightly different view as to the needs of its citizens on Sunday. I strongly believe that to give communities the choice is the best feature of these bills. Why should Toronto decide for London or North Bay? I can think of no good reason. Right now, each community decides on openings through the week. Why should they suddenly be considered incompetent to decide openings on the seventh day? There is no good reason. These bills should be reported.

Mr. Philip: These bills should not be reported. I was speaking to a reporter the other day who had covered a number of legislatures, and indeed the House of Commons. He said, “What do you think is essentially wrong that this government seems to be falling apart at this point in time?” We had been talking about it in the press gallery. I said to him --

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: I know that the Liberal members do not want to allow me to speak, those people who are refusing over and over again to stand and tell their constituents where they really stand on this bill, but the rules of the House are that I have a right to speak without interruption.

Mr. Black: Get to it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: The fact is that this government, in this legislation and in so many other pieces of legislation that it has introduced recently, simply has not consulted. That is exactly what is happening in this bill. There were no impact studies done by the government before it announced the legislation.

One would have thought that it would have at least consulted other governments that had introduced similar legislation, but no, it did not look at the British Columbia experience. On the contrary, the minister said that the British Columbia experience, that the domino theory, was fiction.

We said, “If it is fiction, allow a clerk -- you invite a clerk -- of any municipality in British Columbia to come into this committee and give testimony as to what happened in British Columbia.” The Liberals on that committee said no, because they did not want to find out the truth about British Columbia.

The fact is that right at this present time, 55 municipalities, in fact, the majority of British Columbia has wide-open Sunday shopping.

One would have thought that the government would have at least consulted with its counterpart Liberal governments in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but it did not. In fact, what we see there is that this kind of legislation, identical legislation, is so unworkable that those governments have rescinded that legislation.

One would have thought that in the case of the accompanying bill, Bill 114, the government -- even the previous Conservative government did this -- would consult with management and with labour unions before introducing legislation. In this case, they did not consult.

One would have thought that the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), in introducing a bill dealing with a matter of such great concern to municipalities, would have at least consulted with the municipalities. She said she did, and then we heard evidence from the municipalities that they offered to work with her and she refused their help.

In fact, they had asked before this bill was introduced for her to list all those municipalities where there was a problem with the tourist exemption and she has not yet provided them with that information.

1740

The Solicitor General said that this bill will not lead to wide-open Sunday shopping. She ignores the British Columbia experience. She ignores the anarchy, the problems created in the maritime provinces. Indeed, we have the latest statement by the archdiocese of the city of Toronto, and it reads as follows:

“The government has stated that wide-open Sunday shopping would not follow passage of Bills 113 and 114. We respectfully disagree, given the experience of workers and retailers in other jurisdictions where local option has resulted in widespread Sunday retailing.”

The member for York East (Ms. Hart) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) can argue all they want that somehow this will not lead to wide-open Sunday shopping. The fact is that all the research shows that it will, that it has in other jurisdictions and that no less a body than the archdiocese of Toronto -- that one would assume is fairly well researched and capable of doing that kind of research in an objective way -- has concluded the same thing that we have in booking at what has happened in the other provinces such as British Columbia.

We heard from a number of groups. We heard from small business that was opposed to this bill. We heard from women’s groups who were opposed to it. We heard from labour groups that were opposed to it. We heard from consumer groups that argued that it would drive up the price of food and the price of cars. We heard from the automobile dealers who were opposed to this bill. We heard from various church groups and community groups that were opposed to this bill. We heard from business people such as Canadian Tire stores and other operators of businesses who were opposed to this bill. We heard from the grocery store operators who were opposed to this bill.

The reason that the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, is opposed to the reporting of this bill is that the Liberals on the committee have clearly not listened to the public in the hearings.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick states that he did listen and that he cites nine amendments, one of which was an amendment proposed by myself. But what he fails to mention is that all of the major amendments requested by the various groups that appeared before the committee were in fact rejected by the Liberals on the committee. The major amendments, the substantial great amendments were, in fact, opposed by the Liberals. They were against minimum fines. They were against exempting automobile dealers even though they are exempted in the United States and even though the automobile dealers said that this would lead to an increase in prices.

There were 402 presentations against the municipal options as compared to only 26 in favour of it, yet this government has failed to listen to the public that appeared before the committee.

One of the columnists whom I read without fail once a week is Tom Harpur. Sometimes I agree with him. Sometimes I am in less agreement with him. Last Sunday in one of his articles he had an interesting story. He said:

“Albert Einstein once delivered a lecture at Harvard. When the applause at the end died down, a bright young woman who was doing post-graduate studies in physics rose to ask the question. ‘Dr. Einstein,’ she said, ‘I heard you speak at Yale some months ago --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Order. Would the member take his seat?

All members will recall that on January 30, this House passed an order which stated that the Speaker shall put questions at 5:45. The question that has been discussed is a motion by Mr. Chiarelli, the motion of the standing committee on administration of justice that the report be adopted; so I will put the motion.

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

Ayes

Adams, Beer, Black, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Dietsch, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Offer, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Peterson, Phillips, G., Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong.

Nays

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

Ayes 72; nays 20.

Mr. Speaker: According to the standing order, this will go to the committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

31 janvier 1989