Journal des débats 1989-févr-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: Some 66 employees of the Canadian Medical Laboratories in Hamilton and Simcoe were locked out illegally on June 3, 1988. The owners, Dr. John Mull and K. Starr, have treated these dedicated and highly skilled employees with nothing but contempt.

This lockout is clearly a continuation of the first-contract fight these employees had to go through just a couple of years ago, a long dispute where the owners were clearly trying to get rid of the workers’ union and where the owners even refused an Inflation Restraint Board order to pay and had to be taken to court. Having failed the first time to get rid of the employees’ legal bargaining agent, they are trying to make sure the second time around.

The ministry should impose a contract, and if changes to first-contract legislation are needed to cover the loophole that is obviously being used here, it should bring them in.

As well, it is health care funding from this government that is paying for the strike-breaking activities and the testing that is still going on in other labs owned by this company. Therefore, if the government had any concern at all for these women employees, any concern that justice can be theirs, it would cut off these contracts and payments to this despicable employer at its Mississauga, Toronto and other operations.

Does this government condone bad employers and only give lipservice to female workers, or is it willing to do what is right on behalf of the women employees so competent in these two lab operations?

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Jackson: I read with interest this morning’s paper, which indicates the position of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that the Trudeau government’s Young Offenders Act should be amended to allow judges to impose longer sentences on youths who commit serious crimes.

The imminent release of an 18-year-old triple murderer into the Hamilton-Halton area has created understandable apprehension in the community I represent. Suggesting that the real threat which this criminal poses to my community would be averted by amendments to the Young Offenders Act is like suggesting that toothpaste could be put back in the tube by designing a better tube.

This youth was tried, convicted and will be released under the current law, and even if amendments were made to the Young Offenders Act, the principle of double jeopardy prevents the Irwin killer from being tried again for the same crime. Therefore, the Liberals’ well-rehearsed refrain of “blame the feds” will not wash in this case and will not help the Hamilton-Halton area prepare for the presence of this individual in our midst.

Section 44.1(1)(h) of the Young Offenders Act specifically allows the provincial cabinet to release information about this triple murderer to anyone it chooses -- the police, school principals, employers and any other category of persons the government designates by order in council.

The case surrounding the killing of the Irwin family is a clear example of how victims’ rights legislation is needed in this province. When the province dumps a triple murderer, who the prosecuting and crown attorneys agreed should have been found guilty by reason of insanity, into a community, and when this murderer has received not one dose of psychiatric therapy while incarcerated, it is plain to me that the police in my community have a right to know and the victims’ family has a right to know.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Miss Roberts: I rise today to acknowledge that the month of February is designated Black History Month all across North America. Here in Ontario, it is time to recognize the contributions that have been made by the members of our black community in building this province.

Most of us are aware of the underground railroad that brought many refugees from slavery in the United States into the freedom of Canada. Amherstburg was considered the principal Canadian terminus for the underground railroad, but there were significant communities in London, Dawn, Wilberforce, Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. One of the most famous refugees to settle in Ontario was Josiah Henson. He founded a self-sufficient black community at Dawn in the 1840s. Mary Ann Shadd became the first black newspaperwoman in the 1850s, publishing the Provincial Freeman.

The members of the black community have always been active in all facets of society in Ontario: in journalism, law, the military and politics. I am pleased today to acknowledge the first black man to be elected to the Legislature of Ontario, in 1963. Len Braithwaite is in the gallery today, and seated with Mr. Braithwaite is the mentor of the black community, Harry Gairy.

I urge all members, and indeed all people in Ontario, to participate in Black History Month, to take part in the activities that have been planned. The history of our black community is a long and distinguished one. It is one of which we all can be proud.

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

Miss Roberts: I would like all members to acknowledge Mr. Braithwaite and also Harry Gairy.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Allen: Families with mentally handicapped children at home face a cruel dilemma. The government is slowly closing down institutional care, so it is discouraging placing children in institutions. At the same time, it is flat-lining its support for programs like special services at home, which is designed to aid families with mentally and physically disabled children at home.

Ministry of Community and Social Services offices across the province have been ordered to get along on current budgets, plus inflation, for special services at home, even though the logic of their policies is that such programs should be expanding. Families are having services cut by 10 per cent to 25 per cent, and parents who get $27 a day for caring for their youngsters at home are threatening to put them into institutions at anywhere from $120 to $250 a day. Summer support is being wiped out for some, so there is no respite from continual care.

Families with developmentally handicapped children over the age of 21 are dealt an equally cruel blow by deinstitutionalization. School- and community-based programs fully available up to that age suddenly become scarce for the over-21s. Deinstitutionalization has backed up waiting lists, and graduation from a school like Vincent Massey in Hamilton becomes a ticket to inactivity, depression and lost skills, waiting for group homes and vocational services.

If the government wants deinstitutionalization to work in our communities, in Hamilton, for example, why has it cut the local budget for developmentally handicapped children and adults from its regional offices from $1.5 million to $1.1 million?

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

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr. McCague: I would like to bring to the attention of the House yet another instance where the government has lost credibility. Over three months ago, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) said that he and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) would be releasing a policy statement on wetlands management. We were told it would be ready in four to six weeks and that the holdup was printing, translation and the preparation of a companion document.

We understand the policy statement has been ready for at least two weeks. The implementation guidelines are also ready. After making such a fuss at the fall wetlands conference about this statement, it seems almost incredible that the minister would not take yet another opportunity to announce its final release in this House. It appears he just wanted to get in the good books of the interested parties while the conference was on. Now that the issue has settled down, the minister has no time to do his job and communicate with these groups and let them know the statement is ready for public comment.

This is yet another example of the minister’s and this government’s crisis management mentality. When an issue is hot, there is an announcement. When no one is breaking down the doors, it releases important reports and documents quietly. The minister is quickly losing credibility on all fronts.

PASSENGER TRAINS

Mr. Tatham: Mitchell Gordon, writing about sick cities and traffic jams, tells us, “Like the legendary Lorelei who lured Rhine fishermen to rocky self-destruction, the automobile is threatening commuting experiences much worse than the walk to the station, the waiting for trains and the crowded ride into town.”

Compared to rail, Transport 2000 tells us highways use 2.7 times as much land; passenger cars use 3.5 times as much energy; freight trucks use 8.7 times as much energy; motor vehicles cause nine times as much pollution, motor vehicles have 24 times as many accidents. Canadians want passenger trains that are as reliable and comfortable as the trains now in use in other major countries of the world.

Far from being obsolete, passenger train technology has progressed light years around the world. At the forefront of this development, the Train à grande vitesse whisks passengers between major French cities at speeds approaching 300 kilometres an hour.

In many other countries new developments are producing trains that are faster, quieter, and cheaper to operate. These trains are serving busy intercity corridors on long-distance continental routes. But the song of the siren beckons. We love the Lorelei lure.

1340

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: Recently the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced in the House that on the issue of Sunday shopping we would have a free vote for Liberal backbenchers. There is considerable confusion about this. The Liberal members have received a package which tells them what to say. They have received a package which says what speech they are to give. They received a package which says what letter they are to write with regard to Sunday shopping.

The Premier and the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) have said the issue is non-negotiable. We simply cannot believe the Premier on this issue, and the events of this week will clearly demonstrate that Liberal backbenchers will vote as they have been directed.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call the next order of business, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a Senator from the Republic of Italy, Riccardo Margheriti.

Please join me in welcoming the senator.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. He will have received by now, I am sure, a letter dated January 30 written by Gerry Vandezande, who is the public affairs director for Citizens for Public Justice, and he is representing in this letter the policy development committee of the Ontario Working Group on Sunday Shopping Policy.

The Premier will have received this letter and he will know that there have been discussions between Mr. Vandezande and his group, the broad coalition that he has been representing and several members of the Premier’s cabinet.

I wonder if the Premier can explain why the answer to Mr. Vandezande’s very reasoned amendments to the government’s Sunday shopping legislation has been a pure and simple “no.”

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have great faith in this Legislature and in the committees of this Legislature. They have had an opportunity to come forward to this Legislature, to present their views. There has been wide public discussion. Surely my honourable friend opposite is not telling me that I should be making secret deals behind the scenes rather than discussing it right here in the centre of democracy in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: I was not asking for anything of the kind, and the Premier knows it. What I was asking was: Why have his Liberal members, who are not acting without some sense of what the consensus within the Liberal Party is, when they are on committees -- we can take notice of the fact that his members, as our members do, reflect the general positions that are set out by caucuses and party policy.

Mr. Vandezande has made some very specific recommendations, several of which were moved by my colleagues in the legislative committee, all of which were rejected by the Liberal majority on that committee, in lockstep with this government’s position.

What I want to ask the Premier again is: Why has the position of his party, his members on the committee -- the cabinet members who strung Mr. Vandezande along, along with all the other members of his committee for several months in the vain hope that they would reach some sort of a compromise -- why has the answer to every single compromise position forwarded to the Premier’s party, his majority caucus, been a pure and simple “no?” Why is there not a willingness to sit down and look at these reasoned amendments?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is putting forward some strange views of democracy, it seems to me.

The government put forward its position. It had endless debate; some 60 or 70 days. It went into a committee of this Legislature. All groups had a chance to give their points of view. There were, I believe, nine amendments through that process. The committee had the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of every single amendment and then came up with its own views on the situation.

I recognize that there are lots of different views on a subject like this one, but I think the process has been thoroughly democratic and debated from all points of view.

I say to the member that they have met with the ministers, they have met with staff; there have been endless meetings. We are an open government; we are happy to meet with anyone who wants to discuss these issues. That being said, somebody has to make decisions around here and we are prepared to do that.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier is not prepared to discuss the question in general in a way that shows any kind of flexibility on his part -- and that I think is now perfectly obvious; this government has made its decision and it is going to ram through whatever majority decision has been made regardless of the views of the people of this province -- I would like to ask him: Can he explain, with respect to one particular issue, why it is that the Liberal Party insists that for the next year any store calling itself a drugstore, even if only a very tiny proportion of that store’s business is selling prescribed drugs, is going to be allowed to remain open regardless of what any municipality wants, regardless of the effect it is going to have on competition, on smaller pharmacies, on smaller stores and on convenience stores?

I wonder if he can tell us why he is giving this one-year freebie to these huge warehouse stores that have nothing to do with the detail of selling prescribed drugs --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked twice.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I must say I find my honourable friend’s criticism somewhat strange: Half the time he will stand up and heap abuse on the government for not making decisions; when we make decisions, he stands up and disagrees with them. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. B. Rae: That’s because you make the wrong decisions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We make the wrong decisions. I do not agree with that at all.

There is a lot of discussion about the question of drugstores. As I understand it, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) wanted to open it up to 10,000 foot drugstores. We also know that the rules as they existed, the current legislation, was very confusing and we had a lot of stores coming in under the name of being a drugstore which sold a wide variety of other merchandise from hammers to lawn mowers.

We also recognize that this law takes some time for people to adjust to, hence the new definition of drugstores. There are regulations in that act to define what they are and it gives everyone one year to adapt to those rules. Then, if there any violations, obviously there are tough penalties in this bill which were not there before.

We have a reasonable transition period. We have a clear definition and penalties there for people who violate it. Then it goes to the municipalities; and if they like that, that is just fine, they do not have to do anything.

We are not opening up, the way many people think is going to happen. We have a clear provincial framework that allows a municipality like Sault Ste. Marie to have a different view should it so choose. Surely that is not unreasonable.

I tell the member that I have watched this debate for the last year and a half. We have watched it go on. I have never seen a debate with more misinformation spread about by people, more irrational fears. This thing goes on in other provinces. They are not Godless provinces. It works extremely well, and I think --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. New question.

Mr. B. Rae: I will pass on to Archbishop Bothwell and to Cardinal Carter the Premier’s views that they are irrational and misinformed. I am sure they will be delighted to hear that.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am sure that would lead to conversation on a wide range of issues with you and the cardinal. I will sell tickets to that.

Mr. B. Rae: I have had several meetings with the cardinal and they have been extremely friendly ones.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

1350

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is my understanding there was a meeting yesterday that was attended by the Deputy Minister of Health, the Deputy Minister of Labour, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), representatives of the Ontario Hospital Association and representatives of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, at which time the Ontario Hospital Association stated it was uninterested and not prepared in any way, shape or form to reopen negotiations with the nurses with respect to their collective agreement.

Can the minister confirm that such a meeting was held and can she tell us what the role of her ministry was in that meeting?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, a meeting was held. I was present at that meeting. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association in a very positive environment, with the facilitation of the ministry and myself, agreed to continue moving in private on an ongoing basis to seek solutions to what they acknowledge are very, very difficult and challenging issues affecting the nurses in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can tell us her position with regard to the existence or nonexistence of a nursing shortage. Was the view expressed by the government at the meeting yesterday that there is not in fact an objective nursing shortage, or is it the view of the government that there is a nursing shortage and that something needs to be done to address that shortage before two years, which is when, as the minister well knows, the collective agreement as it now stands is due to expire?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The one thing that was acknowledged by all parties at the meeting yesterday was the importance of and respect for the collective bargaining process, and there was an acknowledgement that this was the first collective agreement collectively agreed to by the negotiating parties.

There was also discussion and acknowledgement that the vacancy rate in nursing varies across the province from no problem in some communities to one to three per cent in others. In downtown Toronto, which is of great concern, we know there is a vacancy rate of some seven per cent, particularly in the area of critical care nursing. Those are being addressed at the present time in a number of forums. I believe that with the graduation of some 68 additional nurses from a critical care training course at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, we will see the situation in downtown Toronto significantly improve.

Mr. B. Rae: I want the minister to answer these two very direct questions. I have asked them now by way of my first two questions. I want to ask her to address them very directly.

First of all, did the OHA say that it was prepared to reopen the collective agreement or that it was not prepared to reopen the collective agreement? It is my understanding such a position was taken by the OHA. I want the minister to say whether or not that is true. I want the minister also to confirm to this House that government representatives at that meeting expressed the view very clearly to the parties that in the government’s judgement, there was not a nursing shortage, so defined, throughout Ontario to justify the reopening of the collective agreement. Can the minister confirm those two questions?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As often happens in this House, the facts the Leader of the Opposition puts forward in his question are inaccurate, not factual and sometimes of great concern because they create a perception that is not reality. The agreement at that meeting, and I say to him that the Minister of Labour was present as well, was that the parties, the Ontario Hospital Association and the nurses’ association, preferred to conduct their discussions, with the facilitation of government, in confidence.

FUNDING FOR POLICE WORK

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General. I would like to raise some matters with respect to recent headlines that have been appearing in connection with crime problems in Toronto and throughout other parts of Ontario. I would like to have the minister recall that on October 1, the Globe and Mail in a headline said, “Cocaine Offences Raise Crime Rate.” On October 22, 1988, the Toronto Star reported that violent crimes are up 92 per cent in five years, a rather startling figure. Yesterday’s Toronto Star indicated “A Man Was Knifed as He Leaves Lecture at University,” and today’s Toronto Sun had a headline, “Sniper Blasts North York.”

I would like to suggest to the minister that there is an increasing number of people who are becoming concerned about safety on our streets, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area. In light of those headlines, which I do not believe are sensationalistic -- those headlines, when they relate to specific increases in violent crimes, are very realistic -- what does her ministry intend to do to combat this growing trend in the incidence of crimes?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to remind the member for Sarnia that we are regarded very highly around the world for our very excellent police forces in Metropolitan Toronto and all of Ontario. I have every confidence in them in their work in this city. However, we recognize the city is growing, as do they.

I also have been reading the papers and discussing these matters with them. I note with interest the article in today’s paper about the Peel Regional Police Force having in special consultants from people in the United States to advise them on the kinds of problems they have run into in larger cities and the way they have dealt with them. But in the same article, they emphasized that the real need was still to turn back the clock from the days when police used to be always in cars and to get them out knowing the neighbourhood, working with the neighbourhood. Crime prevention is everybody’s business.

Mr. Brandt: I do not want for one moment to leave the minister with the impression I was in any way suggesting that our men and ladies in uniform are anything less than effective in doing the job they have been given the responsibility to do. But I would like to share with the minister a comment made by a police officer last night, a 13-year veteran of the force in North York, who indicated with respect to a particular investigation he was involved in that “there is enough crack in these buildings to build a fourth tower,” speaking about the drug traffic in that area.

