The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PORNOGRAPHY

Mrs Marland moved resolution 32:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that violence against women is a serious problem which all governments have a responsibility to prevent; and recognizing that there is a body of research which shows a causal link between pornography of a violent nature and violence against women; and recognizing that there have been conflicting court decisions on whether publications in various media, depicting various sexual activities, are obscene; and recognizing that the Ontario Film Review Board is guided in its classification decisions by principles outlined in the regulations under the Theatres Act which are based on community standards; and recognizing that the Ontario Film Review Board, following recent court decisions, has decided that community standards are such that explicit sexual acts between consenting adults should no longer be censored so long as the films do not depict sex involving violence, coercion, degradation, bondage, minors, bestiality and necrophilia; and recognizing that section 163(2)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits people from knowingly selling or exposing to public view "any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever"; and recognizing that section 163(8) of the Criminal Code defines "obscene" publications as being dominated by "the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence"; and recognizing that in recent months, police have charged video store owners under sections 163(2)(a) and 163(8) of the Criminal Code for renting or selling adult sex movies which had been approved with a "Restricted" rating by the Ontario Film Review Board; and recognizing that action must be taken so that the enforcement of the Criminal Code does not conflict with the decisions of the Ontario Film Review Board; the Attorney General should consult with the federal Minister of Justice and all provincial attorneys general to develop a more workable definition of "obscene" which can be applied consistently by law enforcement authorities and film classification agencies, and should encourage the federal government to introduce a bill amending the Criminal Code of Canada to replace the old definition of "obscene" with this revised definition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member for Mississauga South has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Marland: I stand in this House this morning to discuss what in my opinion, I respectfully suggest to the members of this House, is the most grave and serious matter I have discussed in my six years as a member. My private member's resolution proposes that once again the legislators of our province and our country open discussion on the subject of pornography, including its effect on society and appropriate action to control its distribution and consumption.

Pornography is a subject about which we all have strong feelings. It is a subject so controversial that Canadians and their legislators cannot agree on what is or is not pornographic, but we all know that pornography involves sexuality and the abuse of power -- men's power over women and adults' power over children.

In order to provide a framework for our debate today, I will use the definition of pornography from a fact sheet on sexual assault called Pornography: The Links, which was published last November by the Ontario women's directorate. It defines pornography as "sexually explicit material that portrays or endorses degrading or abusive sexual behaviour."

The starting point of my resolution is the extremely serious problem of violence against women, and research which shows that there is a causal link between pornography, as I have defined it, and violence against women.

Consider the cover of Maclean's news magazine last week, which read:

"Women in Fear: Abductions, sexual assaults and murders of women are causing growing alarm among Canadians. A campaign to end the reign of terror has begun."

This campaign must not only help women to protect themselves, but also determine and work towards eliminating the causes of violence against women. Given the disturbing conclusions of research linking pornography to sexual assault, we must reopen this debate.

1010

At this point I have to emphasize that although I am standing in this Legislature this morning as a woman, this is not a woman's issue. It is an issue for every human being in a position of responsibility in this nation, and in so saying, I challenge anyone in this House this morning who has a mother, a sister or a daughter to not support this resolution.

In any discussion of pornography, the controversial subject of censorship arises. Because Canada's provincial governments have responsibility for film and video classification, our government must be a strong voice in the debate on censorship and pornography. I have focused my resolution on a situation which has caused the censorship debate in Ontario to heat up in recent months. The police have been charging video store owners for renting or selling adult sex videos, even though these videos have received the approval of the Ontario Film Review Board with a "Restricted" rating.

How could such a situation arise, and what can we do to resolve it? These are the questions I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is responsible for the Ontario Film Review Board, in a letter last spring. In her reply, the minister said:

"In reaching classification decisions, board members are guided by specific principles, outlined in regulations under the Theatres Act, which are based on community standards.

"Being a citizen agency that is restricted to working within the parameters of provincial legislation, the board does not have the authority, nor is it qualified to determine whether the material it classifies violates the Criminal Code's obscenity provisions."

While the board reaches its decisions based on community standards, the police enforce the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that it is a criminal offence to sell or expose to public view "any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever." The Criminal Code defines obscene material as being dominated by "the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence."

The problem is, what is undue exploitation of sex? There have been conflicting court decisions in this regard. Generally, though, the courts have held that Canadian community standards will determine what is undue exploitation. This is still problematic, since there is little agreement on what constitutes Canadian community standards. In short, the Criminal Code's definition of "obscene" is unworkable.

The present situation wherein the Ontario Film Review Board's ratings conflict with the police's interpretation of obscenity in the Criminal Code cannot be allowed to continue. We need a revised definition of "obscenity" that can be applied consistently by law enforcement authorities and film classification agencies.

In the same letter I quoted from moments ago, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations agreed, saying:

"As you indicate in your correspondence, a clearer definition of 'obscenity,' that could be applied consistently by law enforcement authorities, and film classification agencies, such as the Ontario Film Review Board, would be very useful in eliminating conflicting interpretations of what is obscene or pornographic."

The government of Ontario does not have the authority to amend the Criminal Code, of course, but we can be a catalyst for change. If the Attorney General of Ontario requests that the federal Minister of Justice and her provincial counterparts develop a new and workable definition of "obscenity," this will send a strong signal to the federal government and to Canadians that changes to our pornography laws are urgently required.

In developing a new definition, it will be essential to have broadly based consultations with the residents in each jurisdiction. While the government of Ontario cannot dictate what consultations other governments should undertake, I believe we can safely assume that the attorneys general and the Minister of Justice would not develop a new definition of "obscenity" in a vacuum.

At this point I will turn to some of the factors we must consider in our efforts to develop a workable definition of "obscenity."

First, we must ensure that the new definition protects the rights of Canadians as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must also consider a broad spectrum of views on what is obscene. At one end of the spectrum are people who are offended by any explicit portrayal of sexual activity, even nudity. At the other end are people who believe adults should have the right to view, read or listen to any material of their choice. In between are people who believe that erotica, the portrayal of sexual expression between two consenting people, should not be censored for adult audiences but that we must have controls on materials that depict degrading or abusive sexual behaviour. Even among this middle ground there is considerable disagreement over what activities are within the range of normal sexual behaviour.

If we are to recognize the dignity and worth of women, as well as women's rights to security and freedom from cruelty, we have to impose certain limitations on freedom of expression. These limitations already exist for hate literature; they must also exist for pornographic materials which induce hatred of women.

As I will discuss in a few moments, there is substantial evidence that pornography is a causal factor in many cases of sexual assault. Members of this House who do not believe in the censorship of pornographic films and videos should view the film about pornography called Not a Love Story, produced by the National Film Board of Canada in 1981, which included a wide range of actual pornographic footage. As well, they should contact the Ontario Film Review Board and ask to view its out-take films which consist of the materials that have been censored from movies and videos.

When I was a councillor for the city of Mississauga, I viewed the out-takes and was so angered, sickened and frightened that I insisted my fellow councillors also see these films. Several of my colleagues, all male, joined me for another screening of the out-takes. To give members an idea of how violent and degrading these films were, one councillor left after five minutes saying he could not stand any more, and the remainder of the men did not complete the total viewing.

This is an opportunity to send a strong signal to Ottawa and the other provinces that it is time to revisit the difficult issue of pornography. The security and dignity of Canadian women depend on it.

Mr Fletcher: I want to congratulate the member for Mississauga South for introducing this resolution. I think it is going to go a certain distance as far as the causal link between pornography and violence against women is concerned.

Throughout society right now, what we are seeing are some of the effects of what has been happening at universities in this province. I know at the University of Guelph emergency poles have been put up which flash and ring bells if there is an emergency. I know these are not just meant for women who are being attacked, but that was the primary reason for having the poles there.

We have women marching in cities throughout the country calling to take back the night. Again it is just more evidence of the violence that is coming out. Surely if people in this country can band together to try to stop smoking, they can band together to try to stop the violence that is being directed towards women.

As far as the Ontario Film Review Board is concerned, it is an agency made up of citizens who represent a cross-section of the Ontario population. Its role, as outlined in the Theatres Act of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is simply to classify films for commercial distribution. All films and videos except educational, library or film festival material must be submitted to the board prior to public distribution. Over the years, the film board's role has changed, along with society's changing attitudes. Life is far more complex now than it was in 1911 when the board was known as the Board of Censors. Back then, a greater emphasis was placed on censorship, whereas today it is classification.

There is still some material, however, that the board will not classify. For instance, it is very sensitive to and will not classify films containing violence, degradation towards women, minors involved in sexual activity, brutal violence with sexual connotations and animal abuse. If a film does not meet the board's classification criteria, the board will not allow the film for distribution. But only the courts can decide whether materials are obscene. I agree with the member for Mississauga South that the Attorney General should consult with the federal people and other provinces to try to get a certain definition of what can be obscene.

1020

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations did meet recently with members of the board and did encourage their efforts to seek dialogue with community members to try and determine the kind of behaviour that is acceptable in their home towns and in their own neighbourhoods.