I want the minister to know that everyone agrees more police officers are needed on the streets. I recognize there are some 97 officers who have been added to the Metro force who were specifically given the responsibility of fighting the drug problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: The question I have for the minister is, in light of the fact we need more police officers to fight a growing incidence of crime in the streets, why would her ministry support Bill 187, which according to our calculations is effectively going to remove 270 police officers from the streets of Metro Toronto while at the same time putting those police officers into a courtroom setting, which they will have to do in order to follow the directions suggested in Bill 187?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The bill has been referred to committee for discussion, where I am sure it will get a good airing. It is my understanding that at almost any time police officers are present in the courts dealing with the cases that are before the courts and that co-operative ways can be found to work with the court system with these police as the most effective way of delivering security.

I remind the member that his government’s Solicitor General of the day did in fact speak to this issue and provided $3 extra per family across the province to the police forces to provide security in the courts. This was something introduced by the member’s government for this reason.

Mr. Brandt: That is an excellent answer to a question that has no relevance to what I asked.

Let me suggest to the minister that the $3 that was brought in by a previous government was many years ago. Since that time, there have been a number of changes that have occurred, not all of which are positive, one of which is that in the current year the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has not increased unconditional grants one single dime to assist municipalities with the problem of providing adequate police forces.

1400

I could take the minister through police force after police force across this province and what she would see is that every one of them is saying that Bill 187 is going to cost them money, that they are going to have to move police officers from the streets into the courts, or alternatively, as a result of the minister not providing any additional funds for unconditional grants, they will have to raise local taxes. I am concerned about this issue.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: Police chiefs across the province are concerned about it. What does the minister intend to do about it?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia well knows we have police commissions in place throughout this province that draw up their own police budgets. They have the right to appeal --

Mr. Brandt: They don’t have the money.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: If they do not like their own budgets, then that is their problem, but the municipalities have the right to appeal those budgets if they think they have been asked for too much money. There was only one such appeal last year. The police commissions got precisely what they asked for and what they budgeted for across this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville is waiting patiently.

Mr. Runciman: My question is to the Solicitor General as well and again ties in with the increasing public concerns about crime in the streets in metro areas, Toronto and Ottawa especially, that have been brought to the attention of this party. I want to put a quote on the record from a member of the Ontario Provincial Police drug squad with respect to cocaine: “The quantity of cocaine is increasing yearly. We are seizing coke now like we used to seize marijuana in the 1970s. Bikers, business people, stockbrokers are dealing coke.”

When I have raised this issue with the minister on a number of occasions now, she has fudged with respect to adopting the implementations recommended by one of her own colleagues in terms of beefing up the OPP drug squad. She has indicated there was going to be some reallocation of resources, some shuffling of priorities within the OPP.

I would like to ask her today, what is her view with respect to the recommendation made by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black)? Does she, as Solicitor General of this province, support the recommendation and is she making her views known in cabinet?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I indeed support the recommendations of the Black report and we recognize they all must be examined to see how they can be implemented and which take top priority for full funding. The drug squads already have been beefed up, not to the full amount of the recommendation, nor have any of the recommendations probably been fully implemented, although I bow to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). I believe the recommendations in that area that were well under way have been fully implemented.

We plan to work in co-operation with other ministries because we recognize, as the member has pointed out, that Canada is now being targeted as a place to market drugs in a way it was not targeted before. We have the advantage of being able to look to south of the border and see what was effective and what was not effective in fighting this sort of onslaught. We are working closely with all other ministries so that we can attack it from all sides.

Mr. Runciman: Regrettably, I have to question the minister’s credibility with respect to this issue. We are now talking about four months since the time the Black report was tabled in this Legislature. We have had a great deal of rhetoric from the government with respect to its concerns and we have heard more of it today, but there has been very little action -- a lot of excuses and rhetoric.

We have talked about reallocation of resources and changed priorities, and there is a general concern right across this province about the provision of adequate resources for policing in the province. My leader mentioned some instances of that with respect to a bill now before this Legislature.

I want to put another quote on the record from the chief of the Ottawa Police Force, Arthur Rice, “We don’t have the resources or manpower to deal effectively with the drug situation in Ottawa.”

I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House what in effect has been happening over the past three years with respect to the budget of the Ontario Provincial Police. I was advised yesterday by the deputy commissioner that the budget has been frozen in terms of --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member would do well to remember that Chief Rice speaks not for the OPP, but for his own police force, the Ottawa Police Force, which prepares its own budget. It follows without saying, as I said yesterday and repeat again today, that we recognize the drug business is such that it would not be possible, if you doubled the money of police forces -- there is still so much money to be made in drugs, as the United States experience will show, that as you pick off one person you still have more coming in behind.

Therefore, a great deal of emphasis has to be placed on other programs, as is now being done in the United States, to prevent the market from existing and from growing within our country. That is why it is so important the cabinet look at all the recommendations of the Black report, not simply at one or two in isolation from the rest.

Mr. Runciman: The minister did not deal with my specific question about the budget of the OPP. We are now seeing increasing concerns about street gangs in Metropolitan Toronto. Metro police say 70 per cent of all crimes in Metro are drug-related. In Ottawa, since 1987, at least 10 shootings, including that of an Ottawa police officer, and three murders, have been attributed to drugs. In Metro last year there were 180 bank robberies and a member of the holdup squad says 95 per cent of those can be attributed to cocaine users in Metropolitan Toronto.

The minister and this government are at this time reducing the budget of the OPP in terms of real dollars. They are taking initiatives like Bill 187 to frustrate municipal police forces.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Runciman: They are not following through on the recommendations of their own member. The minister is quick to criticize police forces across this province, not support them, on many issues.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Runciman: When is the minister, with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), going to start taking positions in support of police forces across this province with members of the executive council, positions that are going to strengthen the ability of the OPP to deal with many --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Leeds-Grenville finds himself very confused on the way policing services are delivered in this province. He keeps quoting examples of cities such as Toronto and Ottawa, and then asks me why I do not give more money to the OPP. The OPP do not police in Ottawa, Toronto and so on.

The drug squad of the OPP has already been looked at. We will continue to examine priorities with the OPP, as we have in the past, but most especially we will work with the municipal police forces that do the policing in the places he is primarily quoting.

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Security in community-based correctional centres for young offenders is being jeopardized by low wages contributing to poor morale and high staff turnover. In fact, employees of more than 40 privately run custody centres are earning at least $10,000 less than workers in provincially run institutions for young offenders.

Does the minister recognize that the whole issue of community acceptance of young offenders centres in residential areas depends on public confidence in levels of security? Will the minister admit that the poor morale and high staff turnover resulting from these low wages are helping to be a threat to public safety?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I certainly would concur with the member’s statement that public acceptance of our young offenders facilities in the community is based upon the sense that they are being run and supervised properly. I would, however, then go on to say that in my judgement, having visited most of them and having met with the people who work in those centres, that high degree of supervision and maintenance is in fact there.

I will also concur with the honourable member that the disparity in wages is something that concerns me, as much as I am sure it concerns him. I am in the process right now of allocating or attempting to allocate some resources specifically for that purpose.

1410

Mr. Farnan: Management and staff turnover in these centres approaches 100 per cent per annum. Mr. Marks, the president of the Ontario Contract Observation and Detention Homes Association, has said, “At present, we feel we are able to maintain the security of the community, but we do not know about the future.” In the minister’s own riding of Kitchener-Wilmot, Donald Adams, the program manager of Cassatta Homes, has made the same charges.

Does the minister realize that the low wages offered staff means these centres put in jeopardy the fragile community support for these residential centres, and will the minister accept responsibility for the actions of young offenders in these centres who, as a result of inadequate security, pose a threat to the communities in which the centres are located?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would not accept the premise the honourable member’s question is based on, that there is inadequate security. In my judgement, that is not the case. The member does make a very real case, and quotes people who are knowledgeable of the situation, that we do have a disparity problem in wages when compared with staff people working in those facilities which are directly managed and operated by the ministry. I am aware of that problem.

I have indicated to the member that I have been working on it and continue to work on it, but I will not concur with him that we have a security problem in those facilities. I have visited them. I have been in contact with the members. They have expressed their concern to me about the low comparative wages. I have concurred that we have to do something about them, but they have not suggested to me and I have certainly not seen any evidence that there is a security problem.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing who keeps telling us the answer to affordable housing is increased supply. Everyone agrees that that is the goal. The problem we have when that is given as the answer is that since we all agree that is the goal, we are questioning whether in fact we are achieving that goal and we are asking questions about why we are not achieving it or how we are going to achieve it.

Yesterday, the minister admitted her failure to deliver on the supply side when she was forced to bring in legislation purporting to protect even the existing housing supply. This government pledged to bring in 102,000 new rental units by 1990. Will the minister tell us how many new rental units have been brought on to the market since this commitment was made?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As the member opposite knows, this government has instituted the largest nonprofit production program in the history of the province. He knows very well that we have a commitment to build 30,000 nonprofit housing units over the next three to five years, that we also have a commitment, shared with the federal government, to produce about 7,000 units of nonprofit housing a year together.

One of the reasons I have been so distressed about the problems we are having with the federal government is because, though they made a commitment together with us last year to build 7,000 nonprofit units, at the end of the year they decided to put a financial cap on the amount of money they would spend with us and put into jeopardy something like 1,300 or 1,600 units we were supposed to be building together. They have agreed to keep funding the commitment they made last year, but we are now in jeopardy of having to take that allocation out of next year’s promise which they made to us and to the people of Canada.

So I am extremely concerned that the member opposite, who is clearly committed to making sure there is much more nonprofit housing all over the province, is not, as far as I understand it, in conversation with the new federal Minister of State (Housing) about what role he and his party can play in making sure the federal government lives up to its responsibility, shared with us, to build nonprofit housing together.

We will make sure that the commitment we have made to build nonprofit housing unilaterally in the province will indeed be met.

Mr. Harris: My understanding is that the federal government gave this government an allocation of dollars based on the minister’s estimate of what it cost to provide those units and it lived up to that commitment. When the minister goofed and boobed, they agreed to advance funds from next year’s budget; but that is not the question.

The minister’s commitment was for 102,000 units by 1990, not with anybody’s help, not with the federal government, not by some mysterious mechanism. What I am told is that the ministry by 1989 will have 15,700 units, and that will leave 90,000 to build to meet the 1990 target.

The fact is that there is less affordable housing in Ontario today, not more, since the Liberals have taken office. Liberal policies to increase supply have totally failed. That is why the average apartment rents in Toronto are the highest in the world, second only to Tokyo according to the international survey that was released on the weekend.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Harris: Perhaps the minister can explain why typical low-cost apartment rents in Toronto are the second highest in the world. Toronto was in 11th place three years ago when the Liberals took office.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite seems to me to be confused on a number of questions.

First, it has been clear for a very long time that a significant proportion of the work we do in social housing is done together with the federal government, and I would have expected the member opposite to know that.

As to the fact that this is a very expensive city in which to live, I and everybody else in this room is very aware of that. That is the reason we have made our commitment to build more nonprofit housing. This government has doubled its spending on social housing since it has been in office. I wish I could say that the federal government had doubled its spending on social housing since it has been in office. That would make an enormous difference.

This government is prepared to use provincial lands to make sure that housing gets built which people can afford to live in. I wish I could stand in this House and say that the government the member is allied with on the federal scene was prepared to spend its resources of federal lands to make sure there was housing available for people in this province. I want to see that happen and I urge the member, since he is so clearly concerned about --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

TEACHERS

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Education. Concerns have been expressed recently by school boards in my area that a shortage of French teachers is curtailing their ability to offer French-language classes. Could the minister inform this House of the action his ministry is taking to ensure that this need is being met?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member knows, my ministry and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities have been undertaking for some time now a very fundamental review of teacher education in Ontario. We expect that report to be completed in the next few weeks. It will be released and available along with its findings.

In addition, we have done a survey of teacher supply and demand. I want to say to the member that we very much share her concern over the shortage, particularly of French-language teachers in this province. I should point out, however, that through the faculties of education, this past September enrolment for French-language teachers has increased some 29 per cent. I believe that is a very positive step.

Working together with the federations and with my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), we are committed to doing what we can to resolve this very important issue.

Ms. Collins: There is also a broader concern, as the minister mentions, of a general shortage of teachers across the province. Would he please inform this House what is being done to address that problem?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think most members will be aware that some of our more recent initiatives in education have had an impact. For instance, the reduction of class sizes to 20 to 1 in grades 1 and 2 has certainly accelerated the demand for primary specialists within our schools.

I am told by my colleague that by utilizing the accessibility funding and the program adjustment funding which is available to the universities, there was a significant expansion this September in enrolment through the faculties. Enrolment overall has increased some 13 per cent, an additional more than 500 positions. It is very important to note that the increase in those who are specializing in primary education is up some 20 per cent.

Between the two ministries, we are trying to target our efforts to ensure that the needs of school boards and of the students of this province are being met.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. More than a year ago, on January 7, 1988, I pointed out to her that a majority of the rental buildings constructed since 1975 are registered as condominiums. In my own riding, this consists of just under 50 per cent of all rental units. I asked what the minister intended to do to protect the tenants from being evicted as those units were sold off. Her response was a discussion paper. She promised also that a new act would come in and that she would protect the tenants I referred to.

I ask the minister, am I correct that the new act which she introduced just yesterday does nothing to protect those people?

1420

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Indeed, I remember that question very well. We did examine this question very carefully in our discussions about what to do about the new Rental Housing Protection Act. Yes, the member opposite is correct. After much discussion, we decided that the tenants in registered condominium apartments are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act and that we would go no further than that.

Mr. Philip: They are protected to be evicted as the units are sold off, the minister would have to admit. Does she agree that 80 per cent of the so-called rental units that have been constructed since 1975 are in fact registered as condominiums and that as those units are sold off, the tenants will be evicted? Does she admit that is the case? Why has she broken her promise to the tenants then and not done something about that?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite is right. There are a large number of units that have been built in the province since the early 1980s and they are in fact registered as condominiums. They are built that way in order to make sure that there is some flexibility.

In this province, the law treats registered condominiums the same way that it treats a free-standing home which someone owns. We believe that if someone owns a free-standing home and chooses to rent it to someone, and then chooses to return to that house to live in it, he should be free to do that. We also believe that if someone owns a condominium and chooses to rent it to someone, that person should be free to move back into that condominium if he so chooses.

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Premier, and it has to do with the release on Monday of a young offender who is a triple murderer. I have asked questions of the Minister of Community and Social Services, because currently this individual is in his care at the Syl Apps Youth Centre in Oakville. The minister said that he cannot release information even to a group as limited as the police force because he is unable to do so. He is correct, because the cabinet has told him that he cannot do it.

I would like to give to the Premier a copy of the Young Offenders Act, section 44.1(1)(h). Clearly, the Premier will see, as a former attorney himself, that it does give him and members of his cabinet authority to release that information. Why does the Premier refuse to release that information when this piece of Trudeau legislation clearly gave him that authority?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister had this discussion with the honourable member and I think the minister can clear up the member’s mind on this matter.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member should be aware of the fact, first of all, that the police have been notified of when this young man is being released. They have been notified of where he is going to live. They have been notified of where he is going to work. His employer knows who he is and what his background is. Those are the significant people in that community with whom he is going to come in contact, and they are aware.

My second point: Up until the day of his release, he is the responsibility of my ministry. On the day he is released, he is in the same capacity as anyone else. He is an independent adult citizen, a private citizen of this province. Does the honourable member honestly suggest that when that situation occurs, we should then follow him around and tell everybody with whom he comes into contact what his background is? Is that what the member is suggesting?

Mr. Jackson: The minister is quite aware that the call that was made to this government was specifically to release the information to the police forces only and to school boards --

Interjections.

Mr. Jackson: Well, the minister has not released the information to the appropriate school board, should the individual enrol in school. The point we have specifically asked --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: We now have a resolution from the city of Hamilton council requesting that the government act, given that the council relied on press statements that the minister refused to give this information to the police when we first called upon him to do so. But we appreciate the fact that the police now have been informed after people in the third party called upon this government and called upon the minister to interpret that section of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Jackson: Will the minister notify the authorities also in the Scarborough area and the Halton area which were the areas of concern and where there may be transit involved with this individual on day passes? Will he please confirm that those communities as well will have their police forces notified?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The police force in the area where the young man is going to live has been notified. We have no capacity, and I must say that even if I did have I do not think it would be appropriate, and I honestly have some difficulty with the member’s suggestion that we then follow this young man around for I do not know how long and notify if he chooses to enter a college or a university, if he chooses to change employment, if he chooses to change the place where he lives. I cannot believe that the honourable member is suggesting that we do that.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Currently he has before this House Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act. There has been some concern expressed about this bill in the area of vocational rehabilitation services. The provision of effective vocational rehabilitation services is often the key factor in determining the success of workers’ attempts to return to work.

Some critics are alleging that Bill 162 will serve to restrict access, which workers of Ontario currently possess, to these crucial services. Is it true that Bill 162 attempts to restrict access to vocational rehabilitation services for injured workers of this province, services which many injured workers will require in order to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to thank the member for St. Catharines-Brock for his question and his interest in the matter. To clear up one point right off the bat: Under Bill 162 there is no restriction at all on the capacity of the worker to seek vocational rehabilitation under the board.

Let’s just clarify, if I may for a moment, what we are trying to do under Bill 162, and that is to intervene as early as possible in the life of an injured worker so that vocational rehabilitation will be effective. The constraints within Bill 162 are indeed not on the worker but on the board, requiring it to intervene early, within 45 days, to begin the process of vocational rehabilitation. Once implemented, it is our belief that we will make a positive impact on the lives of workers who otherwise would not expect to return to the workplace.

Mr. Dietsch: It seems to me that both the minister and I agree that each and every single worker who would benefit from the receipt of vocational rehabilitation services should be entitled to them. This being so, I would like to ask the minister what Bill 162 does to ensure that such becomes the norm in Ontario. What specifically does his bill do to ensure that every worker who would benefit from vocational rehabilitation services actually receives those services?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The bill does two things in very specific terms. It requires that any worker who is away from work as a result of an injury or illness in the workplace be contacted if that worker is away for more than 45 days. The board is then under an obligation to advise the worker of the range of vocational rehabilitation services that might be of assistance in assisting the back-to-work process.

Even more important, if that worker is away from work for six months as a result of an injury, the board is required to conduct a comprehensive vocational rehabilitation assessment, and then any service that the assessment suggests is necessary to help that worker get back to work must be provided under the bill to that worker to assist in that process.

I think what we are going to have is a dramatic turnaround from the present situation which typically can be characterized by a period of some 12 months to 18 months of waiting before the first intervention step is made.

1430

FRANCO-ONTARIAN STUDENTS / ÉTUDIANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS

M. R. F. Johnston : Merci. J’ai une question pour le ministre de l’Éducation (M. Ward). Nous avons obtenu aujourd’hui -- sans l’aide de votre ministère -- les résultats d’une étude internationale, qui portait sur la performance, en mathématiques et en sciences, des jeunes étudiants âgés de treize ans de douze régions. Dans le cadre de cette étude, les jeunes Franco-Ontariens occupent les onzième et douzième places. En comparaison, les jeunes Québécois, anglophones et francophones, ont obtenu de bons résultats. Comment expliquez-vous que votre système d’éducation ait permis à ces jeunes étudiants d’échouer de façon aussi lamentable ?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do want to thank the member for Scarborough West for asking this very important question.

As members of the Legislature will be aware, yesterday results of an international study in the performance of both English-language and French-language students in Ontario in the area of mathematics and science were released. I do have to say from the outset that the results for both language groups were not as good as we had hoped, but I do want to say that our commitment to participate in programs of both international and provincial reviews is intended to both monitor, and perhaps more important, improve programs in all subject areas.

This government is particularly concerned about the performance of all our students in the areas of math and science. I do believe that the results of this study very much reinforce the steps that this government has taken over the course of the past two years for the renewal of science and mathematics education in this province. The member will be aware that my predecessor, the government House leader, brought in a very significant 24-point action plan. We have developed a new curriculum that has certainly been widely praised in terms of its new emphasis. That curriculum will be going into our schools this September.

We have provided additional funds for learning materials and other resources and we are working with the federations in the area --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister has not responded to my question about why our Franco-Ontarians have suffered so badly. In that 24-point program, there is nothing laid out that is specifically geared to the Franco-Ontarian community or that recognizes this problem that exists.

My second question concerns the minister’s behaviour in this matter. It is not unlikely that this minister will make announcements on the most useless of projects like this provincial report on whether or not people were following the curriculum in the province.

He puts out a news release on that, sends it around to the press gallery and lets everybody know about it, but on this matter where young Franco-Ontarians are doing so badly in our education system, he did not have the grace, even though he has had this report for some time, to even make a statement yesterday in this House or today in this House concerning this matter, to invite the critics from the opposition parties to a briefing that he held for people in the education community at one o’clock yesterday afternoon.

I would like to know why he is trying to suppress this information which is of dramatic importance to the families of French kids in this province, and why he is not highlighting how important it is instead of trying to hold it back the way he has done these last number of days so shamefully.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do have to say that I fundamentally reject the member’s notion that we are holding anything back. As a matter of fact, I will say to the member that, indeed, we are very proud in terms of our efforts to move further into the area of student assessment, and that we are very proud of our efforts to set benchmark standards for all our students. New benchmark standards in science and mathematics will be completed and available by the end of 1989.

In terms of his specific question as it relates solely to French-language students, I would like to stress that indeed, much of the resources in my ministry are committed in a very fundamental way to improving French-language curriculum and support materials.

Renouveau élémentaire en mathématiques et Renouveau en science élémentaire are both ministry-supported projects designed to provide French language elementary school teachers with local professional development and curriculum resources in mathematics and sciences. The ministry’s French language fund for the development and production of learning materials is giving priority to the area of mathematics and science. The same applies for additional development of computer software.

If we were not concerned about the quality of our students’ performance in this area, then I suggest we would not be committing the resources that we are to undertake these sorts of reviews.

The member rejects the notion that it is important to follow curriculum guidelines. I have to say to him that, if we are going to get --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question, the member for Sarnia.

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health and it is with respect to the proposed merger of Sunnybrook Medical Centre and Wellesley Hospital. As the minister knows, there are a number of very fundamental and important questions being raised about the very significant change in service that will flow from any merger that might take place between those two facilities.

One of the matters of concern to myself and my party is that when the merger actually takes place -- if, in fact, it does -- there will be some 230 beds, in total, lost to the community. Wellesley effectively would close, with a loss of over 500 beds. There would be some increase at Sunnybrook; the net result would be a loss of some 200 beds.

That concerns me, but what also concerns me are the voices being raised in the community. Elected members of council and many community representatives are saying that they want to have a full and total discussion with respect to what will happen with regard to the proposed merger. Will the minister agree to a public and open discussion on this matter prior to any final decision being made?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I remind the leader of the third party that, in fact, we have received a proposal from the Sunnybrook hospital board, the Wellesley hospital board and the University of Toronto. That proposal is presently being reviewed by the district health council in Metropolitan Toronto. I expect that they will be reporting some time in March with their recommendations.

I am also very concerned that, whenever we do planning, there be community discussion. I understand, in fact, that a meeting is being held in the community today.

Mr. Brandt: That does not quite answer the question. What I am asking for, very simply, is that there be time given to the community to analyse the impact, not only the loss of beds but the change of location geographically that will occur -- a downtown hospital will effectively be moved north in terms of where its new service area will be -- and the type of patients who are going to be served. Will the minister simply commit to an impact analysis following the receipt of the proposed merger so that the community will have an opportunity to raise legitimate questions?

I am not suggesting now that we are opposed to the merger. I am saying that we want to proceed with caution before any merger becomes a fait accompli. That is all we are saying. Will the minister agree to that kind of public hearing with respect to the entire matter?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Again, I would say to the leader of the third party that a proposal has been received. It is presently being reviewed in a number of forums within the Ministry of Health and, as well, with the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council, whose advice I rely on. I understand there is a public meeting taking place in the community. I believe whenever there is a significant proposal which comes forward that engenders public debate, that is good. I support that kind of process, and I believe we will have an opportunity for much dialogue on this and other health planning subjects over the weeks and months to come.

MUNICIPAL HIRING PRACTICES

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Since last November’s municipal election, I have noticed a number of municipal representatives, including some from the city of Scarborough, are hiring immediate family members as political staff. Members of this Legislature are aware that this practice is unacceptable by both provincial and federal standards. When it comes to serving the public, representatives must be beyond reproach, as even a perception of nepotism can damage the public confidence in its elected officials.

Can the minister advise this Legislature whether our municipal representatives are subject to standards with regard to the hiring of immediate family as personal staff?

1440

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I certainly understand the question the member is asking. I would say that at the present time there are no provincial standards for municipalities. My own view is that municipalities are fully accountable for their actions. They make the decision, it is their option and it is certainly their responsibility.

Mr. Faubert: I would like to ask the minister then if he would consider implementing municipal standards similar to those that provincial and federal representatives are subject to, in order to ensure that any public perception of nepotism at the municipal level is avoided.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: As the member knows, I am at the present time reviewing the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I would be glad to include that for review. That does not necessarily mean that we will be imposing standards in this area, but I think it is something we might look at.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware, I am sure, that workers at a company called Dominion Forge in Windsor have been out on strike now for two years. It has been a bitter strike. There has been violence on the picket line. The company there has been asking for huge concessions. They have also, at the beginning of the strike, cut all the retirees off benefits. As I say, it has been a very bitter strike.

The union now is making efforts to get back to the bargaining table once again in another effort to try to settle this strike. I would like to ask the minister if he would use his offices, perhaps himself as the former Minister of Labour did, in an attempt to try to solve this long and bitter strike that has occurred in Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Windsor-Riverside points to one of those strikes that really has created a great deal of agony. Although I do not live in the community, I have heard from people who do the extent to which the parties have simply been unable to reconcile the differences that have kept them apart for so long. He, as well as his colleagues from the Windsor area, probably knows about how that has imposed such great difficulty on the workers in that area.

His suggestion is that I personally intervene. Probably a better approach, and I would suggest this as a response, is that, through effective mediation from the Ministry of Labour, we could once again attempt to bring the parties together.

As he knows, mediation is most effective when each side is willing to participate. I will undertake here to re-examine the situation once again and to determine whether or not, through the mediation services of the ministry, or perhaps personally, we could bring a resolution to a strike that has, as he said, gone on a very long time.

PETITION

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition signed by a number of members of the Church of Scientology requesting the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to drop the charges that have been laid against that church. In accordance with the rules of the House, I would like to sign it and present it.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. Bossy and Mr. Callahan exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 7 1(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 61.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 212, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: This bill, and the second or companion bill which I will introduce shortly, have as their purpose the intention of adjusting, by 4.7 per cent, the salaries and allowances payable to members of the Legislature and the executive council for the fiscal year 1988-89.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 213, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

The Deputy Chairman: Dealing first with Bill 113, are there any questions, comments or amendments and, if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr. Hampton: We have a number of amendments to move at this time, several amendments dealing with section 4 of the bill. It is probably best if we deal with those at this time and then move on to the other sections, since there are a number of them.

The Deputy Speaker: Could you identify the sections to which you would be proposing amendments; what other sections besides section 4?

Mr. Hampton: As I indicated initially, section 4, and there will be at least three or four amendments. I have amendments to section 6 and section 7 and that is it.

The Deputy Speaker: Could I ask whether or not you have copies of your amendments that could be brought forward to the table officers?

Mr. Hampton: I have copies of those amendments, yes.

1450

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

Section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(1) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) Despite section 2, the council of a municipality may by bylaw permit retail business establishments to be open on any holiday,

“(a) if, in the opinion of the council, it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry or cultural industry in the municipality; or

“(b) if the establishments provide essential services to the municipality.”

Mr. Hampton: The central debate in this bill is about the municipal option. It has always been the government’s contention that there was a municipal option before and that there shall be a municipal option now. However, the argument is about what the extent of that municipal option shall be.

It has been the opposition’s position, and I think it has also been the third party’s position, that our proposed section 4, as I have set out here, is much more in keeping with the original intention of a municipal option; that is, a municipality or a municipal council should have the option to declare an area to be essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry or a cultural industry in the municipality. That should be the extent of the municipal option, or it should have the capacity, with respect to clause 4(1)(b), that is, where the establishment provides essential services to a municipality.

It has been our position throughout this debate that what the government says is a municipal option in the original bill is not a municipal option. It is an abdication of the rules in favour of each municipality being able to set up its own regime. It is much more than a municipal option. It basically says to the municipalities: “Here, you handle this problem. We don’t like it. We don’t want to handle it. You handle it however you want to do deal with it. We really don’t care if there is any attempt at consistency across the province. We really don’t care about the problems you may encounter.”

It has been our position throughout this debate that the amendment I have proposed here is much more consistent with the term “municipal option.” In other words, while protecting the concept of a common pause day, a municipality has the option of declaring certain establishments or certain areas as essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry or a cultural industry within the municipality.

We feel that amendment makes eminent good sense and, in the long run, will lead to a lot fewer problems, both for municipalities and for the province, in terms of interpreting it, applying it and enforcing it. In moving the amendment, I think it is very much in agreement with the original tenor of the act and is in fact a true municipal option rather than an abdication of the situation to municipalities, as the government bill is.

Mr. Kanter: We will not be supporting this motion, which was previously put in the committee, because of the experience the committee had in travelling about the province and hearing information and evidence as to the many and varied purposes for which local councils actually exercised the local option in the past. As I said yesterday in my comments, the local option has been in effect for the past 15 years or so and experience has shown that municipal councils have permitted Sunday shopping for a variety of reasons.

In some cases, they might be under the rubric of tourism or culture or perhaps essential services, although I am not really quite sure what that means or entails. But we have found other purposes as well: social service, as in the case of Thunder Bay where shopping is permitted for people who are seniors or handicapped; multicultural purposes in other municipalities; perhaps shift work, or proximity to a border to discourage local residents from shopping in other places.

It is our view that experience has shown that the local option should stand on its own, that local councils are in a better position to determine without any rigid fetters from the provincial level, and therefore we will be opposing this amendment to section 4 of the bill.

Mr. Harris: My critic is just outside. The media are very interested in another matter that he raised today. I wonder if I could ask the committee’s indulgence to do a couple of things. We are on section 4 now, I believe. We would like to table amendments to section 4 and also to section 9 and section 10. I also have one to section 3, for which I must ask the committee’s indulgence, if with unanimous consent I could move back at some time, not right now, to section 3.

The Deputy Chairman: We can deal with section 3 and unanimous consent after we have dealt with this first amendment to section 4 by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton). Do you have any comments with respect to the amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River?

Mr. Harris: It sounded like a fine amendment to us. However, we do have amendments of our own to section 4.

1500

The Deputy Chairman: I have recorded and the table officers have recorded that you wish to propose amendments to sections 3, 4, 9 and 10.

Mr. Harris: Right.

The Deputy Chairman: You have made copies available and that is all that needs to be done at this point.

Mr. Harris: So at this point, you would like to deal with this amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: The amendment on the floor.

Mr. Harris: Yes, we think it is a fine amendment.

Mr. McGuigan: I would just like to comment that I am opposed to that amendment, especially on behalf of one of the communities in my riding, the town of Belle River, which a year ago declared itself a tourist area. These people, for their own reasons, have taken this move. I do not think it is fair for the province to put limitations on their actions in deciding the future of their business life and their community life. This has been in effect for a year now and it is working very well.

Certainly on their behalf and on behalf of other smaller communities that are actually hamlets and do not have a government body to speak for them -- several of those are open on Sundays -- I would not like to see the province limiting their scope.

Mr. Sola: I would just like to point out that when you try to define things too closely for the municipalities, you run into trouble with the courts.

Under our present system, the Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada took to court Longo’s Malton Fruit Market in a riding just north of mine, as a matter of fact, Mississauga North. The courts decided they could not decide on the merits of the evidence that the municipality provided, but just on the fact that it did provide evidence. In other words, all that a municipality has to do, when we try to define something in this Legislature, is show an attempt to make a study. The courts will accept that attempt as evidence that the study proves the need for whatever purpose the municipality has decided.

In other words, we would just be getting the same situation over again. If we are going to give a municipal option, we may as well make it a real option where the municipality decides in the open, with public hearings, what it will allow within its own borders. So I am opposed to this amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Five members having risen in their seats, a vote will be necessary.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think you have anticipated my comment, Mr. Chairman. The House leaders met earlier this afternoon and have agreed that any votes arising out of the proceedings today and tomorrow will be stacked until 5:45 p.m. tomorrow.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent that all votes arising out of the considerations today will be stacked until tomorrow at 5:45 p.m.?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Then 5:45 p.m. for that vote.