We also want to assure the people of Ontario that the classification set out by the board is a classification that the people on the board are trying to establish through community standards, and the standards are changing all the time. These standards are reflected and upheld in the movie and video industry.

Not only is the violence being directed towards women just from films that we can rent in a store or see in a theatre; it is also on television today. It may not be as graphic, but you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the violence being directed towards a woman in a TV show is just as dangerous as anything else we can view.

We have to start somewhere. I agree with the member for Mississauga South that this is a good starting point, trying to find out what obscene is and trying to stop some of the material. I am one of those people who will say no to censorship, but in some instances censorship has to be used in order to stop the exploitation of people in our society. I believe the member for Mississauga South has really hit it on the nail with her resolution. I will be supporting it wholeheartedly.

Mrs Caplan: On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I am pleased to participate and speak today to this resolution by the member for Mississauga South regarding a matter which is really outside the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. As the member for Mississauga South clearly stated, the Criminal Code, under which the definitions of "obscene" fall, is within the federal jurisdiction, and it is in the federal Parliament that these issues will ultimately have to be decided.

However, the resolution of the member for Mississauga South does give us in this House an opportunity to speak about an issue affecting our quality of life and our feeling of having safe and secure communities within Ontario, and that is the increased violence we are seeing.

I believe we are quite fortunate in this province. I think we are fortunate because, compared with any other community in the world, Ontario is one of the safest. Certainly against any city of comparable size, Metropolitan Toronto would be considered one of the safest. Having said that, I am also aware that the increase in crime, particularly violent crime, and the increase in violence in our society, particularly domestic violence which is occurring in the home, are things we must be very aware of if we want to learn from what other major cities of the world have experienced and ensure we take preventive actions now to maintain a safer, more secure community for the people of Ontario.

Safety in our streets and security in our homes are, I think, non-partisan goals, something we all share as parliamentarians and members of this Legislature, regardless of political stripe. They are things we all want. I think we are all distressed at the increasing rates of crime across this city, this province and this country.

Particularly during times of economic downturn and recession, we know it is extremely important that we are aware of anything we can do to assist those people who are troubled, who are suffering because of job loss and who perhaps lash out in their despair at those they love most, their spouses and their children. Our programs and policies in Ontario must reflect our commitment to a safe and secure community and environment.

I thank the member for Mississauga South for giving me as a provincial legislator the opportunity to discuss my concern about increasing violence and abuse and my concern about safety on behalf of my constituents and my community, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, the city of North York and the riding of Oriole.

The member for Mississauga South referred specifically to the Attorney General working with or requesting federal legislators and the federal government to come up with a new definition of "obscene." Some of the most obscene things I have witnessed in my time as a member of government and in my time in public life before I was a member of this Legislature had nothing to do with erotica, had nothing to do with the beauty of sexual nature. Many of them had to do with exploitation of women, violence against women and children and the kinds of unacceptable behaviour that we would find obscene by any community standard.

As a former chairman of the Ontario Liberal Women's Perspective Advisory Committee, I know we spent a great deal of time discussing the pulls and tugs we had, because nobody likes censorship. We value our freedoms in society. We want the greatest freedom possible for ourselves, our families, our friends and all the people of Ontario. As legislators, we know lawmaking is always defining the rights of society and the rights of the individual, and as a Liberal my principles and my concerns are that we consider the rights of the individual as well as the collective rights of society and we balance those interests in a way which reflects the public interest.

When I discuss with my constituents the issue of pornography and definitions of obscenity, there is much confusion. Many of them do not realize this is a matter which is wholly within the the purview of the federal Parliament. There is very little the province can do regarding a new definition of obscenity. I think we all agree a new one is needed and would help to clarify the role of the Ontario Film Review Board.

I have been able to share with interested constituents the history of the film review board in Ontario, the important role it has played and how its role has changed. During this debate it might be helpful to the people who are watching this discussion to be aware that things have evolved and changed since 1911 when the original board of censors under the Theatres and Cinematographs Act consisted of three persons. They had the right, on behalf of all the citizens of Ontario, to censor films. All films had to be stamped by the board when approved. That has changed dramatically over the years.

In 1914 it was stated that children under 15 had to be accompanied by an adult; in other words, an adult member of the household. That was very clear, and there was a requirement under the act that children had to be accompanied before they could attend films.

In 1918 the board was given a completely free hand to permit or refuse any film. An appeal committee of three persons -- the minister, his secretary and one other -- was established to make those decisions on behalf of all the people of Ontario.

1030

In 1919 women's groups advocated more freedom and more rights for their gender. The press criticized the censor board's reluctance to have women appointed on a permanent basis and the minister was deluged with applications. Finally, at the end of 1919, a woman was appointed to the Ontario Board of Censors.

In 1920 the board was changed and reconstituted and the new board contained two women. The former chairman in fact was Mr George Armstrong, and he was reappointed to oversee advertising. By 1921 the board had adopted a set of standards and copies were sent to distributors, who were asked to examine and censor their own films before submission. Despite the precautions, the board usually made further eliminations, and in 1921, 67 films were rejected and 825 had eliminations. Over the years 1926 and 1927 there were again many changes.

In 1930 the Theatres Act was amended to include film exchanges. Operators were graded, fixed fees established for censorship and so on. Rules said, for example, that alterations were recommended by inspectors and leases could be revoked for non-compliance. Matinees on Saturdays and holidays between 10 am and 6 pm were introduced and, for the first time in Ontario, children under 16 were permitted to attend movie theatres unaccompanied.

In 1931 there was enabling legislation that brought about a quota system for British films because of the influence of American gangster films. For the very first time, in the early 1930s we saw concern about violence in our society.

I could go on far beyond my 15 minutes. I just want to say that from the 1930s through the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and well into the 1980s the classification system evolved and developed. I am very aware of how the Ontario Film Review Board works, the important role it plays in our society and its commitment to development of ongoing community standards as attitudes in our society change.

I know they are very sensitive, because they come from all parts of this province. They are now selected to reflect the communities they live in, and I think that is a very important step. I believe that in this society, where we see the levels of child abuse, family violence and domestic abuse, where we see cartoons on TV that are extremely violent, where we see the kind of violence on TV -- sometimes even in advertising but certainly in TV programming -- what has happened within our society is a desensitization of what we find unacceptable and our tolerance unfortunately has led us into an era where violent behaviour and acting out is all too common and is seen as acceptable.

I believe the debate that has been initiated in this House today goes far beyond a discussion of simply a definition of "obscene" that discusses pornography. I am very concerned that we see an attitude towards violence, all kinds of violence. A few years ago we had the terrible example of snuff films. They were not sexual in any way. They had nothing to do with sex. Most violence, most pornography and most of that which is truly obscene in our society has very little to do with sex and certainly nothing to do with erotica.

The challenge of Project P, the police enforcement unit within Metropolitan Toronto, and of legislators is to look for ways to improve our quality of life and to ensure the safety and the security of women and children, especially in their homes and communities, so that women and children can walk safely on the streets. We have a goal to work together. If we can discuss in open forum how we can achieve that goal so that men and women and children will feel safe in their communities and in their own homes and so that disputes can be resolved in alternative ways rather than through violent behaviour, then I believe we are making progress not only towards a more sensitive and humane society but towards building the kind of life in Canada that we want for our children and our grandchildren.

I know that here in Ontario there are many programs which are supportive and that encourage this kind of self-help for people who have experienced violent behaviour. I know there are very few opportunities for members of the Legislature to speak on a topic which is primarily under federal jurisdiction, that is, looking for a new definition of "obscene."

In 1984 the Ontario Liberal Women's Perspective and Advisory Committee recommended a new definition and sent that definition to the federal minister of the day. I want to express my own personal disappointment that there has not been any action taken on what I think was a very reasonable and reasoned proposal.

I encourage support for the member for Mississauga South's resolution which suggests that discussion take place in the appropriate forum of the provincial Legislature. I commend to the Attorney General and to the government of the day the work done by the Ontario Liberal Women's Advisory Committee, and I will support this resolution.

Mrs Marland: Just to resume where I left off, we must consider the growing body of research on the relationship between pornography and violence against women. The fact sheet on sexual assault entitled Pornography: The Links, which I referred to earlier, notes some of the research which has been studied by the Ontario research directorate. This fact sheet cites a study of sex offenders which found that 56% of the rapists and 42% of the child molesters in the sample said pornography did play a part in their offences.

Another study of video pornography, adult videos and highly restricted triple X videos, found that 13% of all scenes involved sexual violence, including rape; 35% involved sexual harassment; 17.5% involved sado-masochism and 6% involved sexual mutilations. This Canadian study raises an obvious question: If film classification agencies like the Ontario Film Review Board say they censor out sexual violence, why and how are these videos slipping through the cracks?

The fact sheet also cites a national survey of Canadians' use of pornography, which indicates that young people aged 12 to 17 years are the primary consumers of pornography. If we are not concerned about anything else, we must be concerned about that statement, that the primary users of pornography are between the ages of 12 and 17, and 35% of these young people expressed an interest in watching sexually violent scenes -- rape, torture, bondage, etc. These are very frightening statistics. What effect is the consumption of pornography having on youths who are reaching sexual maturity and forming values about relationships between men and women?

1040

The fact sheet also raises many issues to consider. For instance, males commit most sexual assaults, and studies have shown that males are also the biggest consumers of pornography. The fact sheet also notes: "Violent and dehumanizing pornography has been shown to increase acceptance of rape myths, increase acceptance of violence against women, decrease sensitivity to the suffering of rape victims, increase sexual callousness, increase male willingness to rape." Studies indicate that pornography undermines internal inhibitions against rape. It presents women as objects and perpetuates the myth that women enjoy rape and find it sexually exciting.

In an experiment on desensitization, researchers showed men 10 hours of R-rated movies with sexual violence over a five-day period. On the last day, the men watched a documentary re-enacting a real rape trial. The men blamed the rape victim more for the rape, rated her as significantly more worthless and saw her injury as significantly less severe than did a control group of other men who had not viewed the R-rated movies. We cannot and must not ignore this evidence which is piling up in support of a causal link.

I would now like to quote from an eloquent letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail by the former minister responsible for women's issues, the member for Scarborough West, Anne Swarbrick. This letter appeared in the Globe and Mail on July 25 of this year, and I will say with great pleasure that Anne Swarbrick is a member of this Legislature whom I personally admire and respect very much. She is an extremely bright, capable young woman. Responding to some criticism of the fact sheet produced by the Ontario women's directorate, the former minister wrote the following five paragraphs:

"The relationships between sexual assault and pornography are not simple. Studies' conclusions range from strong connections between pornography and sexual violence to none.

"Our publication Pornography: the Links does not state that pornography causes violence. Rather, it shows through annotated statements from a number of studies that pornography creates and supports a climate in which sexual violence against women is rationalized, minimized and even made acceptable.

"That climate, in turn, supports the myth surrounding sexual violence that women are first and foremost sexual objects, that women secretly enjoy forced sex, that women, unbeknown to ourselves, desire to be sexually assaulted, and that women need to experience pain to experience pleasure.

"Pornography designed to degrade women or show abusive sexual behaviour reinforces these myths. That is the danger of pornography, and that is how it is linked to sexual violence against women.

"Sexual assault is an act of violence, power and control. Sexual violence against women is rooted in, reflects and reinforces the inequality between men and women in our society."

Before concluding my remarks, I should stress that my resolution will fill just one of several gaping holes in our pornography laws, which require a major overhaul. However, within Ontario's jurisdiction, responsibility for the control of pornography is limited to the work of the Ontario Film Review Board; hence by necessity the rather narrow scope of my resolution.

I ask all the members of this House to show solidarity on this essential issue of the need to protect society from materials which portray degrading or abusive sexual behaviour. In order to eliminate the confusion over what is and is not obscene, a new Criminal Code definition must be developed which can be consistently interpreted by all parties: by police who enforce the Criminal Code, by judges and jurors who decide court cases, by the Ontario Film Review Board which classifies our films and videos, by theatres which show films, by stores which sell and rent videos, and by citizens who view these films and videos.

Redefining obscenity is a difficult task but one that is vital in our efforts to build a strong society which, in the words of the Ontario Human Rights Code, recognizes "the dignity and worth of every person" and provides for "equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law."

There will have to be compromises to develop a new definition, and as with any other controversial issue, it will be impossible to satisfy everybody. None the less, I believe our Attorney General, together with his federal and provincial counterparts, should be able to devise a workable definition after whatever study, discussion and consultation each jurisdiction believes to be appropriate. We cannot amend the Criminal Code ourselves but we can play a key role in ensuring that it is amended.

I ask for members' support by passing my resolution today and I ask the Attorney General to convey this resolution from the government of Ontario to his counterparts in Ottawa and across Canada. This is an opportunity to send a strong signal to Ottawa and to the other provinces that Ontario believes it is time to revisit the difficult issue of pornography.

Finally, I just want to add a quote from another cabinet minister of the current Ontario government, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who this week issued a press release headed "Minister Denounces Violence Against Women," dated November 18, 1991:

"'I am touched personally and professionally by the fact that women in our society face violence at the hands of men, and that, even more important, many women live in continuous expectation of violence at the hands of men,' said Richard Allen, Minister of Colleges and Universities, speaking at the Ontario Campus Men's Conference this weekend."

I think the words speak for themselves. This is a resolution against which no one could vote.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure as usual and always to rise and speak to an issue in private members' time on Thursday morning, and this is no exception. The member for Mississauga South has brought forward her resolution and I think it would be fair to say there is not a member sitting in the Legislature who does not have a great deal of empathy with what is being brought forward.

In the resolution, the proposal for consultation stems in part from what the resolution calls conflicting court decisions on what is obscene and from the fact that the Ontario Film Review Board has approved some films for release in Ontario that have subsequently been the subject of criminal charges by police forces in Ontario.

The Attorney General is always prepared to engage in meaningful dialogue with the federal government and his provincial counterparts to ensure the continued just and appropriate administration of the criminal law. However, it would be inappropriate to engage in the proposed discussions at this time. The reason, very simply put, is that the matter is before the courts.

The current definition of obscenity was introduced by the Parliament of Canada in 1959 and since that time it has repeatedly been given very careful consideration by provincial appellate courts across the country, and on numerous occasions the obscenity provision has been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result the courts, working co-operatively with Parliament, have developed an elaborate yet sensitive and ultimately practical definition of "obscenity."

The courts have been careful to ensure that this definition takes account of developing community standards in a restrained and judicial way. It is therefore inevitable that occasionally, as social views develop and change over time, the courts will be called upon to reassess what types of material fall under the definition of "obscenity." That is the situation at the present time.

Every day of the week hundreds of provincial, divisional and General Division judges in the Ontario Court of Justice hear criminal matters across the province. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that on a very few occasions some of these judges might have very limited differences of opinion when interpreting criminal law such as the obscenity law. When this occurs, lawyers from the Ministry of the Attorney General are apprised of the situation and where appropriate take all steps within their power to bring these cases before the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking clarification. Indeed, an important part of the function of any Court of Appeal is to resolve these differences of opinion among judges in the trial courts. That is simply a fact of life.

1050

On the issue of obscenity, the limited differences in interpretation at present are entirely limited to the trial courts. Ministry lawyers involved in those cases are doing everything they can to facilitate their hearing by the Court of Appeal. This is the usual route by which differences in interpretation by the courts are resolved. This route of appeals, first to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada, has served the administration of justice extremely well for decades and there is no reason to assume it will not do so again.

Legislatures depend on the courts to interpret very broad words that must inevitably be used in statutes and to ensure that the interpretation given to a statute such as the obscenity law reflects contemporary community standards. In this respect, the administration of justice has been very well served by the courts. Therefore, it is advisable that we await higher court rulings on this issue so we may benefit from the higher court's wisdom on the proper interpretation of the obscenity law.

There is another reason why it is premature to discuss a new definition of "obscenity" at this time. Apart from the proper interpretation of the obscenity law, its constitutional validity is currently before the courts. As everyone is well aware, Parliament, in enacting criminal law such as an obscenity law, is bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any obscenity law which Parliament might make must respect the constitutional guarantee of free expression.

At present, the current obscenity law has been challenged as a violation of that freedom of expression. This case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in June 1991 and a decision has not yet been made. Until that decision has been made, there can be no useful discussion of the obscenity law among legislatures because we have yet to receive the benefit of the court's ruling about how obscenity might be regulated without infringing on that freedom of expression.

Consequently, because of the cases pending before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no point in discussing the current obscenity law. The courts have, in three decades since the obscenity law came into force, effectively provided authoritative guidance in this area of the criminal law. There is absolutely no reason to think the courts cannot assist the administration of criminal justice in this way again.

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased today to support the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Mississauga South and I find it abhorrent that the previous speaker, the NDP member for Durham East, would not be supporting this resolution, particularly in light of the comments and quotes my colleague the member for Mississauga South attributed to members of the NDP government, the NDP cabinet.

It is abhorrent that any member of this Legislature would contemplate not voting to support this resolution. Perhaps the member for Durham East has missed the point of the resolution, that we are trying to send -- I commend my colleague the member for Mississauga South for bringing forward the resolution -- a very strong message to provincial attorneys general and to the federal government that the definition of "obscenity" and what actually constitutes pornography must be clarified in the Criminal Code because the Ontario Film Review Board, as the member for Durham East pointed out, relies upon community standards.

We worry very much in my caucus and in the Ontario Conservative Party that community standards are slipping. I studied this for a short time in university when I took a theology course. I give credit to Professor Janine Langan at the University of St Michael's College for pointing out the studies that indicate pornography is an addiction. It is an unhealthy, unnatural addiction and unfortunately, with the Ontario Film Review Board certifying and passing pornographic videos that help to feed that addiction, I worry that community standards are slipping, that we are on the slippery slope.