Mr. Hampton: Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, but the amendment you should now have before you is again an amendment to section 4.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(2) of the act be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(d) shall publish a notice announcing the council’s decision to review the Sunday shopping issue and providing details of a public meeting and shall send copies of the notice to all persons who have asked to be notified about any proposed changes in Sunday shopping bylaws.”

Mr. Hampton: If you read subsection 4(2) of the act, you will note that it sets out certain procedural guidelines for the municipal council in dealing with the Sunday shopping issue. However, those guidelines that are set out in clauses 4(2)(a), (b) and (e) are not complete by themselves.

Clause (a) says that the council “shall hold a public meeting in respect of the proposed bylaw.” Fair enough; a public meeting shall be held. Clause (b) says, “shall publish notice of the public meeting in a newspaper having general circulation…at least 30 days before the meeting is to be held.” That is a requirement for one notice and one notice only. Clause (e) says, “shall permit any person who attends the public meeting the opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed bylaw.”

However, what we maintain is necessary in order to provide the requisite notice is that the council should be required to “publish a notice announcing the council’s decision to review the Sunday shopping issue and providing details of a public meeting and shall send copies of the notice to all persons who have asked to be notified about any proposed changes in Sunday shopping bylaws.”

The point we wish to make here is this: Some people may have a general interest in the issue of shopping bylaws, in whether there shall be Sunday shopping or whether there shall not be Sunday shopping. Some people may have that general interest.

But some folks and some organizations -- this was brought home to the committee when it travelled across the province -- whether they be churches, trade unions, trade associations or certain store owners, may have a special interest in the issue and may have already been in touch with council to say, “If you’re going to make any changes on these things, please let us know well in advance so we can marshal our arguments, so that we will have the opportunity to come before council and present a co-ordinated and well-thought-outline of argument on the issue.”

In our view, those individuals and those groups that have a special interest in the issue, that you might say have a vital interest in the issue, perhaps in terms of their own businesses or their own jobs, or in terms of organizing their working lives, their family lives, their business lives, ought to receive a special notice. That is what this amendment speaks to, the fact that if groups or organizations have in the past indicated a special interest in the issue, they should receive a personal notice indicating council’s decision to review the Sunday shopping issue, so that they may have the requisite time to put their arguments together on this very important issue.

By themselves, clauses 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) do provide procedural guidelines, but in our view they are not complete procedural guidelines, especially when one considers that this kind of issue may quickly divide into two camps: those types of businesses or commercial undertakings that feel they may have a special interest in having a Sunday opening bylaw passed, and those businesses, trade unions and community groups that feel they have much to lose when a Sunday opening bylaw is passed.

Inasmuch as on one side of the coin we may have an organization that is a proponent of a Sunday opening bylaw and may have lots of notice of what is happening, and in fact may be the initiator of a Sunday opening bylaw, we feel it is only fair that those who may be opposed should have equal early notice, notice at the earliest possible time, and should have, again in line with their interest, special personal notice of what is happening. That is the reason for the amendment.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River makes extremely good sense. I am sure the government would want the very people who would be affected by this legislation to be aware of the fact it will be coming in in a short period of time. I see no reason at all why the proposal should not be accepted. We are simply saying that the people who are vitally interested would leave their names with the town clerk per se, and that he in turn would notify them when the hearings are going to be held. That just makes sense and we support that.

Mr. Kanter: I am glad the members of the opposition parties have recognized the importance of subsection 4(2) of the legislation, because it is that subsection, which they seek to amend, that sets out the very important procedural guidelines, requirements of notice, a public meeting and permission for any person who attends that meeting to speak.

I want to reiterate that this provision, which was in itself an amendment to the bill, is much higher than the current requirement under the local option. There is no requirement currently that there be notice and a meeting and an opportunity to speak. The provision we have established is similar to the Planning Act and in our view the provision the government moved in the committee is a complete and appropriate code.

There is nothing in the bill as it now stands that would prevent any council from going beyond the minimum standard of notice and hearing provisions. Some councils may indeed choose to establish a mailing list of the sort recommended by the member for Rainy River, or they may put information out in various languages or they may adopt various other additional provisions. However, the government realistically does not wish to fetter the hands of councils unnecessarily, particularly perhaps the smaller municipal councils with less professional staff.

I think there are some practical problems inherent in the motion suggested by the member for Rainy River. There might be a relatively small change in the legislation, perhaps expanding the size of one drugstore that may be permitted to open, something that may be of little interest to people who may be generally interested in the issue.

There are many practical questions as to the length of time these names must be kept on file, whether they must be kept in writing. What would happen if someone moved, whether a municipal bylaw could be voided if a very strict, overly strict and detailed procedural requirement were set at the provincial level?

We have some confidence in local councils. We believe they will do what is appropriate for local circumstances and therefore we will oppose the amendment put by the member for Rainy River and supported by the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson).

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any other discussion? I will therefore put the question.

Mr. Hampton has moved that subsection 4(2) of the act be amended by adding the following clause:

Is the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will be please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

1520

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Runciman moves that section 4 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“4(1) Despite sections 2 and 3, the council of a municipality may, under the procedure established in 4(2), designate retail business establishments to be open on any holiday for one or more of the following reasons:

“(a) it is essential for the development or maintenance of a tourist industry;

“(b) it is essential for the development or maintenance of a particular cultural community.

“4(2) A municipality may make application to the Retail Business Holidays Exemption Board for approval of exemptions to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

“4(3) Upon the receipt of an application from a municipality, the Retail Business Holidays Exemption Board has 30 days to indicate to the said municipality whether or not public hearings on the application are necessary.

“4(4) In the event the board determines that public hearings are necessary, these hearings must be held in the said municipality within 90 days of the receipt of the application.

“4(5) Within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearings or in the event no hearings are held within 30 days of receipt of the application, the board must inform the municipality of its decision.

“4(6) The board’s decision must take one of the following three forms:

“(a) accept the application; or

“(b) reject the application; or

“(c) accept the application with modifications.

“4(7) In the event that a municipality is dissatisfied with the decision of the board, the municipality may appeal such decision to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Mr. Runciman: Regrettably, our critic on the Sunday shopping issue is not able to be with us during these deliberations, but I will as best I can attempt to elaborate on the positions she put forward at the committee with respect to this particular amendment.

Obviously, the intent is to try to be more restrictive with respect to the ability of individuals, corporations, businesses and so on to open on Sundays. It is an attempt to try to be more definitive with respect to spelling out clearly the kinds of situations whereby a municipality would be enabled, under this particular section of the bill, to allow Sunday shopping in any given municipality.

The drafter of the amendment and our party believe the areas we have dealt with, the development or maintenance of a tourist industry and the development or maintenance of a particular cultural community, certainly are areas that our party and, I suspect, all members of this Legislative Assembly can live with.

I want to make a point at this juncture that I think is appropriate, although it does not deal with the specific amendment. That is the absence of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). She has certainly been absent since I have entered the chamber and I want to --

Mr. Faubert: How about the absence of your critic?

Mr. Runciman: Well, I want to make a point that was raised during the deliberations of the committee during my presence. We were assured at that time by the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter), in presenting justification to the committee for the ongoing absence of the minister -- when her presence was required or requested, let’s say, on a number of occasions and the minister declined to make an appearance except for one brief stop for 15 minutes to deal with the concerns of members of the committee -- that the minister would be here during committee of the whole House deliberations on the legislation, to answer questions and address concerns raised by members of the assembly. Obviously, that commitment is not being met here today on the first day of deliberations in committee of the whole House.

I want to say it is indeed regrettable and another indication of this minister’s lack of commitment to this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that ultimately has been an embarrassment to her, if not to her leader.

I simply wanted to put that on the record. Hopefully, the members of the governing party will do whatever they can to encourage the minister responsible to attend these hearings. I do not think there is anything more I want to say at this stage.

Mr. Kanter: This motion was also put in committee by a representative of the Conservative Party, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham). While some of our difficulties are similar to those we encountered with a previous motion put by the official opposition, in terms of the limited criteria under which opening would be permitted, our reservations about this motion are really much more serious.

It would set up a retail business holidays exemption board. Our concern is this would be an elaborate, expensive and ultimately undemocratic check on elected local representatives. There are many practical questions in terms of the membership of this body and how it would be chosen. As I think all members would be familiar with by now, there are great differences, even among religious groups, among employer groups or employee groups, as to the desirability or lack of desirability of Sunday shopping.

There would certainly be expenses incurred and I know that members, particularly of the third party, have spoken from time to time about their concerns about establishing other bureaucracies or other expenses. There is no question that other expenses would be involved here. Really, our primary concern and our primary point of principle why we feel this would be a very bad idea would be the replacement of local, elected decision-makers with centralized, provincially appointed decision-makers.

We simply do not feel that a body appointed by Queen’s Park can be as responsive to conditions in the area of the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) or the member for Rainy River, or indeed any part of the province, as can local decision-makers, people on the spot, elected members of local councils. We feel it would be a very retrogressive step to accept this amendment and therefore we will not support it.

Mr. Hampton: We will support the third party on this amendment. Despite the comments of the parliamentary assistant, we think it is a good amendment. It is a reasonable amendment. It is one many communities asked for. It seems to be an amendment only the government of the province is opposed to. We will support it.

Mr. Sola: I oppose the amendment on two counts. First of all, both opposition parties seem intent on tying the hands of local municipalities, and at the same time, tying the hands of the government that is supposed to be running the province.

If the members look at what the Progressive Conservative task force tried to set up in its recommendations, I think this goes against the grain of the recommendations of the PC task force. For instance, the PC task force tried to open up certain Sundays as we approached Christmas and decided to do away with banning shopping on Boxing Day. At that time, they had 18 members of their caucus sit in on this task force, going around the province to see what the province wanted. They recommended opening up certain areas at certain times and now they are trying to do the opposite.

Of course, there are only five left in the present caucus from that committee that travelled the province. As a matter of fact, their whole caucus is not as large as the task force that travelled the province. I think they should be a little bit more consistent in their proposals and that is why I am opposed.

1530

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other participants? I will therefore put the question.

All those in favour of Mr. Runciman’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: We have a request from the House leader of the third party that notwithstanding the fact that the committee has already approved section 3 of the act, the third party be permitted to propose and move an amendment to section 3. Is there unanimous consent that the amendment be permitted to section 3?

Agreed to.

Mr. Runciman moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection thereto:

“(3) Subsection 3(8) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“Section 2 does not apply to retail business establishments or any class thereof which have been exempted according to the criteria established under section 4.”

Mr. Runciman: This amends the section of the proposed act by changing the square footage requirements for holiday retail openings from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.

It would also repeal subsection 3(8) of the Retail Business Holidays Act. This subsection states that section 2, which prohibits any retail outlets from opening or admitting the public on a holiday, does not apply in the case of any exemptions made under section 4.

This new subsection that we have proposed will provide that the act does not apply to any retail establishments exempted, as outlined in the criteria of the new section 4.

Mr. Kanter: I find the motion somewhat technical, but I believe that it essentially would be superfluous. I believe that the intent of the mover would be to suggest that the section does not apply to retail businesses where there has been a municipal bylaw passed and I believe that provision is covered by the opening words of subsection 4(1) in the proposed legislation, which say “despite sections 2 and 3.” I believe it is superfluous, unnecessary and, therefore, we will not be supporting it.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other

participants? I will therefore put the question.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Section 4:

Mr. Philip: I move that the motion to add subsection 4(1a) be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(d) shall publish the notice mentioned in clause (b) in any ethnic language newspaper where more than 10 per cent of the residents of that municipality have a language other than the mother tongue.”

The Deputy Chairman: We do not have at the table here the motion in writing, as required. Do you have a copy?

Mr. Philip: I understand that, I just -- Maybe we can stand it down and I will supply it to you in a minute, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(7) of the act be amended by striking out the word “may” in the first line and substituting the word “shall.”

Mr. Hampton: The subsection shall now read, “The council shall establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered by it in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection 1.”

As you read section 4, one can see that there is some intention to establish a procedural code or procedural guidelines which councils must follow when they go about passing or considering a Sunday shopping bylaw. We are of the view that many of the procedural guidelines are, of course, inadequate.

One of the inadequacies is found exactly here in subsection 7. The government might as well remain silent on the issue if it is merely going to say, “council may establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered...in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection 1.” Putting the language in the terms that it “may” set up such a plan provides no procedural protection at all.

In fact, what it amounts to is putting down words in subsection 7 which might have the effect of leading someone to believe that there are procedural safeguards, but in fact there is no procedural safeguard there at all. It simply says that council may do it or may not do it.

1540

What we are advocating is that if the government is serious about providing meaningful procedural safeguards, subsection 4(7) should require a council to establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered by it in determining whether a Sunday shopping bylaw should be passed under subsection 4(1).

If a council is required to set out such a plan which lists the criteria it will look at in considering whether it will pass a Sunday shopping bylaw, it provides for those organizations or groups which may be vitally concerned with the issue and for the general public a framework within which they know the bylaw will be debated. It provides a framework within which they know what the critical issues are.

Otherwise, it is very difficult for interest groups which may be for one reason or another opposed to a proposed Sunday shopping bylaw to address on the spur of the moment whatever the arguments may be that are put forward by the other side.

What we are saying is that if we are going to pass on these kinds of difficult commercial arguments and these kinds of difficult bylaw arguments to a municipal council, they at least ought to be passed on with some sort of criteria guideline so that everyone knows what the ground rules are and everyone knows what the considerations are.

A council can start from within that framework of rules and can have an organized debate within the municipality rather than a disorganized one, rather than some of the things we saw taking place in some of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto last fall, where there were allegations that some parties actually went out and gave money to individuals and said, “Look, show up at this meeting at council and whenever anyone says anything favourable towards a Sunday shopping bylaw, show your support for it by giving a rather loud demonstration.”

That is the kind of thing we want to avoid. If we are going to pass this down to municipal councils, we ought to at least have the decency to pass something down that has some guidelines to it, that has some criteria to it or requires them to set up their own criteria.

Municipal councils, in fact, asked for this. At the same time, the municipal councils were saying: “Look, we don’t want this political football handed our way. We don’t care to have it. It belongs in the provincial ballpark, but if we’re going to have it forced on us, we want a clear direction as to how municipalities and municipal councils are to handle these sorts of things.”

By inserting the word “shall” and taking out the word “may” in section 7, we provide a better procedural code. As I say, the section with the word “may” in it, as it now stands, is rather empty.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: I am willing to listen to the government’s version first and then speak after the government has given its opinion.

Mr. Kanter: At this point and in the context of this amendment, I think it is important to review one more time the basic framework of the legislation, because the legislation does not require every municipality to consider, of its own volition, what it wants to do with Sunday closing. The legislation sets out a provincial closing framework.

A municipality which does nothing is under that provincial closing framework. Penalties are stepped up, enforcement is much tougher, as long as the municipality stays within that provincial framework.

I think it is very important to note that a municipality is under no obligation to change from the provincial Sunday closing framework. That is why it does not make any sense to require a municipality to establish a plan for dealing with something it does not have to deal with.

Certainly, if the comments of the opposition parties are correct, if most municipalities do not want to change or vary from the current Sunday closing procedure, there will be no need for a municipal plan.

On the other hand, if we have any municipalities that do choose to deviate from the provincial closing framework, we have established a procedural code -- a requirement for notice, hearing and participation -- a much stricter, more accountable code than existed in the past, a way to allow every interested citizen to participate directly at the local level in this decision.

We have gone further and we have permitted municipalities to establish a plan. We feel this could be useful for municipalities. Some have suggested that some person might design some sort of model Sunday closing bylaw that a number of municipalities might agree to accept jointly. That might be useful.

However, I would remind all members that there are some very small municipalities, which do not have a large and elaborate professional staff, that might not want to deviate from the provincial closing framework or might feel they could do so on the basis of an individual application and would not have the expertise, the inclination or the desire to establish a plan beforehand.

We feel that our amendment, which makes a Sunday closing plan optional with the municipalities, is the best way of recognizing the diversity of municipal governments in this province with the diversity of resources and interests that they contain.

Mr. Philip: The Liberals argue that this is provincial legislation. The major problem, the municipalities have argued, is, “How can you have provincial legislation without any clear-cut guidelines, without having any clear rules?”

Now the Liberals want to have a section that allows the municipalities to do whatever they want and they put in this namby-pamby little clause that is meaningless, because it says, “may establish a plan setting out the criteria.”

That is a little bit like the National Hockey League saying: “We’re going to have a world hockey tournament, but we’re not going to have any kind of rules. So you won’t really know, if you’re one of the teams, how you are going to be judged or what you are going to be judged by.”