I ask members of the NDP government to review their thoughts on this if certain members are contemplating not voting for this resolution, because when we allow so-called X-rated and triple X-rated videos to be sold, as they are just a few blocks away on Yonge Street -- there are some six stores in a four-block strip from north and south of Wellesley and Yonge that sell and rent triple X videos. People have to realize that when you allow those to be sold and viewed and when you consider that pornography is an addiction that we, by not doing anything, are helping to feed to our young people, they grow up with very unhealthy and unnatural beliefs in what the morality of our society is and should be.

If members have ever seen a snuff film -- a film where extremely degrading and obscene sexual acts are committed against women, where at the end of the film the victim is butchered and dies, and where very often large segments of the film are explicit in showing what is done with the bodily parts -- they would know the slippery slope this society is on.

It is our responsibility as legislators, on behalf of our constituents, to try to bring some high moral standards back to society. By allowing what some members, I am sure, think of as mild pornography to be viewed by our young people and in fact by people of all ages -- we are particularly worried about young people because we know that addiction starts as early as their teens -- the fear is that some day snuff films will become acceptable and community standards will change to the point where the absolute pinnacle of violence against other human beings becomes the norm and accepted in our community.

I put that out as a warning that may come true some day if we do not do something about it, because it was not too many years ago in Ontario that we found the pornographic material now on the newsstands and in film to be abhorrent. Now we see snuff films coming in, where the police really do not have the tools to do the job. When the Ontario Film Review Board allows pornographic material to come in and be viewed, when the police, as we know from the resolution, have charged some video shop owners with distributing obscene material, and at the same time our own government agency has approved that material, there is something seriously wrong.

My colleague the member for Mississauga South is trying to bring that debate to the Legislature. She has done a commendable job of doing that today and I ask all members to support this because it is the slippery slide of morality in this society. We must stop that trend and do nothing to feed the addiction of pornography, particularly in our young people. I ask for all members' support. It is a worthwhile resolution and I cannot believe anyone would ever vote against it.

1100

Mr White: I rise to speak to this issue without the careful and astute research that the member opposite has demonstrated, but I have had many years of experience in working with victims of sexual molestation and sexual assault, almost all of them women, and I have known the tremendous tragedy that their lives have faced after those assaults and after those molestations.

The tragedy is primarily that this is not an act of sexuality; this is an act of violence, an act of cruelty, an act of power. For them, their sense of their selves, their sense of their sexual beings, their sense of their erotic lives and their sense of being able to connect intimately with others have been often permanently damaged. This crossing between what is violent, what is obscene and what is beautiful and erotic is unfortunately true for all of us, to some perhaps lesser degree, and I want to commend the member for bringing forward these issues of violence that are supposedly of a sexual nature and distinguishing them from what is truly erotic or sexual.

Sexuality, erotic interchange, is something which is intimate. Love speaks to care, to respect and to affection. A loving, erotic exchange is the very opposite of the kind of violence that the member opposite speaks of as obscene. Eros, in Sigmund Freud's terms, is a very creative, vital force and it is opposed and contaminated by the forces of control, violence and power. It is the very opposite of those things.

In our community, those forces of violence, coercion, degradation and the forces of oppression and exploitation are rampant. If we as a community can make an expression of that distinction I think we are helping our community. If we as a Legislature can have this kind of debate, I think it leads the way in terms of the most important and powerful depiction of what is good, natural and affectionate as opposed to what is violent, oppressive and degrading.

That is not a clear message. Certainly the Ontario Film Review Board is making some clarification in that. What is sexual and what is erotic are acceptable, but the issues of violence and degradation, that contamination, are not, they are making clear, and I think this debate helps to do so as well. These will be difficult decisions determining what is obscene. To what degree is something obscene? Is table dancing obscene? Are these kinds of depictions obscene? Especially within the context of a society which has traditionally oppressed women, traditionally oppressed both men's and women's sexuality but particularly women's because they have been the victims of force and rape, their senses of their selves have been tremendously degraded within this overall context.

Mrs Marland: As I think the House is aware, this is not only an extremely sensitive issue; it is also an extremely emotional issue. Since I will not have an opportunity to speak again this morning, I wish to thank the members of all three parties in this House for their support, which I anticipate in passing this resolution this morning.

I know it is a subject that has nothing to do with political parties or partisan politics. It has everything to do with something that all of us, as legislators in this House, share. It is the feeling of helplessness we all share. It is the feeling that we see every day examples of violence in our society that we wonder what we can do about. We wonder what the remedy is. Is there something we can take as our responsibility and take action on?

This resolution this morning is such a small part of the bigger picture, but at least it is a part, and in supporting this resolution maybe this one little part will be the beginning of filling in the whole picture and completing the puzzle that faces all of us to deal with the subject about what is happening with violence against women and children in our society today. We all care, and therefore we do not see this as an intrusion into society's freedom, but rather as a protection of the freedom and the society that we should be able to enjoy.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS' PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS DE LA SANTÉ

Mr Morrow moved second reading of Bill 147, An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Projet de loi 147, Loi visant à protéger les travailleurs de la santé contre la transmission du virus de l'immunodéficience humaine.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes to initiate debate.

Mr Morrow: Before I start my debate, I would like to ask the indulgence of the House because I have a cough and I am stuffed up. I understand that happens with higher altitudes such as we sit in here.

I rise today to lead off the debate on Bill 147, An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The bill amends the Workers' Compensation Act to remedy three important issues workers have to deal with in today's environment. First, it defines health and safety precautions to try and stop the transmission of HIV when working with blood products. Second, it guarantees that people will not lose their jobs if they are accidentally infected. Third, it puts the onus of proof on the Workers' Compensation Board if a worker gets the AIDS virus doing his or her job as a health care worker.

Statistics from medical journals in the United States confirm that 5% of the cases of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS, were exposed to it by blood products. This may seem like a small number, but the most recent statistics from the Federal Centre for AIDS show that there are 2,157 people alive at the present time with AIDS. Of these known cases, 246 were in contact with AIDS through infected blood or blood products; of these, 148 have already died.

I have contacted the Hamilton AIDS Network for Dialogue and Support, HANDS, to get the most recent information available. Most people know what the major risk factors are, but they do not know the percentage of adults who have AIDS as a result. I am reminding members of the House that 78% are related to homosexual or bisexual activity; 1% to intravenous drug use; 4% to both factors; 7% to heterosexual activity; 5% to no identified factor, and 5% are recipients of blood or blood products. It is the last group that this bill will assist.

The acquiring of the virus by exchange of blood may seem like a small number, but when you have a closer look at the data, a completely different picture starts to appear. While 2% of the male cases were infected through blood, 25% of females were infected in the same manner. With the predominance of women working in the health care field it shows that the spread of this deadly disease to women through their employment is substantial. This is an even higher percentage than the substantially high risk the intravenous drug user group has.

Using the 1989 figures, there are 436 people diagnosed with AIDS in Ontario. If 5% received the infection through exchange of blood, this means that there are 22 people in Ontario alive at the present time who are in this category plus another 5%, or 22, who have yet to discover that they have been infected.

1110

Of course, over the past 10 years our knowledge of AIDS has increased, but there is still a substantial number of people who are continually being infected by coming into contact with tainted blood. The Canadian Red Cross Society began testing for the AIDS virus in November 1985 so one must remember that this may skew the early years of reporting, but that does not mean the government of this province must stop being vigilant in our attempts to control the spreading of AIDS. This is what Bill 147 will address.

Some of the workers who must receive this protection include health care workers, morgue attendants, embalmers, laboratory personnel, medical cleaning staff, police, firefighters, prison staff and schoolteachers.

Bill 147 sets out the drafting of regulations by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for such things as gloves, masks, clothing and precautionary equipment for health care workers and also prescribes sanitary measures to protect workers from coming into accidental contact with blood. Just the use of face shields, eye protection, double gloving, waterproof gowns, surgical masks and waterproof footwear will, according to most experts, almost reduce to nil the risk of surgical teams acquiring the virus.

In a discussion with the Hamilton branch of the Canadian Red Cross Society, I was told that it has policies in place that protect workers from coming into contact with high-risk groups and a reporting mechanism if any staff could be infected through the mishandling of blood. This type of health and safety precaution is what should be done by all employers whose staff may come into contact with blood.

This bill recognizes that it is time to look at the different ways that AIDS is being passed. I am still surprised that women are coming into contact with this virus in an almost completely different way from men. With the recent announcements by the Ministry of Health, this government's real attempts to stop the spreading of HIV show me the importance of this legislation.

In sections 3, 4 and 5 of this legislation key protections for workers are outlined. Section 3 reads: "No employer shall dismiss a health care worker who has contracted the virus if the only reason for dismissal is the contraction of the virus."

The subsequent sections guarantee workers who have contracted AIDS through their employment the right to remain at their duties as long as there is no danger to the public and fellow workers. This gives workers with AIDS rights for re-employment and also gives them access to alternative responsibilities with no loss in pay or benefits.

Workers in the province must have health and safety provisions to protect them from death or illness on the job and, at the very least, to give them support if they are infected. The present legislation makes it the responsibility of the workers to prove that they have received the virus during their employment. In some cases it may be many years before AIDS is diagnosed and it would almost be impossible to relate it to an event that may just involve receiving a cut while working with tainted blood.

All our constituency offices that are involved with decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board know that proving continuity with some injuries can be very difficult. To suddenly test HIV positive and have to review employment history, remember duties as far back as three years and show that a specific event with unknown factors lead to the acquisition of the AIDS virus would be an almost impossible task for anyone. Health care workers must receive the benefit of the doubt, and therefore subsection (9b), as set out in subsection 7(1) of the bill, has been included. It is time that workers who could acquire the disease in this manner be recognized and also protected.

Passage of this bill gives health care workers needed guidelines for disposal of hazardous bodily fluids, prescribes sanitary measures in the workplace, defines safety equipment to be used by different classes of health care workers and gives coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act for those infected.

This bill, I hope, will help to remove the stigma that still exists in today's society on those who are HIV positive. The recent announcement by Mr Johnson has helped in some way to bring this issue to the forefront, but there is still more that has to be done and a lot more that has to be understood with respect to caring for those with AIDS.

Mr J. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1116

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum now is present. We continue debate on the motion on the floor. All three parties will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mrs Sullivan: I was very interested in reading the bill that is being put forward by the member for Wentworth East and I commend him, really, for his efforts to assist people in the health care field. Unfortunately I am concerned about specific aspects of the bill which I believe are misdirected and I will not be supporting the bill.

I do want to say, however, that I really think this is a useful piece of information to be brought forward. I believe there is considerable misunderstanding and misinformation in these fields and that an opportunity through a vehicle such as this to discuss these issues is important. I think people in the health care field and people in the community have concerns about some of the issues we will be discussing, and these are matters where a little bit of light frequently is useful.

There are two reasons that I will not be voting for this bill. The first is that there are established protocols in existence to utilize what are called universal precautions when handling blood and body fluids of all patients or residents, not just of those who are known or suspected to carry high-risk infections or diseases.

The second reason that I will not be supporting this piece of legislation relates to the recommendation with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board and its treatment of health care workers. It seems to me that recommendation would require health care institutions, and particularly hospitals, to require HIV testing on staff before, during and at the time of the conclusion of their employment with that institution. I believe that is a highly problematic situation, one that we would not support under any circumstances. We do not believe that is an appropriate way of proceeding.

I would like to explore both these areas a little more thoroughly and talk about the past approach to infection control and disease control. We can recall that in the past -- we have a doctor in the House and I know he will be familiar with many of these precautionary elements -- to keep infections from spreading in health care facilities, workers used really two basic techniques which were routine and which were applied in virtually any health care setting. The first was the no-touch technique, which meant that dressings were applied with tongs, for example, and that scrupulous washing up was required. That was one technique.

The second was the isolation technique, which was used when a patient was known to carry or was suspected of carrying a specific disease. That technique was used particularly in instances such as smallpox or hepatitis. In hospital settings, patients may have been placed in an isolation ward. In the home, an entire premise could have been placed in quarantine.

More than 20 years ago, however, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta set out a system of category isolation for various groups of diseases, depending on how the diseases were spread. Some 10 years ago, those categories were changed to a disease-specific system. In 1985 a Canadian system of disease-specific isolation was introduced by Ottawa's Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. In all those systems there were specific precautions applied for diseases which were known to be transmitted by blood or body fluids.

While those systems were valuable for most situations where the disease was known or suspected, there were some quite specific drawbacks. The disease had to be correctly diagnosed. The timeliness of the diagnosis became a vital issue so that precautions would start quickly, and anyone who carried the disease had to have similar, recognizable symptoms so that the cases could be readily identified.

With some diseases, such as hepatitis B or HIV, those particular systems were less than useful. People with hepatitis B virus develop symptoms in only 50% of the cases and many carry the disease with no symptoms. An HIV infection is almost always without symptoms until the latter stages.

It was clear there was a need for new precautions and for new systems to be put into place. As a result, the Centers for Disease Control published new recommendations for the prevention of HIV transmission in health care settings. This document recommends that health care workers use universal blood and body fluid precautions, or universal precautions, with all patients.

Because those precautions relate specifically to the prevention of blood-borne diseases only, revisions were made to the universal precautions in 1988 and 1989 to provide further definition of body fluids as those that may transmit blood-borne diseases. What was clear was that earlier infection control practices, the no-touch and isolation techniques, were to continue in place.

About three or four years ago, a new system of infection control precautions was introduced and is in fact in place in some cases in the body substance isolation system, the BSI as it is commonly known, which moves the emphasis from the diagnosis to the specific interaction between the health care worker and the patient.

There are no signs on the bed or doors of the patients who have communicable diseases. Instead, health care workers use barriers to avoid contact. We are familiar with those: the gloves, the masks, the goggles, the face shields, where moist body substances of all patients are protected from contact with the health care worker.

While the Centers for Disease Control has not yet endorsed BSI, many facilities, including several dentists' offices, have put those practices into effect. Once again, it is ideally a universal system, with all workers in direct contact with patients interacting with all patients in the same manner. Some Toronto hospitals have adopted the BSI system to meet their internal needs.

Under some of these circumstances, I think I should spend a little time to indicate that precautions for workers not directly in contact with the patient, such as laundry workers, orderlies and cleaning staff, have been similarly developed in laborious detail and to exacting standards and are in place in our institutions.

The current infection control principle is to treat all patients in a similar, safe manner, since all people infected with a disease cannot necessarily be identified.

The Public Hospitals Act requires our hospitals to pass bylaws that establish and provide for the operation of health surveillance programs, including a communicable disease surveillance program for all who carry on activities in a hospital setting. I just want to read from a note from the Ontario Hospital Association with respect to a particular disease:

"This program must, with respect to a particular communicable disease, include the tests and examinations set out in any applicable communicable disease surveillance protocol published jointly by the OHA and OMA for that disease and approved by the Minister of Health."

Clearly, there is already an interaction with the Ministry of Health in place.

As we move from institutionally based care to community-based care, it is clear that specific disease prevention protocols will have to be put into place for health care workers in non-traditional sites. The Ministry of Health, I believe, should be identifying those protocols through consultation with practitioners and others. This particular bill that is being put forward is not the vehicle for doing that.

I know my colleague has important things to add to this debate. As I indicated, I certainly will not be supporting this bill, although I am pleased that some of the issues have been raised and put on the table so that there can be some public discussion of the issues.

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to spend a few moments this morning speaking on Bill 147, An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV, put forward by the member for Wentworth East.

I should say at the beginning that Bill 147 should be commended for its attempt to assist health care workers who contract the deadly HIV or AIDS virus in the workplace. I believe this bill is similar to private member's Bill 68, which received second reading in this House last April, put forward by the member for Simcoe Centre. That bill sought to amend the Workers' Compensation Act to compensate workers who contract a blood-borne disease while in the workplace.

The intent of Bill 147 has a great deal of merit as we struggle in Ontario and around the world to balance the civil rights of people living with HIV and AIDS with the whole issue of public health. As I recall, back in April the member for Simcoe Centre said there were about 200 reported cases of occupational exposure to HIV. He also mentioned at that time that the risk of a health care worker contracting HIV from blood products was up about 0.9%. However, Bill 147, which is designed to assist health care workers who contract HIV in the workplace, may create more problems than it actually solves.

For the following reasons, my caucus colleagues and I join with the Liberal Party, which is a rare thing indeed, in not being able to support this piece of legislation this morning:

The Ontario Hospital Association feels this legislation will create many problems both for employers and the employees or workers that this legislation is designed to protect and help. It is clear that Bill 147 seeks to preserve employment for HIV-infected workers, but what has not been made clear is that while this bill protects an HIV-infected person's right to work, the language and intent of the bill will serve to violate other critical rights of workers.

The following is a quote from the Ontario Hospital Association in a letter dated November 6. It was addressed to the member for Simcoe Centre, who is also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. The Ontario Hospital Association says:

"We have very serious concerns that this could lead in many instances to employers deciding that the only way to limit their liability would be through testing employees before, during and at the termination of their employment. This would be contrary to both the blood-borne surveillance protocol for Ontario hospitals and other surveillance protocols for Ontario hospitals. These protocols explicitly reject the use of testing and screening of staff, yet despite their presence hospitals may be forced to contravene them should your bill" -- referring at that time to Bill 68 -- "be enacted."

Section 7 of Bill 147 would amend section 122 of the Workers' Compensation Act to read:

"If the worker contracted the human immunodeficiency virus and at or before the date of the disablement was engaged as a health care worker, the virus shall be deemed to have been due to the nature of that employment unless the contrary is proved."