What the government is doing in this section is it has a contest and the contestants do not know what the rules are and there is no requirement that those who are refereeing the game have any kind of criteria by which they judge who is the winner and who is the loser.

All we are saying is fine, if the Liberal government wishes to abdicate its responsibility to the municipality, at least have a requirement that when somebody is faced with a major change or indeed if somebody wants to bring about a major change, he at least knows what the rules are. If the government does not, then what it is opening it up to is all kinds of capriciousness on the part of whoever happens to be in the position of deciding one way or the other as to whether a certain request will be granted.

I say that will lead to all kinds of abuse. It creates a tremendous instability in the marketplace. If it is worth while to put in “may,” then it makes even more sense to put in “shall” and require that the municipality spell out exactly what the rules are.

What the Liberal government seems to be intent on doing is not only giving up its own responsibility, but also making sure that the local municipalities do not have to be responsible either by spelling out exactly what it is they are doing and how they are doing it.

The municipalities have said to the parliamentary assistant and the minister in no uncertain terms that this is irresponsible, that it will not work. If you look at practically any other decision made by municipalities, I can go down to the municipality for the simplest change in bylaws or to the board of revision or any one of the various municipal bodies and I can say: “Here are some of the things that I would like to do. What are the rules about it? How am I going to be judged if I go before this particular municipal body and ask for this or that particular committee and ask for that?”

1550

The municipality will tell me in no uncertain terms, in black and white. They will say: “Here are the rules. Now you can decide whether you want to make an application or not.” If I can find out what the rules are for something as simple as perhaps making a small revision in some property that I own, which may, at the most, affect a neighbour or two, then surely for something that is a major economic change in the community, the government should have clearly established criteria. Unless the Liberal government accepts this, then once again it is being irresponsible and abdicating its responsibility to the taxpayers.

Mr. Runciman: I want to indicate that we are supporting the amendment. We agree that the word “shall” should replace the word “may.” In terms of the expansion of guidelines and sending out some very clear signals to the municipalities, I think that indeed has to be done.

I know the parliamentary assistant talks about trying to recognize the different situations in a variety of municipalities, going from rural communities to the largest urban area in terms of resources, but I think that can be recognized in some form of broad guideline direction that should be incorporated in this bill as well and in any specific details with respect to the development of a plan in any given municipality.

I think those differences can be recognized and indeed should be recognized, but I do not think the parliamentary assistant’s concerns are legitimate in the sense that he is suggesting to the assembly that, because of the disparities in tax base population and so on, this sort of thing cannot be addressed through the bill, that we have to leave individual municipalities with adequate flexibility to address it based on their own needs.

I think in this particular situation it is incumbent upon the government to spell out very clearly the kinds of areas that it wishes to be considered in the development of any plan dealing with this matter. I think there are areas in terms of the socioeconomic effects of Sunday shopping on municipalities, and they may want to build in some sort of population bridge and that sort of thing. We have done that in other pieces of legislation where we have different levels of assistance, different initiatives of the government applying, dependent upon the population level of any given municipality. That is one option that could perhaps be reviewed.

I think we have to spell out the considerations clearly -- and I am thinking more in terms of some of the modest to large-sized urban areas -- for example, the costs of added day care, the question of added transportation costs. The parliamentary assistant knows that is a particular concern that has been raised by many in their appearances before the committee.

In my own community of Brockville, for example, the public transit system shuts down on Sundays. It does not currently operate on Sundays, but if we get into a situation where Sunday shopping is being considered, I think this is the sort of thing that can and should be addressed. As other members have mentioned, it is the kind of direction, the kind of assistance that the municipalities out there wish to see occur.

They are being forced to accept this legislation by this huge majority Liberal government against their will, against the wishes of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They are having it shoved down their throats. The people of Ontario are having it shoved down their throats. I think it is incumbent upon the government to do whatever it can to moderate, to alleviate the very valid concerns that are out there in the public and certainly within municipal governments across the province.

Mr. McGuigan: This amendment touches a concern I have and I feel a lot of my constituents have, that is, that they are a separate part of Ontario. There is Toronto and then there is the rest of Ontario, and all of our laws are being made on behalf of Toronto. In our small communities of 2,000 and 3,000 people, and I mentioned some of them, where the councillors are very close to the people -- they meet them on the street; they meet them, of course, in election campaigns -- these things are debated at the street level before they are brought to the council.

Those small communities may decide, just on a visceral opinion, that they want to or do not want to go with this system. They do not want imposed upon them from Toronto that they have to set up a very elaborate set of criteria. They just decide in their own minds whether they are going to move. The proposed law as it stands gives them that opportunity. They may or they may not. On that point, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Philip: I would like to ask the member who has just spoken what he feels “council” is referring to in this bill. Would it affect his local council of 3,000 people?

Mr. McGuigan: In answer, I do not think it should be imposed upon them that they must set out these criteria, which, in my opinion, takes us back to the same position we were in when we tried to define what a recreation area is. When we try to define that we get into all sorts of trouble. I think you are taking us back to that same position. I believe councils should be allowed to make up their mind on the advice and the consent of the people they represent.

Mr. Philip: I would like to follow that further. I wonder if the member realizes that “council” refers to the council of a municipality; if he would like to check what “municipality” means in this bill, he would realize that what he said is completely irrelevant to what we are debating in this bill.

Mr. Sola: I would like to refer to the example the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale used of the hockey tournament. I particularly like that example because it proves he does not know what he is talking about. When you set up a hockey tournament, you can only set the rules for the participants. You cannot set rules for people who decide to opt out of the tournament.

Our provincial framework is like the hockey tournament. It sets out the rules for those who participate. We do not want to set the rules for those who think this particular tournament is not convenient for them at this time and want to opt out. They may decide to go to another tournament. They may decide to play broomball or go on a vacation. We set the rules for the people who want to participate, but it is up to those who do not want to participate to set their own rules. I think it just proves that the honourable member for Etobicoke-Rexdale does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Philip: As usual, the member has not read the bill. He not only did not listen to the delegations, but also did not read the bill. If he read subsection 4(6), he would realize that it allows both the opting in and the opting out, and in fact it deals with the whole regulatory process whereby people can opt in or opt out, stay open, stay closed or whatever, as it affects their livelihood.

Mr. Fleet: I am voting in favour of the bill. What else do you want to know?

Mr. Philip: The Liberal members obviously did not listen in committee and they do not want to listen in the House. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), of course, who has not had the courage to stand in the House and tell his constituents where he stands on this bill yet, still wants to interrupt me as I try to show the people who are viewing this and who are concerned, the four million people who --

Mr. Fleet: I am voting in favour, Ed.

1600

Mr. Pouliot: You’re on the wrong side of the House, that’s your problem.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Philip: The member for High Park-Swansea, who has not had the courage to stand in the House, face his constituents on television and tell them why he is voting contrary to their wishes, insists on interrupting members of the opposition who are --

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Aside from the improper suggestion as to my motives by the last member speaking, as I have indicated repeatedly from this spot, I am supporting the bill for a host of reasons. It is a good bill. It is good for the province.

The Deputy Chairman: Could I interrupt you, please? You will have your opportunity to make a speech in rotation. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has the floor.

Mr. Philip: What we are trying to do in this amendment -- and I realize it upsets the member for High Park-Swansea, because he does not want his constituents to know exactly where he stands because they will be voting against him in the next election over this, so he continues to interrupt -- what we are clearly trying to do is to require that there be rules.

These are matters that are affecting a person’s very livelihood. We heard from groups such as the Korean Businessmen’s Association about how, as a result of similar legislation to this in British Columbia, they were forced out of business and moved to Ontario where they thought there was some kind of stable environment where they could operate a business, where there were clear-cut rules and where they would not have capriciousness or changing of the rules overnight.

All we are saying is that if the government is going to change the rules, then it at least has to have criteria so that a person then can know what the rules are when decisions are being made that affect their livelihood or the quality of their lives. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not want any rules and that is why they are giving up their responsibility to the municipalities, and now they do not even want the municipalities to have clear-cut rules in the case where people feel that perhaps a decision has been made that is unjust. They cannot even have a set of rules whereby they can say, “Here are the rules that are being violated in making this decision.” I say to the government: That is not flexibility; that is simply anarchy.

I realize that the Liberals have trouble making up their minds on anything and therefore anarchy is the rule by the Liberal members in this House. Surely if the government is going to give up its responsibility to the municipalities, it can at least require the municipalities to have some rules so that when a person’s livelihood is affected, he at least knows how he is being judged.

I realize that the member for High Park-Swansea does not believe in that, but his constituents do and they will tell him so in the next election.

Mr. Allen: I would like to make a couple of points. First of all, with regard to the comment by the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Sola), there are, after all, in section 4 a number of elements in which the word “shall” is used, and by his logic they should not be there. This is a government bill, so I do not know how he deals with that.

Second and perhaps more to the point, the proposal is not to establish the rules or the criteria that a municipality must adopt by which it judges whether it will move into an opting-out pattern and what it will do under the opting-out formula. The only requirement is that the municipality pay its own residents and voters the courtesy of laying out a plan; that surely is the least that this government ought to require of a municipality. After all, the municipalities are constitutionally subject to this Legislature. They are creatures of the Ontario Legislature.

It only makes sense that if we, as a Legislature -- compromised as I am on this side by the vote on the other side -- are making an opportunity available to municipalities to provide an option to the framework, at least we say that some things need to happen; not that we tell them what criteria they have to establish, but that they be required to establish a set of criteria by which the action they will take, as the clause goes on, “in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection (1),” will take place.

It seems to me it is an important kind of measure for this Legislature to have in this section. It certainly places no mandatory burden of the opinion of this House, beyond the point of saying such a plan should exist. I have no problem in supporting my colleague’s motion that the word “may” should be amended to read “shall.”

Mr. Runciman: I have just a few more comments. We are talking about the plan, and I am not sure if the parliamentary assistant has responded since his initial outburst. I want to point out as well that the Solicitor General continues to be absent during the debate. I am going to continue during this process to point that out.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Runciman: The Attorney General as well, as has been brought to my attention.

We want to talk about the plan and the fact that subsection 4(7) simply says, “The council may establish….” We were talking about whether the wording should be changed to read, “The council shall establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered by it in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection (1).”

We have been arguing about the fact that it should require that through the word change to “shall,” and also about the fact that there should be some more direction provided in terms of what plans should indicate to municipalities across this province; that in fact there should be some clear definition with respect to just what kind of plan we are talking about here, who will draft it and whether there will be any assurance that the plan includes some sort of analysis or at least an estimate of the added costs municipalities could incur.

I mentioned earlier in my comments two examples: transportation and day care. I think it could be argued that there should be consideration given to some sort of provision within this plan that would clearly stipulate that more than 50 per cent of the population in that particular municipality approves of Sunday openings. That indeed would be an appropriate initiative and one I hope the government would give favourable consideration to.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, are we ready for the vote?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What about the parliamentary assistant? No response?

Mr. Chairman: No response.

All those in favour of Mr. Hampton’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

1610

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I believe you have my amendment that we stood down a minute ago.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I do.

Mr. Philip moves that subsection 4(2) of the act, as set out in the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(e) shall, if the most recent federal census indicates that 5,000 or more residents of the municipality have as their mother tongue a specific language other than English and a local newspaper publishes in that language, publish a notice referred to in clause (b) in that newspaper.”

Mr. Philip: We know from the experience in British Columbia, the representations that were made to the committee and indeed our own experience in our own ridings that many of the businessmen who operate small stores speak languages other than Canada’s two official languages. My experience is that many of the smaller stores in my area are operated by people who speak and read as their mother tongue Korean, Punjabi, Urdu, Italian or one of a variety of other languages. I am sure that all members have similar experiences, with the exception perhaps of a few rural ridings that have a 95 per cent to 99 per cent English-language constituency.

All we are saying is that many of the merchants are people who have come from other countries, in many cases people who may have PhDs or who may be medical doctors or lawyers in their own countries, but because of the educational problems, because of the problems of getting certification, they have entered into businesses that can help them become self-supporting citizens. Many of their sons and daughters are now becoming the doctors, the lawyers, the chiropractors and the teachers in our society. But because of the language problems, because of the certification problems of their degrees and so forth, they have gone into businesses that allow them to support their families and be productive citizens.

Many of these people have enough English-language skills to operate stores, but they are much more comfortable in reading their own newspapers, what have traditionally been called ethnic newspapers. We see over and over again the amount of advertising that this government does in many of those newspapers, trying to get its particular message across, the message of the government and also, if one were cynical, trying to get the votes of these people.

The Provincial Auditor has been somewhat critical of the fact --

Mr. Faubert: That’s imputing motives.

Mr. Philip: Well, it is a fact. It is a fact that the Liberals, when in opposition, were very critical of how the Conservatives spent money on advertising in these various newspapers without any criteria. Now we see that the Provincial Auditor says the government has changed but, in this regard, nothing has changed; there are no criteria, there is no focus and so forth and a lot of money is being spent.

If this government believes, and I think it is right in so believing, that all of these different-language newspapers are important for it to get its message across, even about legislation which might not be considered of major significance -- and it does; it buys ads in these papers to let the people know what the government is doing -- then surely something that is as important as something that will affect their business, their very livelihood should follow the same pattern and should be advertised in these various newspapers.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale should realize that the criterion for ads in any of the ethnic newspapers is quite strict. When he stands up to say that the ads --

Mr. Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ruprecht: This is very important.

Mr. Chairman: It is not a point of order; it is a point of information. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale may continue.

Mr. Philip: It is so rare for the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) to speak in this House that I certainly would not want to deprive him of the opportunity.

The fact is that if the member for Parkdale had taken the time to read the last Provincial Auditor’s report, he would have seen exactly what the auditor said about the advertising policy of this government. He said there were no figures as to who its population was. He said there were no follow-ups and no adequate evaluations. If evaluations are not criteria, I do not know what are.

He said that the government was wasting the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Pouliot: They are not getting value for money.

Mr. Philip: Not getting value for money.

I know the publishers of some of these newspapers come to me and say: “We have a good newspaper, and we publish in this province. We can’t seem to get ads from the present government, but our competitor does. Why is that?” I understand why they might feel upset and why the auditor would be so critical of this government.

I am sorry if the member for Parkdale feels that somehow everything is alive and well in the ethnic newspapers and in the government’s advertising policy; it certainly is not the position that the nonpartisan evaluation of the Provincial Auditor has made.

Mr. Smith: Are you partisan, Ed?

Mr. Philip: I am a lot more partisan than the Provincial Auditor.

The Provincial Auditor has said in no uncertain terms that the Liberals’ advertising policy is shoddy. There will be an inquiry before the standing committee on public accounts, I can assure them of that end to it.

Mr. Kanter: The motion before us deals with publication of a notice in another language. I think that, in order to assess it, we really have to go back to the procedural code, which again, I remind members, this government introduced and which was opposed by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and his colleague the member for Rainy River.

I believe that the procedural code is an extremely important addition to this bill, in that it is the basis or the underpinning to allow every concerned individual an opportunity to have his say, to have his or her voice heard. I think it is an important addition and it is really a kind of minimum standard. I think it is a very significant minimum standard. It is set out in terms similar to the Planning Act, again where municipal changes can affect people’s livelihoods and the quality of life in their neighbourhood. It is similar to the kind of notice you get for regulations, for example, of this government, where notices are printed in English and, I believe also in many cases, in French, Canada’s other official language.

I think we want to be very clear that we are establishing a minimum standard in the legislation. There is no question that some municipalities may choose to go beyond the minimum standard. I used to be a councillor for the city of Toronto, and routinely we published many notices in four or five different languages. Many other municipalities do the same thing.

I would suggest that the amendment by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is too rigid, too inflexible and very difficult to interpret. There are a lot of difficulties in interpreting census statistics, in looking at various groups and trying to determine what languages they speak, and in some cases in determining what the appropriate newspapers would be. What if, for example, a group only published a newspaper or a newsletter or an annual report on an annual basis? It would certainly make it very difficult for the municipality to give notice to this group.

The cost of this motion could be very, very considerable. It is interesting that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale referred to some of his concerns about advertising in the ethnic press and the cost of this activity; yet his motion would involve very, very substantial cost, and not always with the greatest relevance to the groups involved. The cost could be considerable, although that is not the primary reason I would be opposed to this legislation.

In conclusion, I want to touch on the matter of multicultural initiatives. The member opposite referred to some by this government, some of his concerns in this area. I do not think there is any area in which we can be any prouder than the multicultural initiatives that this government has taken. They are not just advertising, not just ceremonial; they are things like policing and things like the certification standards for professions and occupations that the member alluded to. This government has taken action, has taken positive steps to ensure that if a shop owner should happen to have qualifications to be a doctor, a lawyer, a carpenter, an electrician or whatever, he or she will have an opportunity to practise that craft or profession in this province.

I am very proud of the initiatives of this government, particularly in that area. I just wanted to make sure that the member was aware of those initiatives if perchance he had forgotten about them, even only temporarily.

1620

Mr. Philip: I am sure that all the Polish doctors who are trying to get certification in this province will appreciate the slogans of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

I find it interesting that Mr. Kanter is so concerned about the cost of this amendment. He says this is going to be too expensive, yet every day I walk down the corridor to room 247 and see the glasses clinking. He and Mr. Ruprecht, at least before he was demoted from minister, had as their main role bringing in one group after another and wining and dining them. Yet when it comes to dealing with something affecting their very livelihood, he is afraid that some amount of money might be spent to let them know what is going on.

I say to the member that he has some pretty strange standards. It is okay to wine and dine them and try to win the votes at taxpayers’ expense in room 247, but when it comes to dealing with informing them about something that is substantial and affecting their lives, he does not want advertisements in their newspapers. That is the truth.

Mr. Fleet: That’s a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Philip: The member for High Park-Swansea is again yelling his usual nonsensical comments. He does not want to stand up and debate this --

Mr. Fleet: I already did. I beat you when I stood up for 30 seconds.

Mr. Philip: He stood up for 30 seconds. That is the longest time he has been on his feet in this House since he was elected. I am sure his constituents will appreciate the fact that he stood on his feet for 30 seconds in this House.

The fact is that this affects people’s lives; it affects their livelihood. The least they can do is be informed about major changes that are affecting whether they are going to be in business, whether they can feed their families, whether they are going to have a major attack on their standard of living or on their lifestyle. The member would rather have the taxpayers’ money spent on cocktail parties in room 247 than on ads to tell these people exactly what is going on and what is going to affect their lives. I say that is shameful.

Mr. Chairman: I remind the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, the parliamentary assistant and all other members of the unfailing parliamentary tradition not to refer to members by name but by their ridings.

Mr. Sola: I would first like to say that it is an underhanded tactic to attack the member for Parkdale in that fashion. If you put to a vote among the multicultural community the popularity of members in this House, the member for Parkdale would come out head and shoulders above all the rest of us put together. That is point one.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. May we get back to the discussion on subsection 4(2)?

Mr. Sola: Once again, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale shows that he does not know too much about what he is talking about. He mentions the ethnic press. He should have in mind that there are so many different forms of ethnic press that you could not possibly use the 30-day prepublishing law to encompass them all, because the ethnic press publishes daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly. There is ethnic press that deals strictly with local matters or strictly with matters occurring back home in the countries they left, and there is ethnic press that looks at matters throughout Canada. It does not matter where they are published, because they encompass the whole gamut of topics. How would you draft a law that could possibly encompass all of those?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You did.

Mr. Sola: Well yes, that is right. Then three years later you would finally get to the public meeting that is supposed to decide this issue.

Mr. Chairman: The member will address his remarks through the Chairman, and other members will stop interjecting.

Mr. Sola: I do not mind their interjections now, because we have finally got to the point where we will come to an end in this debate. Whether they use it or abuse it, the time will come when they will have to vote.

The other thing is, this motion shows that the opposition members are strictly relating to the Environment minister’s recycling program: they reuse, they reclaim, they repeat -- and whatever the fourth R is.

Interjections.

Mr. Sola: That is right. That is all they are doing. If you check their speeches, Mr. Chairman, the words they used on day one of this debate are the words they are using today.

They claim they listen. We have been sitting in committee and in this House for close to 70 days on this very topic. The only thing they have paid attention to in all this debate and in the delegations that have come before the committee is the first paragraph of each delegation. Each delegation came in and said, “We are against wide-open Sunday shopping.” They equated that to Bill 113.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And you’re in favour of it; we know that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. One member at a time.

Mr. Sola: The next paragraph of each delegation stated what they wanted in the bill. What they wanted was easier enforcement of the rules, stricter enforcement of the rules, tougher fines and injunctive powers. This is contained in Bill 113, and those members opposite have never acknowledged that fact.

They have never acknowledged that fact because they have a very short attention span. They can listen to one paragraph or one sentence of each delegation, but they have never listened to the complete presentation of the delegations before us, because if they had, they would acknowledge the positive aspects of this bill.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You do well just to listen to the first paragraph.

Mr. Sola: I listen to the whole thing.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: What we do know about the delegations is that 93.9 per cent of the delegations that appeared before the committee said, “Withdraw section 4 of the bill.” That is what they said.

If they all said it -- and there is only one way of saying “Withdraw the bill” or “We disagree with the bill” -- then I do not blame them if they did not find a hundred different ways of saying the same thing. What is tragic is not how they said they wanted section 4 of the bill withdrawn; what is tragic is that the Liberals refused to listen to them.

The member says I am using the same words in proposing this and other amendments as I used in the standing committee on administration of justice, but they are not my words. They are the words of the hundreds of people who appeared before the committee.

These amendments are not my amendments. I may have dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s and worked on the wording with legislative counsel, but these amendments that we in the New Democratic Party are proposing and indeed that my colleagues in the Conservative Party are proposing were not invented by the New Democratics; they were not invented by the Conservatives. They were invented by the people out there who came before the committee and said: “There are major problems in this bill. The worst problem is section 4, which should be withdrawn, but there are other problems throughout the bill.”

If the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is too rigid to withdraw section 4, there are certain things we should do in it that will make it at least a little less painful than it is, a little less unworkable.

The amendment we are moving -- and if the member for Mississauga East objects to the fact that there is an opposition party here in this Legislature and that we have a right to speak to all the members, not just the revolving-door members who were on the standing committee on administration of justice, who came in one day for one hearing and went out the next day --

1630

An hon. member: Turnstile.

Mr. Philip: The turnstile members on that committee.

If the fact we have a right to present our views and the views we have heard from the public to all members of the House is objectionable to him, if he objects to my speaking on television now to let all the people in Ontario realize what a fiasco his House leader was when his House leader got on TV and said we were moving nonsensical amendments, amendments proposed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, various women’s groups, trade union groups and all the other groups that came before us, if that is objectionable to him, then I guess the democratic process is objectionable to the member for Mississauga East. I am sorry he finds it objectionable to live in a democratic process and be part of it.

But as long as I am elected, I am going to present the views of my constituents and of other people in Ontario who make sense. They have asked for these amendments. They may be objectionable to the member and the Premier may use his large majority not to listen to the people and to force this down their throats, but at least as an opposition we will move the amendments in the limited amount of time the government has decided to allow this House to debate this.

That is why this amendment, which deals with the rights of minorities -- coming from a group that speaks a language other than English, you would think the member for Mississauga East would have some sensitivity to this. I am sorry he has so little sensitivity to the members of his own community and the members of other communities in this province who may not have the background of speaking English or French as their mother tongue.

I happen to think they have a right to know what is going on and that is why we have moved this. I say money is much better spent doing something like that than running the cocktail parties the government runs week after week out there, inviting in the various representatives of the ethnic community to try to buy their votes.

Mr. Runciman: I want to indicate that we will be supporting the amendment. We have some questions with respect to the numbers that have been incorporated into it, but we agree with the principle and we agree with what the member is trying to accomplish in trying to deal with concerns in the ethnic community with respect to this legislation and the notification requirements set out in the bill.

The member for Mississauga East was making reference to comments made earlier by the member for Parkdale and indicated he was probably one of the most popular individuals in the government in terms of the ethnic community in the Metro area. That may well be the case, but in point of fact that did not cut any ice with the Premier. I think what the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale was mentioning with reference to --

Mr. Smith: Is that really relevant?

Mr. Runciman: I think it is relevant. The member for Mississauga East brought it forward. I think it has to be addressed. If the member for Parkdale is so significant a factor in terms of this government’s dealings with the ethnic community, why was he dealt with in the way he was by the leader of the government? If he is held in such high respect in the ethnic community and was dealt with in the way he was, that is a slap in the face to the ethnic community in this province, a slap in the face to the members of the ethnic community in Metro.

I cannot explain it in any other way. There is no justification for it, if what the member is telling us is true. If he is not telling us the truth, that is another story and we do not want to get into that.

The member for Mississauga East also mentioned that there have been something like 70 days of deliberations and hearings. That may be accurate, but I wonder how many hours of that 70 days of deliberations and hearings were attended by the Solicitor General, who again continues to be absent from this Legislature. I wonder how many hours she has attended. That would be an interesting statistic to have placed on the record. Perhaps we can look into that.

She has consistently avoided dealing with this piece of legislation. It goes back to the original announcement, when she was embarrassed if not humiliated by the Premier’s announcement, when he failed to consult her and other members of his executive council, let alone his caucus -- especially, I guess, the brown-nosed gang to my left. They were not consulted and they are frustrated. In any event, the brown-nosed gang used to be over in the right-hand corner, but they have now moved over here. In any event, they continue to be frustrated.

I know the Solicitor General has been embarrassed by this. She is going to continue to hear this for as long as she serves in that capacity. Two weeks before the Premier’s announcement she said that throwing this into the court of the municipalities was the chicken way out. She said it. It is on the record. She cannot back away from that, but she has been reluctant to deal with it in this House. She has been avoiding dealing with this whole issue, this bad piece of legislation, by her failure to attend during the committee hearings process.

Again, what is indicative of her attitude and her approach is her continued absence here in the House when we are dealing with this legislation in committee of the whole. It is a shameful performance and one the government and the minister have little to be proud of.

Mr. Pouliot: It is rather difficult to sit idly by during an attempt at maligning my distinguished, soft-mannered and soft-spoken colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale when he speaks such truth and, by way of an amendment, comes up with what is really a very logical proposal that need not be all that costly.

Yet the political scene does some strange things. I was appalled when the member for Parkdale received what he thinks must have been a well-deserved ovation, after the fact, because I understand he is no longer a member of the cabinet.

I concur with the distinguished critic from the Conservatives in saying that he has done well with the ethnic population. He is indeed a popular figure with the different ethnic groups and his day is coming. Perhaps wisdom and vision will prevail and one more time he will have access to the cabinet with his commitment. I find it very difficult to resist the temptation to say that having been removed, he would not literally chain himself to his desk and refuse to move, because by the account of some people he was doing a very good job.

Back to what is being proposed, a simple proposal in respect of 5,000 people or more, a significant group indeed, people who are at times less fortunate than either the English or French in obtaining information from the government. They are very good at paying taxes. Most of them are members of the proverbial middle class, and heaven knows, they pay more than their fair share of taxes. They are the only people left in the progressive taxation system.

I do not want to talk about the fundamentals, Mr. Chairman. You shall and should rule me out of order if I cannot resist the temptation. Suffice it to say that what is being proposed is very workable. It is the least that people with a social conscience, people with a commitment to minorities would readily, you would think, acquiesce in. It speaks for itself.

I can understand that at this stage of this exercise the government does not have the courage to withdraw what is bad legislation, when almost everyone tells it to, including Cardinal Carter. Every religious group in Ontario has been unanimous. Ninety-three per cent of the presenters said to them that what is being done here is wrong. We are trying to lessen the pain. We are trying to make what is a bad bill, not acceptable but maybe a little more workable for their sake.

The handful of soldiers who are standing up as part of the minority, both the Conservatives -- members of the third party -- and the official opposition, are being accused of stalling tactics. I want to remind the members, as my predecessor has done, that we have a right to be here. This is as good as it gets.

We are not suggesting they go to New Brunswick. They have 94 members. We have 19 and the third party has 17. We are not asking that they follow our grade 11 or grade 13 student, nor that they go to Harvard and get a degree in mathematics. We understand this. They do not have to suffer in silence. But the point is badly taken when they must get up and personally attack one of my colleagues for speaking the truth and for offering what is reasonable and workable.

1640

Mr. Chairman, you do not see me speak with emotion in this House, but I find it difficult not to be simply shocked by that. I see some of the members of the government party who from time to time are masters at synthetic indignation. Surely now is the time for those people to get up and see that in the last stages there is still a proverbial road to Damascus, that if they are intent on passing the bill the least they can do is to get the amendments, one by one, so that we will at least have a collective effort and common sense will prevail. It is a very small amendment, which I encourage. I know now that our chances of passing these amendments are much better than was previously said this afternoon.

Mr. McCague: It is very difficult, and in fact impossible for me to match the eloquence of the member for Lake Nipigon. However, I want to say a word to my good friend the member for Mississauga East. Since he came I have sat on several committees with him and I thought he was a reasonable type of chap, up until one comment he made a few moments ago.

The member for Mississauga East made the comment that the only thing the opposition members listened to was the first line of the submissions that were made to the committee. Obviously, the government members did not listen to the first line, because some 90 per cent of the people who came before them said they did not want this bill. Now it is up to the government to decide whether their reasons are right or whether their reasons are wrong, but obviously government members were not listening. They were not listening at every one of those committee meetings and they are not listening today. People just do not want it.

Mr. Sola: First, I would like to prove that this government does have the courage to withdraw bad legislation. I would like to read from page 1, paragraph 3, of the Report of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Task Force on Extended Shopping Hours, published April 18, 1986. This is what it says: “The widespread and flagrant violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act by numerous retailers, primarily in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and particularly on Boxing Day, 1985, has brought to the fore the need for amending this statute.”

That is what Bill 113 does. That proves we are withdrawing bad legislation and replacing it with good legislation.

Second, as far as listening is concerned, the opposition is constantly pointing out this huge Liberal majority. We outnumber them two and a half to one in this House. We outnumbered them two to one in the committee. If members check the transcripts of input in the committee and in the House, all the yacking has been done, or most of it, by the opposition side.

Nothing else was left to the government side except to listen, so we listened to the members, we listened to every delegation and we listened to the whole input of every delegation. We did not listen to just the negatives; we listened to the positives. The people said what they wanted in the bill and that is what is in the bill.

At this time, I would like to commend the member from South Porcupine. I think he spent only about a day on the committee, or maybe two, but it was his input that was probably one of the most important amendments to the bill. That is what I call the coercion clause, which gives the same penalty to somebody trying to coerce a business into opening illegally or a person into working illegally as to the business that opens illegally.

Therefore, a lot of the fears that were raised in the committee were allayed by that amendment. At this time, I would like to commend him because he sat in the committee, listened and tried to make the legislation better while other people just tried to prolong the process.

Mr. Philip: With regard to the member from South Porcupine, I am sure that if we had the real Pope here he would be against this legislation the same way Cardinal Carter is, the Anglican archdiocese is and so forth.

The member for Mississauga East states -- or admitted, I guess -- that the Liberal members said very little on the committee. That is true. They changed constantly. It was a revolving-door sort of number of members. When they were there, they spent so much time ducking the presentations that were being given attacking the bill that they did not have words to shoot back at them, with the exception of course of the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli). We always like to see him speak because he can irritate more of the population of Ontario and get us more votes than anything we could possibly do as an opposition party. But here is how they listened, and here is what the delegations said on section 4 of the bill.

If we eliminate the 50 or so representations that just dealt with specific individual concerns related to their businesses, mainly the drugstores, and just count those people who addressed themselves to the main principle of this bill, section 4 of the bill, these are the figures. They are not my figures, but the figures I asked the researcher for the justice committee to put together. They come out like this: 402 were against section 4 of the bill.

The Liberals were able to find a few poor souls. They had to get parliamentary assistants or some other people like that to come in, but even with that they had only 26 in favour. My mathematics -- you do not need to be chairman of the standing committee on public accounts to be able to operate a calculator -- show that works out to 93.9 per cent of the presentations opposed to section 4 of the bill, the section we are dealing with now.

They were not only not in favour of section 4 of the bill, but they said, “If you’re going to go ahead with it, then there are certain things we want.” If the member for Mississauga East had done his homework the way I have and the way the researcher for the committee has, and put together a breakdown of what the different delegations said, he would see that the amendments we are proposing are based in most cases not just on one or two presentations, but on numerous presentations from different groups: trade union groups, business groups and so forth. This is what the public out there is asking for with regard to this bill.

The member for Mississauga East says the Liberal members did not say much. It is obvious they did not say much. It appears they also did not listen very much because they intend to go directly contrary to what the public told them.