1130

As a result, the onus of proof on whether or not a health care worker contracts the HIV in the workplace falls upon the employer. The consequence is that employers will be forced to implement mandatory AIDS testing as a means to monitor whether or not HIV is contracted in the workplace. In order to protect themselves, employers may be forced to factor in lifestyles in determining whether or not to hire an employee, and the result of this could be discriminatory hiring practices by employers. I do not think that was the intention of this bill, but it would be one of the consequences of this bill.

I will also give another quote from the Ontario Hospital Association regarding section 7 of Bill 147:

"We fear the result of this would be that health care employers would begin to screen staff before, during and after employment in order to prove the infection did not result from employment. Employers might also seek to learn about confidential lifestyle factors that would put the employee at risk for HIV infection outside of the job."

In order to protect health care workers, Bill 147 could prevent numerous workers from ever gaining employment in the first place, and I think that would be sad.

Another concern about Bill 147 centres around sections 2 and 6. These sections both deal with universal blood and bodily fluid precautions. The member for Wentworth East should be aware that his bill attempts to legislate something that is extremely difficult to legislate, and that is professional judgement. Enacting Bill 147 runs the risk of pre-empting the work done by the Ministry of Health in this regard. The ministry has spent almost two years developing a position paper outlining and defining its support for universal blood and bodily fluid precautions. By enacting Bill 147, the government would be putting the cart before the horse.

The OHA in a letter also concurs with this: "Putting this proposed legislation into place and drawing up the sorts of regulations suggested in section 6 may lead to conflicts between the Ministry of Health and Labour, and confusion on the part of health care workers and employers."

In the United States, their hospital association has struggled with this sort of legislation for several years and has yet to reach agreement on the kinds of protective practices and equipment that should be required by law.

Another problem with sections 2 and 6 is that no one, not even the centre for disease control, has been able to come up with specific lists of precautions, circumstances and the precautionary equipment needed. The OHA recommendation regarding sections 2 and 6 is, "We think these sections should either be omitted altogether or else a simple reference made to the Ministry of Health document and/or recommended standards of practice published by the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control in Ottawa."

Section 4 of Bill 147 is also fraught with difficulties. Subsection 4(1) reads:

"If a health care worker contracts the virus in the course of his or her employment, the worker is entitled to continue working at his or her position and fulfilling all of the duties and responsibilities inherent to that position as long as those duties and responsibilities do not endanger the safety of the public or of his or her fellow workers."

Subsection 4(2) reads:

"If a worker cannot continue with all or part of his or her responsibilities without endangering the safety of the public or of his or her fellow workers, the employer shall asign to the worker alternative responsibilities that are similar to the worker's regular responsibilities, that require similar qualifications and that have the same salary and benefits."

Once again, while the intent and compassion are commendable, they are not grounded in practical reality. Workers who contract the AIDS virus will put their own lives in danger by continuing to carry out the demanding duties of health care workers. Section 4 does not consider the health and safety of the infected worker whose determination to stay at his job may place health care workers with an impaired immune system at risk.

Going back to section 7, this bill seems to mirror Bill 68 in its attempt to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. I was pleased back in April to join the debate on Bill 68 and I want to reiterate what I said then and relate it to Bill 147 today. Section 7 of Bill 147 is redundant. For example, as is the current practice of the Workers' Compensation Board, if the WCB receives a claim from a health care worker who pricks himself and who is handling blood, the board will handle the costs for the HIV testing. Also, the board takes it upon itself now to do its own investigation into the incident. The bottom line is that workers who contract HIV, be they in the health care professions or otherwise, are taken care of and there is no need for new amending legislation.

Subsections 122(9) and (9a) of the Workers' Compensation Act set out the structure for compensation for employees who contract HIV in the workplace. Subsection 122(16) of the act already gives the Workers' Compensation Board the power to do so. I will quote that section:

"The board, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may declare any disease to be an industrial disease and may amend schedule 3 or 4 accordingly."

So it is already possible and is in fact the practice of the Workers' Compensation Board to handle people, including health care workers, who are infected with HIV at their place of work.

It is ironic that a member of the NDP government has chosen to table this, which could be termed a humane and compassionate bill, during the same week the Minister of Health closed the door on assistance for some 375 haemophiliacs in Ontario who contracted HIV through Ontario's blood supply in and around the year 1985.

On Tuesday of this week, in this chamber, I asked the minister a very pointed question as to whether she would compensate those 375 haemophiliacs who are living with HIV, many of whom have developed AIDS and some 55 of whom have died. Many of those, unfortunately, were children. The minister gave, I thought, a rather inhumane, static and legal response, claiming that the government had already discussed this issue with other provincial ministers of health and that they have all agreed their governments do not have any legal culpability in terms of taking responsibility for the blood supply when we were not screening the blood supply in Canada and in Ontario for HIV. We were not screening it properly, and for a short period of time in the mid 1980s were not ensuring the safety of that blood supply to the best of our ability.

It is interesting to note that from 1987, and the decision was finally announced in December 1989, the federal government did take responsibility and did set out a compensation package for haemophiliacs in Ontario who had contracted HIV through the blood supply. I think there is a legal culpability on the part of this government.

There is a case -- it is in the Toronto Star today -- where a lady out west contracted HIV and eventually full-blown AIDS through the procedure of in vitro fertilization. The courts just awarded her over $800,000 and explicitly said that there is legal culpability in this case in terms of the doctor not fully taking precautions to ensure the lady would not contract HIV.

There is also the case I mentioned on Tuesday where a six-year-old boy in Australia was forced to take the Australian government to court to get the government to live up to its responsibility for the purity of the Australian blood supply. The end result was that the six-year-old boy was awarded $800,000, but he and his supporters were forced to come up with some $15 million in legal costs, which the government eventually absorbed. That government, based on the fact that the courts ruled in favour of the little boy, must now settle with other haemophiliacs who contracted HIV through the blood supply in Australia.

I cannot send a clearer message to the government. I strongly feel, contrary to what the minister told me in this chamber on Tuesday, that the government has a share of responsibility because it is a voting member of the Canadian Blood Committee, which has responsibility for screening blood products in Canada and that it shares in a responsibility that has already been admitted by the federal government, and that the expensive route is the route the government has now chosen to take. There are 18 cases launched this week naming the provincial government, among others, as having a responsibility in this matter, and unfortunately the government has taken the expensive route of forcing this matter to the courts.

I suggested on Tuesday and strongly believe that the fiscally responsible thing for this government to do would be to settle now with the haemophiliacs infected with HIV rather than go through an expensive court challenge, but it is a decision the government has taken and a decision it will have to live with.

As I conclude my remarks, it is ironic that the member for Wentworth East and the member for Simcoe Centre, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, agree in this legislation and in Bill 68 that was brought forth in April that people who contract HIV through the workplace should be included under the compensation program provided by the Workers' Compensation Board, but this same government, on exactly the same principle, on exactly the same type of case, refuses to acknowledge responsibility and bring forward a compensation package for haemophiliacs in Ontario who, through no fault of their own of course, simply placed their faith in our blood supply and in our health care system, were let down and mistakes were made. This government has some responsibility. I find it ironic that we see legislation here today where they feel certain workers should receive that compensation but haemophiliacs should not.

1140

Mr Mills: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 147, An Act to Protect Health Care Workers from the Transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, that has been introduced by my colleague the member for Wentworth East.

There is nothing that strikes more fear in health care workers than the possibility of their contracting HIV. This fear is really the thrust of Bill 147. The risk of occupational transmission of the AIDS virus concerns health care workers all across Ontario. The member's bill touches on a very sensitive issue. I commend him for bringing this forward in all its sensitivity.

However, I have some concerns about certain parts of the bill. My first concern deals with section 1, which defines a "health care worker" as "any worker or professional who, in the normal course of their employment, may come into contact with hazardous bodily fluids."

On these lines I would like to speak to public safety workers such as the firefighters. Firefighters' exposure to infectious diseases is a major reason why firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions. Firefighters often suffer injuries and cuts and must help victims who have also been injured and may also be bleeding.

As things now stand, firefighters in Ontario cannot find out if a person they have treated carries an infectious disease such as AIDS. I believe that firefighters should have the right to know this information. This should be done not only for the protection of the firefighters' health and safety, but for the safety of the public as well.

I realize some people may be concerned that the privacy rights of an AIDS victim could be violated. I do not believe this would necessarily have to happen. In the United States, Congress has passed legislation that creates a fair balance between the privacy rights of an AIDS victim and a firefighter's right to know. Under the United States legislation, firefighters can find out if they have been exposed to an infectious disease while treating a fire or accident victim. This law does not jeopardize an individual's right to privacy, because all the medical information is kept strictly confidential. The Provincial Federation of Ontario Firefighters likes the United States legislation and wants the province to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

That is my first concern, that the member's bill does not cover emergency workers such as firefighters.

My second concern deals with subsection 4(2) of the bill, which says that a worker who contracts the AIDS virus and cannot continue his or her job without posing a risk to the public shall be assigned alternative but equal responsibilities.

I have no problem with the basic thrust of this section of the bill. In fact, I agree completely with my colleague the member for Wentworth East that the jobs of health care workers must be protected if they contract the AIDS virus. Doing anything less or otherwise would be discriminatory and totally unacceptable.