He said earlier -- I meant to respond to this earlier but it just twigged my memory now -- that somehow this amendment is impractical because it will mean that some paper somewhere, in some other area, published once a month, will have to carry an ad. If he reads the amendment it says “a local newspaper publishes in that language.”

We are talking about regional municipalities. We are talking only about those municipalities that have 5,000 or more of a particular group of people who speak a language other than the official languages. We are saying that where a local paper is published, the ad should appear to inform them of these major changes that are affecting their livelihood. It does not mean that you are going to have a publication in a Punjabi-language newspaper published in Vancouver in order to take care of the people in Mississauga East, or if the Peel region wanted a major amendment.

What it means is that the Punjabi newspaper in that area, servicing those local people in that regional municipality, would carry an ad so that those people would know. He either has not read this amendment or if he has he is simply raising a bunch of red herrings that do not apply.

1650

Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed with the next speaker, may I invite all members to try to stay on topic as much as possible. I am glad the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale came back to the topic. We are very pressed for a deadline. The invitation is to all members of the House so we can best utilize the time we have available.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have just one question, if it is in order, to the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. Does he intend to accept any opposition amendments: yes or no?

Mr. Kanter: We do not know at this point, quite frankly, what amendments the opposition members are going to propose. I think almost all of the amendments which have been proposed so far were discussed and debated in committee and many of the arguments have already been heard. Certainly, if either opposition party has either any new amendments or new evidence or arguments for amendments formerly moved, we will be pleased to consider them.

I see the allegedly soft-spoken member for Etobicoke-Rexdale rising. I am not sure if he is rising on a point of order. Perhaps he is going to charge the colleague who accused him of being soft-spoken and mild-mannered with character assassination.

I do not know if he is moving to present some new motions, but of course we are certainly prepared to consider any amendments, particularly new proposals or proposals for which there is new evidence or new arguments.

Mr. Harris: I am intrigued by the comments of the parliamentary assistant. I recognize that other legislative duties did not allow me to be here all afternoon, so I have not heard what reason the parliamentary assistant has given as to the difficulty he has with this particular amendment, the one that is before us.

To try to stay on topic, in spite of the situation in which we find ourselves of being under the time allocation motion, while the parliamentary assistant indicates he is interested and would be delighted to hear any new amendments, we do recognize that the government House leader has said, “We don’t plan to listen or think for very long on them, because you have two days to do two major bills with two different ministers and that, quite frankly, is it, whether you like it or not.”

How seriously the government is going to consider amendments is severely jeopardized by the actions of the House leader, and I assume that has been a cabinet decision. I doubt that the House leader went off on his own and said: “Let’s jam it down these guys’ throats. Let’s jam it down the throats of 93 per cent of the people who came to speak to us. We don’t intend to listen any more.” Many of us question whether the government listened at all.

With respect to comments from the member for Mississauga East, I would only suggest that a number of the Liberal backbenchers may have heard a number of presentations that a number of my colleagues in my party and in the New Democratic Party made. Obviously, actions suggest they did not listen, or if they listened they chose to ignore. There is listening and listening.

The specific amendment: I guess it distresses me that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale feels it necessary to bring forward this amendment and yet I agree with him it is necessary to focus and highlight the reason for this particular amendment.

I would like to think that this government, whoever is in government at whatever stage of time, would want to have advertisements placed in the most appropriate medium for the public to know about the meetings. There are ridings such as that of the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) -- although South Porcupine is in his riding, I do not think that is the actual riding name -- where some 60 per cent of his constituents’ mother tongue is French.

There are, indeed, areas of this province such as Moosonee where the mother tongue of the majority of the population would be one of the native tongues. The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) will know; I believe it is Cree.

I am really surprised that the government would not want to make sure that on something this significant, that is going to affect people’s lives as much as this permissive piece of legislation is going to do, it would not want, indeed, to make sure that something was in here.

I would like to think that if there were 1,000 or 2,000 people who substantially spoke and understood a language other than English, and a paper of their ethnic tongue was available, the government would want to ensure that an advertisement was placed in that medium as well.

I understand that Liberal members voted against this once. The parliamentary assistant probably recommended to his sheep that they all stand up and vote against it. If it was just the government doing this -- but we are directing municipalities that they must do something -- I would not think it has to pass an amendment to tell itself to do the right thing. I would like to think that if it was the government asking for input or giving notice of a meeting or a hearing, it would indeed do this as a matter of course.

In fact, some of us have questioned the voluminous increase in advertising in which this government has engaged, in a number of media, including the ethnic media, since it took office. I think that is where the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is indicating this amendment comes from in his specific area. As a government, it has substantially increased advertising in those newspapers, as well as substantially increasing it in the other dailies, English-language and French-language television and radio stations and whatnot.

First, this particular amendment now ensures that municipalities must do this. I am supportive of the amendment. I would appreciate, if the parliamentary assistant thinks municipalities should not do this, that he stand up and say so. Maybe 5,000 is too many. Maybe it should be 3,000. But 5,000 in this type of amendment does not preclude municipalities from placing those types of advertisements if in fact there are only 2,000 or 3,000. It ensures that at least they will do it with this minimum requirement.

Second, it will also force municipalities to stop and think about the mother tongue of those people within the jurisdictions that they are covering, and in fact they may want to go ahead. The government is going to require them to spend a substantial amount of money advertising, and the little bit extra -- in fact, if it were me and I had a $2,000 budget to do this I might cut down the $2,000 ad I was going to place in the mainstream paper, make that $1,800 let’s say, and $200 would go in the other. I do not think it has to cost more money, but it will at least force municipalities to think and to treat this matter seriously and to treat it that way.

1700

I would ask the parliamentary assistant to reconsider the initial rejection of this particular amendment. Sure, we do not like section 4. We do not like the whole bill but we are indeed trying to be constructive with what we think is a wrong-direction piece of legislation, particularly with section 4. Even those who are in favour of wide-open Sunday shopping came to the caucuses and came to the committee and said, “We don’t like section 4.” Those who support Sunday shopping said, “We don’t like section 4.” Those who are against Sunday shopping said, “We don’t like section 4.”

I understand his Premier’s and his party’s desire to constantly be with the people. On the other hand, being in government necessitates making decisions at some time. Some of those decisions are consensus decisions; with some of those decisions you have to go one way or the other. In this case, they have pedalled forwards and backwards and sideways and all across this province to avoid having to make a decision and they have sloughed it off to the municipalities.

This amendment is one of those that says, “We think it’s wrong you’re doing that, but if you’re going to do that let’s be fair to the people involved in those municipalities.” I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that he could do it on his own right here and win some support from the minister he represents and from his caucus and cabinet colleagues: “Doggone it, that Kanter he listened. It makes some sense. I think the opposition did present some fruitful arguments as to why this amendment ought not to cost any more money, ought not to change the intent of what we want to do with section 4, but indeed will cause municipalities to pause and think, place the advertisement if this criterion applies, and indeed think about even if this criterion does not apply.”

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any other member who wishes to participate?

Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant is interested at all in responding to the comments I made. I am assuming no response means, “I disagree with everything you’ve said.” If that is indeed it, he should stand up and have the courage to say it.

Mr. Kanter: I did comment at some length on this provision and I can appreciate that the House leader of the third party was not able to hear my remarks. I am sure he had other pressing parliamentary business at the time.

It is interesting to hear the member talk about consistency, because the underpinning for this amendment, if you will, clauses 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) is the procedural code: the holding of a public meeting, the publication of notice and permitting any person who attends the public meeting the opportunity to make representations. The publication of notice in a newspaper is a very important provision, a very important part of that code. I would advise the House leader for the third party that the sole representative of his party who attended the committee at the time, the member for London North, voted against the provision to require public notice, advertising in newspapers. It is interesting to listen to members of both opposition parties. Now they want to attach so many bells and whistles to this provision, yet both parties opposed this basic code of procedure. That I find rather surprising.

I am sorry the member for Leeds-Grenville is not here at this time to hear my comments, because he spoke quite sensitively, movingly and sympathetically to the needs of various ethnic groups addressed in this motion which is put by members of the official opposition.

I was not a member of this chamber at the time, but it is my recollection that he was perhaps not quite so sensitive when the House was debating Bill 8, the French Language Services Act. I would suggest that there is perhaps a certain degree of inconsistency, some might even call it hypocrisy, in the position of the third party.

I was a member of a municipal council. I do not know whether the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) had that opportunity, but I can assure him that the local council I was a member of was very sensitive to the needs of our local community. We routinely sent out information in four or five languages. I attended many meetings where there was simultaneous translation from English into Chinese or Italian or Greek or Portuguese. With the greatest of respect, I would expect that the local municipalities in his area, such as North Bay or other municipalities, would have the same sensitivity to their local communities.

I would suggest further that his municipal council in North Bay would have more sensitivity than this motion would allow. It may well be that there are new groups moving into or out of the area subsequent to the census. It may well be that there are groups that are smaller than 10 per cent of the population, less than 5,000 souls, which have a major interest in the retail business in his municipality.

It has been my limited experience as a municipal councillor that people who are on municipal councils are pretty sensitive to this kind of thing, and I would remind him that what we have set out, which his party opposed, is a minimum code of procedure that any municipality is welcome to add to, should it be appropriate. We would expect municipalities to add to it where it is appropriate. We do not want to require it where it might be uncalled for, where it might be impractical, where it might simply not make any sense.

Mr. Runciman: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman: I was not in the House, but I did hear the comments made by the parliamentary assistant in respect to myself and Bill 8.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You sound out of breath.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, I am out of breath. I am not in very good shape. I just heard a comment about sleaze factor, and I think that is a very appropriate description of the comments made by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. He certainly, as usual, did not know what the devil he was talking about. There was no accuracy to what he said. It is the sort of thing that we bumped into in this House with his leader when he made similar references when I talked about him wining and dining at the Chilean consulate at the same time as talking about human rights.

I just want to put on the record that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and other members of this House who have been around for some time respect my concern about human rights. I chaired the select committee on the Ombudsman and dealt with human rights abuses throughout the world and how this Legislature could deal with them. I personally am offended by the kind of slur suggested by the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor-General. It was a totally unacceptable comment. He does not know what he is talking about, as usual.

The Deputy Chairman: Can I just interject here a warning to us all that we should not be making allegations against each other and imputing faults or unavowed motives to one another. It would be helpful if all members terminated the ad hominem arguments and addressed themselves to the issues. I would like to know if there are any other participants in the debate.

Mr. Philip: I have one last comment before the vote is taken. I am sorry, Mr. Harris wanted to -- I would like to make a summation on my amendment after we have heard the debate.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, I say to the parliamentary assistant that we do not particularly appreciate nor respect the inappropriateness of some of the comments that he has made. Probably that is why he is no further than he is right now and it is probably a good indication of where he is going within the party.

1710

Mr. Chiarelli: You said last week he was going to cabinet. Make up your mind.

Mr. Harris: As of last week, he may have been. Obviously, there is a side of the member that I am sure, when it is reviewed by those people who make decisions, who want to put people with the proper sensitivity into positions of responsibility, they will not particularly respect.

I want to say this, though, on the member’s comments with regard to this amendment. He indicated that my party was not in favour and in fact voted against this amendment; at least he seems to want to imply that. My party did not vote against the amendment we are dealing with.

I have indicated to the member --

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: I have it right here, moved by Mr. Philip, “I move that subsection 4(1a) of the act, as set out in the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following clause: ‘(d) shall, if the most recent federal census indicates...,’” etc. Is this the amendment we are dealing with? That amendment was lost on the following division -- this is the official record of October 17, 1988: ayes, Cunningham, Hampton and Philip; nays, the seals.

Let me say that I acknowledged all along that we disagree with this bill, we disagree with section 4, we disagree with what the government is doing; but it has not prevented us, once the government has bulldozed and carried the day on what it wanted in subsections 4(1a), (1b) and (1c), from trying to improve on that with which we disagree. That is the purpose of amendments; that is the purpose of the committee of the whole; that is the purpose of a responsible opposition.

Indeed, we may have disagreed with the way the government was proceeding, and we did. Once the government has taken that unfortunate misdirection as to the way it is going to proceed, we are attempting through this amendment to ensure that it does that which we disagree with in a fair, sensitive and balanced way. I think the parliamentary assistant wanted to leave the mistaken impression that we at one time voted against the specific amendment that I am addressing and now have changed our position. Clearly, we did not; clearly, we have supported this amendment and we are supporting it again today.

Mr. Philip: With the greatest respect to the previous speaker, I would like to say in summary that, as someone who has worked closely with the Toronto Humane Society over the years and studied a good many reports by zoologists and biologists, I strongly object to equating seals with members of the Liberal Party. My study of biology and zoology indicates that seals are highly intelligent, highly individualistic, have individual personalities and indeed can think for themselves. That is more than the members of the Liberal Party have when they vote en bloc according to the wishes of the Attorney General and the Premier.

Mr. Chiarelli: Where was your leader yesterday? He didn’t vote.

Mr. Philip: Since the member for Ottawa West, who always does more for the opposition than the opposition does for the opposition, asks, our leader happened to be in northern Ontario yesterday, dealing with important health care issues which this Liberal government has not been dealing with. I am sure the people in northern Ontario appreciate that.

What we have here is simply an amendment that shows some sensitivity to those people who speak languages other than English and French. What we have here is a recognition that when many of them come to this country, they enter into business and have a right to be informed when local governments or provincial governments are making changes that will dramatically affect their livelihood and their lifestyle.

Perhaps the Liberals might consider that this was more worth while than spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars they do on cocktail parties entertaining people in the various new Canadian communities.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that subsection 4(8) of the act, as set out in the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(8) If the council adopts a plan, it shall ensure that the plan is made available to the public by publishing it in three consecutive issues of a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality.”

Mr. Philip: This is parallel or complementary to the amendment that the Liberal just voted against. It is simply based on the principle that if you are going to dramatically change people’s lives, if you are going to dramatically affect them, they have a right to know.

Indeed, a report that was tabled in this Legislature not so long ago but which the government has not yet seen fit either to adopt or even to bring forward for debate, dealing with regulations, has that very principle. People who are operating businesses, or citizens, have a right to know when the government is planning on making changes that will dramatically affect them. That was the major thrust of the report turned out by a committee of this Legislature, of which the majority of the members happened to be in the Liberal Party, namely, the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

This is the same principle. It is simply saying, “Fine, if the intent of what you want to do is to give all the authority to the municipalities, then at least make sure that members of the public know what they are doing so that they can voice their views and have their concerns heard by that municipality.”

1720

Mr. Kanter: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this provision relates to subsection 4(7) and subsection 4(8). Subsection 4(7) is the provision that we discussed previously, whereby a council may now establish a plan setting out criteria for Sunday closings or Sunday openings.

I would like to draw the attention of all members of this chamber to subsection 4(8), which reads as follows: “If the council adopts a plan, it shall ensure that the plan is made available to the public by publishing it in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality.”

We feel that these two provisions, taken together with, as a complement to the code of procedure, the publication, the notice and the representation that people will have if they want to speak to specific changes, actual changes that will be made, provide a much higher degree of participation, involvement and public accountability than were present previously. We will be supporting the bill, as amended, but not supporting the amendment by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: First, we have the absurd situation that the government is saying to the municipality, “We are giving you the authority, but you do not have to have a plan.” Now they are saying that even if the municipality chooses to have a plan -- and that is why the subsection says, “If the council adopts a plan with “if” in the wording -- even if the municipality decides to have a plan, it does not have to let anybody know about it. If that is not Disneyland at its most absurd limit, then I do not know what is.

It is no wonder then that a lot of the people out there are very suspicious that what the government really wants is wide-open Sunday shopping, so they produce the weakest law you can possibly have, and make sure that nobody knows about the changes that are going to take place, so that there is nothing in place to ensure that they will at least know before changes are taking place. They do not require any kind of guidelines or criteria, so they are going to make decisions on those changes and then not let anybody know about it.

That is what the Liberals would like. They would like this issue to go away and for nobody out there to know exactly what is taking place. That is undemocratic. It is perfectly in keeping with the authoritarian nature of this government.

The Deputy Chairman: Other participants? That is rather peculiar. There is lots of chatter until it is time to speak within the rules.

All those in favour of Mr. Philip’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Philip: I have another amendment, which to make it perfectly clear, will probably mean that I am trying to add a new section 4a. Then, of course, the bill would be renumbered.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Philip moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following as a section of the act:

“4a(1) If the council of a municipality passes a bylaw under subsection 4(1), the council shall give notice of the bylaw within 15 days after it is passed and of the procedure for appealing it by,

“(a) publishing the notice in a newspaper with general circulation in the municipality; and

“(b) sending the notice to every person who has requested notification respecting the bylaw.

“(2) Any person may, not later than 35 days after a bylaw is passed, appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the bylaw and the reasons in support of the objection.

“(3) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the clerk of a municipality shall compile a record and forward the notice of appeal and the record to the secretary of the board and shall provide such information or material as the board may require in respect of the appeal.

“(4) The board shall hold a hearing and shall give any interested person an opportunity to make representations in respect of a bylaw.

“(5) The board may allow or dismiss an appeal and confirm, repeal or amend a bylaw.

“(6) A decision by the board under subsection (5) is final.

“(7) A bylaw that is appealed does not come into force until the board has decided all appeals of the bylaw or until the appeals are withdrawn.”

Mr. Philip: If members go through the Municipal Act or indeed other acts affecting municipalities, as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) would gladly share with them as a person who has served on a council very effectively for many years, some of the most insignificant things -- not insignificant to the people who are asking for them but in terms of the effect on the lives of a number of people -- can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The reason an independent nonpartisan body is there is to allow for a full hearing into whether the municipality or a committee of the municipality has operated in a legal and nonprejudicial way.

Here we have an attempt by the Liberal government to give to the municipalities an area which, first, they have not asked for and indeed have asked not to have and, second, an area that will certainly affect a lot more people than a majority of the matters which can now be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

We have heard brief after brief that said: “If you’re going to give up your responsibility as a government to the municipalities, then at least there should be some appeal mechanism if there is injustice or if there is a perception of injustice done.”

All that this does is set up a mechanism for an appeal. As late as last week, members of the House would have received a memorandum from the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, I believe it was. It said a major flaw in the bill is that there is no impartial appeal mechanism involved. You can appeal, at least you could until recently, to an independent body the fact that the fellow down the road or in the next county has obtained a dumptruck licence, but if you have a million-dollar business that may be wiped out because of the action of a municipality, you cannot appeal it.

I say that all this does is build in some semblance of fairness, something that is built into numerous other acts this government has yet to rescind, which other governments over the period of the previous governments have upheld. I say to the members opposite that if they want to create any kind of act that has even the appearance of fairness, they will accept this amendment.

1730

Mr. Kanter: I first remind all members of the House that the power to regulate store hours during the week is now part of the power that municipalities have. It is not subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, nor have I heard any call that it should be. The power to determine local Sunday shopping options, which has been exercised by over 120 municipalities in Ontario, again has not in the past been subject to appeal to the OMB.

Second, I think there is some question whether the OMB is suited to this task. We heard a lot of evidence before the committee about the varying, diverse nature of some local communities that had winter tourism or summer tourism or a multicultural nature. I think it would be difficult to argue that members of the OMB are as familiar as are elected members of local councils.

Third, the OMB is already charged with very important work, very important tasks: planning decisions that very often include the approval of housing, a subject that has occupied a great deal of time in this House and is a very high priority matter, something I do not believe any member of this House would want to clog or delay in any manner, whether it was intentional or unintentional.

For those reasons, it is our view that the local councils are the people best able to decide these matters. The elected local officials are best able to make these decisions and there should not be an appeal to the OMB. Therefore, we will not be supporting this motion.

Mr. Hampton: It is interesting to hear the comments of the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. A while ago, he was saying that the government worked so hard to tighten up this act, to tighten up the perceived abuses, to tighten up what might be perceived problems.

Here we offer the government an opportunity to tighten up the situation that municipalities asked to have tightened up. Municipalities said to the committee, “Look, if you’re going to throw this on our plate, despite the fact we do not want it, please let there be an appeal mechanism.” Not only did municipalities say that, but organizations all across the province said, “Please, let there be an appeal mechanism, so that if a situation arises whereby you have a powerful interest group that is able to get its way despite the wishes of the large percentage of the community on a given issue with municipal council, we will at least have an appeal mechanism.” That is what they asked for.

It is a legitimate request. This is not a statement designed in any way to derogate or criticize the work of municipal councils. We need only look at the way municipal councils may change over a three-year period or six-year period. Metropolitan Toronto is an example. Most observers in the media have said that Metro council in Toronto has switched very quickly in the space of one election from being a pro-development council to being more of a pro-community council and to looking at community concerns more closely than development concerns.

It is very easy to see where the opposite may happen. Communities are simply saying: “Look, don’t put us in the kind of situation where, because a certain municipal council has been elected and the development industry or the pro-Sunday shopping group suddenly has its ear, we have nothing more that we can say. Give us an avenue of appeal.”

Again, the government should make sure that if it is going to do this process, if it is going to throw this kind of thing on a municipal government’s plate, even though they don’t want it, then it should give us an avenue of appeal so that when it is done, it won’t be a one-shot affair. We will have an opportunity to appeal and go beyond whatever the decision or whatever the whim of the municipal council at that time may have been.

I find it, to use the words of the government House leader, passing strange indeed that the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General will talk on the one hand about, “We’re going to tighten the act up,” and yet on one of the ways municipal councils and other groups asked to have it tightened up, the government wants to remain silent. We say from this side of the House that if the government insists on doing this, if it is going to be bloody-minded about it and insist on doing it, for God’s sake, it should do it right.

Mr. Runciman: The parliamentary assistant, who stood up to speak to this amendment in the continued absence of the Solicitor General, made reference to the heavy workload of the Ontario Municipal Board and its ongoing responsibilities with respect to housing developments in this province, and that is a legitimate point to be made.

I think the points being made on this side of the House with respect to providing an appeal mechanism are also quite legitimate and have not received the consideration they merit by the government members of the standing committee on administration of justice or, obviously, by the members in this assembly on the governing side of the House.

I want to say that my colleagues who served on the justice committee, the member for London North and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), tabled amendments that would provide an alternative for the government to utilizing the Ontario Municipal Board as a court of appeal in questions like this. This was a board known, in their amendment and proposal, as the Retail Business Holidays Exemption Board, the Rex board. That amendment would provide a workable process that would combine portions of the current act with what we in this party believe is a democratic and simple way for the province to control the exemption process.

Under the scheme submitted by the two members of this party, we would see the municipalities being allowed to apply for exemptions to this provincially appointed body with fewer than five permanent members. Members would include representatives from retail, tourism, labour, municipal, religious and other concerned sectors.

The amendment we put forward, which was not supported by members of the Liberal Party, would give affected organizations a very real chance to participate in public hearings and provide municipalities with an appeal process to cabinet. That is in the event they are unhappy with the board’s ruling on their individual applications.

Those amendments put forward clearly indicated that unlike the Solicitor General and her parliamentary assistant, Conservatives and the official opposition have been listening to the public. We believe the province still can and should control the Sunday shopping issue.

Mr. Philip: I appreciate the well-thought-out comments of the previous speaker. I believe he has had municipal experience. That shows in his concern.

I was in Sudbury on Friday and a number of the merchants expressed to me their concern that there be an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. They talked about their experience with certain councillors who, I believe, even though they are members of this House, have not even seen fit to speak on this bill and share their experience. I understand some fairly capricious and unfair decisions were made by members of that council, which may explain why the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) is so silent on this bill and indeed on this amendment.

1740

With the select committee on retail store hours that was set up by the Premier at a cost of some $90,000 to the taxpayers of Ontario, it is generally known that the Premier has broken his promise on the first two recommendations: the one that says, “In exercising its administrative responsibilities, the Ontario government should formulate the general framework and policy standards for the operation of the Retail Business Holidays Act” -- in other words, not abdicate its responsibility -- and also, “The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to” Sunday holidays should remain with the provincial government.

Those are the first two recommendations. It is generally recognized those were violated by the Premier, as was his endorsement of the guiding principle, which is just above that, namely, that the committee supported the principle of a common pause day in Ontario. What is not generally known, I think, by the public and by the media in their view of the Premier and the Liberal government breaking its promise is that in voting against this, the Liberals are also breaking a promise, the promise in that select committee report which is item 4, “The Ontario Municipal Board should be designated within the Retail Business Holidays Act as the appeal body in connection with municipal decisions exercised under this act.”

The chief argument the Solicitor General uses in bringing down this legislation is that there were problems with the municipalities. The municipalities were, according to her, abusing the tourist exemption. This report suggests there should be an appeal mechanism. This is one way of dealing with the so-called abuses.

The minister is not able to spell out which municipalities are abusing it. She was asked for a list of the municipalities by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. She could not provide the list. She still has not provided the list. She still has not told us where the major abuses are, but she says there were abuses by different municipalities. Surely, if there are abuses, one way of dealing with the problem of abuses is, first, setting out some general standards or guidelines, which this government has just indicated it is going to defeat, and second, at least allowing an appeal process, an objective, independent body to appeal to.

For the parliamentary assistant to the always absent minister on this bill to say that the present store hours decisions of the municipalities are not appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board is to ignore the fact that we have a select committee, signed by the Solicitor General when she was not Solicitor General, that says yes, there is a problem there and one of the ways to solve the problem is to have an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Liberals like to have it both ways. They argue one thing when it suits them and then they argue something completely different when it suits them. It is unfortunate the Solicitor General, who has not seen fit to be at most of the hearings, signed this report recommending one thing. Now her deputy is in the House contradicting what she originally put her signature to. No wonder people do not trust the Liberals. No wonder they say one thing one day and do exactly the opposite next. They shake your hand before the election and they shake your confidence after the election.

We had representation. The New Democrats, and a similar type of amendment that is proposed by the Conservatives, say: “We did listen to what the public said. We listened to what the municipalities said.”

Only recently, as late as February 1, 1989, the Ontario Working Group on Sunday Shopping Policy once again wrote to the Premier and the cabinet and said, “If you are determined to put through this silly legislation, at least make some changes.” One of the changes that it recommended was that appeals in connection with municipal decisions be allowed to the Ontario Municipal Board. That is what they said.

Do members know what the Premier did? Absolutely nothing. He did not even acknowledge their last letter. They have asked for a meeting with him on three occasions. He has refused to meet with them.

It is bad enough that the Solicitor General is hiding from the public by not being present in the hearings and by not being present here today in our debate on her bill.

Mr. Pouliot: She is embarrassed.

Mr. Philip: I know she is embarrassed. She wrote one thing six months ago or a year ago and signed her name to it and is now recommending something different today. It is another thing for the Premier to refuse to even meet with people who are representing the interests of some four million people in this riding. Maybe this coalition does not buy the $1,000 tickets that seem to be required in order to get the Premier’s attention.

Mr. Sola: I would like to answer the question about the continued absence of the Solicitor General. I think it just shows how much confidence she has in her parliamentary assistant. Confidence, I would like to point out, that is shared by all of us on this side of the House.

Second, there is the question of no participation from government backbenchers. I would like to tell the opposition members one thing. When it was our time that was being abused, we had no interest in helping the opposition filibuster our own legislation. Now that it is their time that is being used, we are very open to participating, as they can see by my participation today. When it was our time that was being used and abused, we let those guys work themselves to death. Now that it is their time, we are participating.

When we come to the select committee on retail store hours, it is quite interesting that the member happens to point to the one recommendation we did not accept and he overlooks the three that we did accept. The committee recommended that the provincial government be responsible for the administration of a provincial framework. It recommended that the provincial government should set a provincial framework and it recommended that the municipal option should be retained. If the member would notice, all three recommendations are contained in Bill 113, therefore I would think it would be nice if the member showed the complete truth, not just one small portion of it.

Mr. Pouliot: Just briefly, the member for Mississauga East provides the House with ample proof of why the minister should really be here. Few bills in the short time -- almost four years -- that I have been here have got the public’s attention. When we are talking about Bills 113 and 114, we are talking about the very essence of culture and of the marketplace in Ontario.

It is a very important piece of legislation. I can understand, of course, the embarrassment of a government front-bencher for not wanting to appear. I think that is a normal reaction, but surely when we talk at this stage of due process, about important amendments supported by two of the three parties in the House and also supported by over 90 per cent of presenters and by the population of Ontario, in terms of ethics, in terms of parliamentary democracy, in terms of if the government means what it says, it at least would bring forward knowledge, would address those amendments with substance as opposed to listening, and I choose my words very carefully, to what are really simple platitudes.

1750

The absence portrays lack of respect for the two opposition parties and, more important, lack of consideration for the amendments that we have collectively and individually worked so hard on to make what is a bad piece of legislation much better. We are talking here about salvaging a proposal that is cast in stone by reason and by virtue of what the government sees as a political process. Once more, I am appalled. If the government takes its duties seriously, when we are talking about the last stages of due process and also talking about Sunday working, it seems to me that if I were a minister, I could not wait for the doors to open. I would be here and I would stay here from morning until night, until due process is completed.

The member for Mississauga East should not direct his comments at the opposition; he should write a discreet note to the Solicitor General and say, “Be at your post to defend your action one more time.” It is regrettable -- but, more important, the people of Ontario feel somewhat betrayed -- that as this bill, this ill-timed piece of legislation reaches its normal crescendo, the minister is not even here to debate the amendments proposed by both the Conservatives and the official opposition. It is a sad day for Ontarians.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other participants? I will therefore put the question.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: There being no further amendments on section 4 --

Mr. Philip: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. We do have a further amendment. As an introduction to the further amendment, I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister a couple of questions. He has heard over and over again from the testimony, since we are in committee of the whole House on section 4, that this legislation will in fact be very damaging to small business. He also argues that you need a certain flexibility built into the system.

I would ask him, in the light of all this, why he would not choose to at least look at the Manitoba solution and, if he is going to allow municipalities to loosen the store hours for Sunday, to restrict the number of employees. Members will notice that he has not done this in this section of the bill or elsewhere in the act. Maybe he would like to comment on the Manitoba legislation. It seems to be working there. Why is he not prepared to look at that solution here?

The Deputy Chairman: The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Kanter: I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman. My understanding of the procedure at this time is that we are essentially considering specific amendments to the Legislation. Certainly, if the member wishes to frame an amendment along those lines, we will consider it. That was my understanding. If there is a procedure for asking general questions, I am quite willing to comply.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has asked a question related to section 4, which we were just about to leave. The question is in order and you may respond.

Mr. Kanter: We have had some experience with a limitation on employees. That provision, with respect to drugstores and pharmacies, was found in what I believe was section 3 of the bill, and proved very difficult for police forces to enforce. It was quite often disregarded and it is our view, based on the experience of retailing in Ontario, that a restriction on the number of employees is not effective and not enforceable.

Mr. Philip: I guess I am dealing with clause 4(5)(b), (6)(b).

Hon. Mr. Conway: Just pretend you are Mr. Breaugh; say it is standing order 22b.

Mr. Philip: I am quite capable of reading the bill. I am more capable of reading this bill than the government House leader was capable of reading the TelePrompTer the other night when he tried to give his most outlandish defence of the actions he has brought forward to force on the people of Ontario.

When I watched the government House leader reading that and almost gagging on what he was seeing coming across that TelePrompTer, I happened to have been with, of all things, a Liberal. There are a few Liberals left in Etobicoke-Rexdale; not very many, mind you, but --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Were you at a landlord’s meeting?

Mr. Philip: -- well, I did have a landslide. What did he say?

Mr. Pouliot: At a landlord’s meeting; that is unfair.

Mr. Philip: Maybe considering the actions of the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) today, when she chose the landlords and the developers over the tenants who in Etobicoke-Rexdale are being evicted, because she refuses to put forward the amendment she promised a year and a half ago --

Hon. Mr. Conway: I know nothing of being a landlord. I defer to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh yes, you do.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale have a further question?

Mr. Philip: The laird from Renfrew is just upset that members on this side of the House have done more to provide affordable housing in Ontario than his government has. I accept that as a compliment.

But there was the government House leader then -- in the worst performance I have ever seen, because he is normally so eloquent. I would certainly have chosen him for leader over who is presently leading, and I am sure that on that --

Hon. Mr. Conway: That explains why I am not the leader.

Mr. Philip: The last time I complimented the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) and said he was doing such an excellent job in the standing committee on public accounts, he was promptly removed the next week.

Mr. Dietsch: I told you to stop saying that. I am in the back benches so high my nose will bleed.

Mr. Philip: I know what it is like. I said some things to Michael Cassidy once and I understand there were inquiries as to whether a sixth row could be made back there.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Where is he now?

Mr. Philip: I hope I will be able to say the same thing about the laird from Renfrew, then, in a few years.

Now that we have started our introduction to my important amendment, I think that perhaps I should move the amendment tomorrow.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

1 février 1989