However, the wording of that section of the bill in my opinion opens up a Pandora's box. For example, the bill does not explain how a health care worker would know if he or she is carrying the AIDS virus. This is important because people can carry and spread the human immunodeficiency virus even if they have not developed full-blown AIDS. I bring this up because it has implications for civil liberties. In the United States, legislators are currently grappling with the issue of mandatory testing for health case workers. That debate came about after a 22-year-old Florida woman developed the AIDS virus after being infected by her dentist.

The Florida case illustrates the complexity of the issue. How do we balance the privacy rights of health care workers with the public's right to know? I do not know the answer, but I think the member for Wentworth East should be aware that his bill cannot be discussed without dealing with that question.

Those are two of the concerns I have regarding Bill 147. The member is thanking me. He did not know what I was going to say. Once again I would like to thank him for having the courage to bring this bill forward. It really is commendable. The health and labour issues he raises are important and, at the same time, very controversial. Once again I commend the member, but I have some difficulty with it even though he is a colleague and a friend of mine.

Mr Curling: I want to thank the member for Wentworth East for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 147. While I know that the intention of the member for Wentworth East is honourable and well intended, I find this bill a bit hurried, as his colleague just stated. My colleagues the member for Halton Centre and the member for Simcoe West also stated that somehow the bill lacks details and has many redundancies.

When we talk about redundancies, there are many sections of this bill that have already been taken into account in the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which handles the fact of rights at work. Here it is again being mentioned.

I know I do not have a lot of time. I think what the bill is lacking is proper enforcement in place in this province. What we also have, most important, is lack of education.

Because I do not have a lot of time, I will quickly talk about education and read something that was directed to the Solicitor General at that time, the member for Cambridge, by Gordon Youngman, a consultant, specifically in regard to a case in the Solicitor General's area, the Centre of Forensic Sciences. I will read a section of his letter. He is talking about the delay in the Gligor case that the Centre of Forensic Sciences had not proceeded with.

"The information regarding the transmission has not changed over the years since the discovery of the HIV virus almost 10 years ago. Health authorities around the world, but in particular the World Health Organization, the International Labour Office, the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta have issued very detailed guidelines known as Universal Precautions when dealing with body fluids and HIV.

"These guidelines also apply to other blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis A and B. These guidelines apply both to those individuals who are alive and to those that have died. The number of infected health care workers in North America is less than 10% and those that are infected were as a result of" -- I would like the member to listen carefully to this -- "needle stick injuries because there was a breakdown in the use of the prescribed precautions." It talks about education and understanding of this disease.

1150

"There is a need" -- this is the emphasis -- "for clear, specific, factual messages regarding the transmission of HIV that have greater applicability and relevance to people's lives and concerns...." This government and the governments of Ontario in the past have spent thousands of dollars to educate people about HIV. It seems to me the government members lack that education and lack that information. Specifically the Ministry of the Solicitor General seems to lack that in giving proper direction especially to areas in the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

As a matter of fact, at the moment there are about 700 backlog cases that have not been investigated because of fear of contracting this HIV disease, although it has been stated that the disease itself does not live very long outside the body after death. People have been generally aware of the modes of transmission but they are less aware of how to protect themselves. I think the amount of money that has been spent in the past has somehow not been effective. I would encourage the member to emphasize the fact of education and things that are in place there and not to duplicate the issue all over again.

Joan Burton from the health and safety association wrote in respect of this bill itself: "We strongly support the intention of this bill, but think that the proposed bill will create many problems for both employers and workers." This has been said not only by my colleague the member for Halton Centre but also by my colleague the member for Simcoe West.

I would encourage the member Wentworth East, although his bill is well-intended, to encourage his colleagues in the ministry to go back and visit much of that legislation and visit the areas in which we can have better enforcement. I think it will then be quite unnecessary to introduce this bill. I had hoped, if I had more time, to elaborate.

Mr Kormos: It should come as no surprise that I stand in support of my colleague's bill today. I am not about to engage in criticism of it because rather than criticism it warrants some sound understanding of exactly what happens here on Thursday mornings. This is private members' morning. Sometimes there are not the numbers of people sitting in the Legislature we would want on Thursday mornings, but members of this assembly, all 130 of them -- excluding you, Mr Speaker, because you of course are non-partisan and removed from the political fray. As people who watch this know, on Thursday mornings private members get an opportunity to present either resolutions or bills without the restraint that is so often imposed on government members and government bills. This is an interesting part of the week. I particularly enjoy Thursday mornings because of the nature of the matters that are put forward and the types of debates that are conducted.

I am happy this morning to see that not only are people watching on television but people are here in the Legislature. We have visitors. We should say hello to young Warner Yorgason and Brandon Yorgason, both of them here with their parents, exercising their right to sit in this Legislature and observe what is going on either critically or fondly, however they wish, along with the persons sitting up in the visitors' gallery. It is their right.

I quite frankly wish that more people would exercise that right. This building belongs to the people of Ontario. The sooner the people of Ontario recognize that, appreciate it and understand it, like I am sure Warner and Brandon and their parents do, the better off this province is going to be. I tell members right now that we should be telling people in the province of Ontario to get here to Queen's Park and to use the building, to use the government that indeed is theirs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I would like to remind the honourable member we are discussing ballot item 46.

Mr Kormos: Of course we are, Mr Speaker, and we are going to keep discussing it for several more minutes.

So that is an important part of Thursday morning. I am also fortunate to be able to speak to this matter today because, among other things, it marks the end of our legislative week here at Queen's Park and it also marks the end of the term of this most recent group of pages, the young women and men from across this province who have served us for the last several weeks: people like young Jay Banerjee from Scarborough East and Janye Lee from Don Mills, just two of the pages among a whole bunch of them who have performed so well.

These are young people who have learned over the last several weeks some of the shortcomings of the members of this assembly. They have observed them. They have seen them live and in the flesh -- that is the shortcomings -- but I trust they have also acquired a sense of what it means to be a member of this assembly. I trust some of them aspire to sit here in these very seats and that they have learned already that if you are going to be sitting here it is far nicer down in the front row than it is up at the back. It is far nicer closer to the middle than it is closer to the exit doors. There are 130 of us and there are 130 desks, one for each and every one of us. All of us, as members of the Legislative Assembly, have the right and indeed the obligation to speak out on legislation that is presented.

Here we have a bill, and it is no surprise to me that it comes from my colleague the member for Wentworth East. Here is a young man who has served his riding oh so well over the last year and few months. Here is a member whose riding can and should be very proud of because he has been outspoken on issues that have come before the Legislature. The member for Wentworth East has had the courage to stand up and speak about things that others have remained silent on. He has had the courage to be critical when criticism is warranted even on things some take for granted. He has the courage to come forward with a private member's bill that, as has already been noted, has as a part of its nature some very controversial aspects.

There has been something happening with private members' bills not just over the last several months but over the last couple of years. I recall fondly the first, and so far only, time I had been given an opportunity to present my own matters during private members' morning. That was back when I was a member of the opposition sitting among the 19 of us. The members should remember there were only 19 of us.

I presented a resolution at that time which was debated vigorously. It was a resolution that called for the provision of syringes to diabetic seniors, recognizing that the syringe is an integral part of administering the insulin. Seniors should be entitled, and, by God, I do not look forward to the day and I will fight the day when we refuse or when we fail to provide pharmaceutical drugs for seniors under the Drug Benefit Formulary or when we impose such unacceptable things as user-pay schemes.

But recognizing that a syringe is an integral part of the process of administering insulin, I felt it was my responsibility, having been spoken to by so many constituents and persons who are not from my riding from across Ontario who felt it was important, I raised it in the Legislature. Although some time has passed, members will note that the Minister of Health has announced that syringes will now be available to seniors who have the illness of diabetes so that they can administer the insulin. That is a good thing. That means that this private members' morning works. It works for members of the opposition.

1200

The member for London North, whom I respect a great deal, presented as a private member's bill her legislation dealing with helmets for cyclists. That was not only supported but now is in committee being discussed. We are hearing from participants across the province who have things to say about that legislation, and it will unfold as it should.

It is strange that members of the opposition would be concerned about the fact that this protects workers. It comes again as no surprise to me. The member for Wentworth East comes from the workplace to this Legislature. He spent his working life fighting for the rights and interests of working women and men, so it is to be expected that he comes to this assembly with legislation that protects workers.

This legislation warrants the support of every member of this Legislative Assembly. It does not deserve the petty criticism that has been cast towards it when in fact we are talking about second reading. What the member for Wentworth East's private member's bill deserves is to be passed so that it can go to committee for that refinement, that discussion and that debate that is so important. To do anything less is to neglect our responsibilities as legislators. I say we should be supporting this legislation and supporting it vigorously.

Mr Morrow: That is really hard to follow. In wrapup, there are some agencies I would like to thank for all the work they have given me and the research done.

I would like to thank the Toronto board of health for all the advice it has given me, and especially Anne Moon, who is a member of the board. I would like to thank the Hamilton AIDS Network for Dialogue and Support for all the research it has done. I would like to thank the Hamilton branch of the Red Cross, because without it this would not have happened. There are other individuals, especially Chris, Heidi and Bob, and a man by the name of Doug Decker who went out of his way for the last week to really make sure I would be presenting this this morning.

Mr Curling: Bob Rae.

Mr Morrow: Sure, I will thank the Premier, there is no problem. I will thank the member for Welland-Thorold and I will also thank every other speaker who spoke on this this morning. Their criticisms and their support go a long way. I would also ask that everybody in the House support this.

I will tell the member for Halton Centre though that when Bill 68 did come up, hepatitis B was a part of that bill and I did speak to that, just so she knows so that might jog her memory. I think that is all I have to say on this, although again I would ask that everybody do support this bill.

PORNOGRAPHY

The House divided on Mrs Marland's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 35

Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Frankford, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Jamison, Jordan, Kormos, Lessard, Marland, Martin, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Owens, Perruzza, Poirier, Runciman, Sterling, Sullivan, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays -- 0

HEALTH CARE WORKERS' PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS DE LA SANTÉ

The House divided on Mr Morrow's motion for second reading of Bill 147, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 19

Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Frankford, Hansen, Hope, Jamison, Kormos, Lessard, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Owens, Perruzza, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, G.

Nays -- 16

Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cunningham, Curling, Haslam, Jordan, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Poirier, Runciman, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to have a bit of a clarification from you. When you asked for the voice vote on the member for Mississauga South's motion, I noted, because I was very close to the member for Leeds-Grenville, that he voted against the motion in his voice vote but when you asked for the standing vote he voted in favour. He voted both ways.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order. The members are allowed to vote as they please.

Mr J. Wilson: On a similar point of order that I hope you will rule in favour of, Mr Speaker: I note that the member for Durham East in his remarks opposed the member for Mississauga South's resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is not a point of order.

The House recessed at 1216.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Brown: It is disgusting that during the middle of a recession, during a time of unprecedented tax increases and government deficits, the NDP government should decide to put people in the housing industry out of work with Bill 121.

We have heard that 16,000 people were put out of work by Bill 4 and that 24,000 jobs are put at risk by Bill 121. This morning hundreds of people crowded the front steps of the Legislature to ask how long they would have to wait to put the Premier out of work.

The crowd heard from John Makuch, whose concrete restoration business died after the NDP brought in Bill 4. He told the crowd he used to have 50 employees, but under the NDP he now has 10. Concrete restoration is an example of necessary maintenance that needs to be done to keep apartments safe. We are not talking about gold-plated lobbies; we are talking about basic maintenance work the NDP is disallowing, forcing tenants' homes to become slums.

Landlords, tenants and construction workers all demanded changes to Bill 121 during the public hearings last fall, but the government has failed to listen in its amendments to the bill.

The Liberal caucus will be putting forward our amendments to make Bill 121 fairer to landlords and tenants and to bring back the necessary maintenance work and jobs destroyed by the NDP. We call upon the government to support our proposals and put fairness and security back into the rent laws of this province.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of the Environment today that their original land use directive is not in tune with the views and the needs of the people of Grey. This was made very clear in last week's municipal elections. Voters elected candidates who believe, as they do, that the land they bought and pay taxes on belongs to them and not to some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Toronto.

The ministers should examine these results and try to understand the reality of the situation, rather than relying on the Owen Sound Sun Times and the 50 or so malcontents who signed a petition opposing Grey county's policies for the sum total of their knowledge on this subject. The Sun Times and these objectors have led the ministers astray by giving them false and misleading information.

The paper has done the ministers and the people of Grey a serious disservice. In my view, because of the harm they have done and continue to do to the community, the editorial writers ought to tender their resignations, as they do not reflect the views of those they purport to serve. Failing that, they should at least apologize to the people and the elected officials of Grey.

The ministers must begin to depend on more than their few unreliable sources and actually consult with the local officials. By doing this, they should find that they will receive far more co-operation than they are presently getting.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr Dadamo: I am pleased to inform the members of this Legislature that the citizens of Windsor and Essex county have proven themselves one more time. I am pleased to announce, as it was last Friday evening in Windsor at the Cleary International Centre, the raising of over $7 million by the most giving and sharing people in all of Canada. In the last three years, the organizers of the United Way in Windsor have kept a target of $7 million.

The real heroes are all those who gave to the United Way unselfishly even during recessionary times. And how about the hundreds of volunteers who door-knocked and solicited company employees? All those people who gave their time and money merit much applause and praise.

David Armour, area executive director for the United Way, all the labour locals in Windsor and Essex county, as well as business should be applauded for their efforts in yet another accomplished campaign.

A recent survey found that 71% of Canadians volunteered in the past year. That is up from 59% in 1987.

In closing, on behalf of the members for Windsor-Riverside and Windsor-Walkerville and the member for Essex-Kent, I say congratulations to those who worked on the United Way campaign in Windsor and Essex county.

INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTINGS

Mr Curling: Police investigating police: I can remember a time not long ago when this would have troubled the NDP. "An outrage," they would have shouted then, "A mockery of justice."

The Premier said that police investigating police was wrong, period. "The independence of the process is critical," he said after the Donaldson shooting. Cynical opportunism? Grandstanding? Or did the NDP truly believe that police should not investigate shootings by their fellow officers? That is what is happening right now. It is happening despite a new law which was designed expressly to prevent it.

The NDP government has allowed the special investigations unit to become a sham, a smokescreen behind which police can investigate alleged criminal acts by members of their own force. This is worse than the previous system, which at least had members of another force carrying out the investigation. Police confidence in the ability of the special investigations unit to conduct an independent investigation into police shootings has been undermined because of a private arrangement between the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the SIU and the police chiefs of Ontario.

The damage done by this Solicitor General is irreparable. What needs to be done now is clear: Revoke this made-behind-closed-doors deal and remove the agency from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, recreating it as a truly independent civilian body with the resources it needs to fulfil its mandate to investigate police shootings independent of outside interference.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr J. Wilson: On numerous occasions the member for Simcoe East and I have raised in this Legislature the concerns and resentments held by ratepayers in Simcoe county regarding the plan to restructure their county by amalgamating municipalities.

Simcoe county taxpayers voiced their hostility to restructuring in a loud and forceful manner during the recent municipal elections. Two municipalities in my riding put the issue of restructuring on their election ballots. In Sunnidale township, a staggering 94% of ratepayers voted no to restructuring. In Nottawasaga township, 85% turned thumbs down on restructuring.

There is a lesson in this for all elected members of this Legislature. Several local politicians who supported the restructuring study did so against the wishes of the electorate and suffered dearly at the polls.

On Monday my colleague the member for Simcoe East and I will be meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We intend to bring to the minister the results from last week's municipal elections and the very real concerns of a great many Simcoe county taxpayers who oppose restructuring and who are frustrated because politicians refuse to listen their concerns. We will ask the minister to put the issue of restructuring on hold for a period of five years so we can have some time to evaluate the amalgamation that has already been forced on the south end of the county. I hope the minister will take to heart the lessons learned in last week's election.

Also, the November 12 elections produced a new name for the amalgamated town of Alliston, Beeton, Tecumseth and Tottenham. I wish to inform all members that the the name of the new town is New Tecumseth.

PURCHASE OF PAPER MILL

Mr Wood: Today is the day the people of Kapuskasing and the employees of Spruce Falls were given to come up with the money to have an employee-owned paper mill. In June the people pledged over $13 million for the mill. Despite the economic situation in northern Ontario, I am pleased that the communities have not only reached their pledged goal but have surpassed it. Over the three-week campaign, 980 employees have given $9.85 million and 470 non-mill employees have contributed $4.79 million. Together, over $14 million was raised to buy Spruce Falls.

This effort reflects my constituents' strong belief that their company will survive, given all of today's economic pressures. With everyone working together, almost anything is possible.

All stakeholders -- the people in Kapuskasing and the surrounding areas, the government and Tembec -- are to be commended in making this sale a success. It is an indication of what can be done when all parties co-operate in a common goal. With this pledge, the people of Kapuskasing show their belief and courage to contribute to the economic wellbeing of their communities. I again would like to express my admiration and congratulations for their support to make this employee buyout worth while.

1340

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Phillips: I am going to do something unusual and compliment the Premier. I would prefer, of course, to say it to the Premier's face, but a person of his importance cannot be spending time here in the Legislature. Fortunately I am told someone on his staff does review Hansard. It would be my hope they might pass on these comments to the Premier.

My comment I think shows the human side of the Premier. Apparently the Treasurer had planned an onerous two-week trip to France, England and Germany, but as soon as the Premier heard of the $2-billion shortfall in revenue, he spotted an opportunity to give one of his cabinet a chance to showcase himself and get some real publicity. In a typically unselfish move, the Premier said to the Treasurer, "I'll do the two-week tour and you can have the spotlight." While the Premier endured cold rides down the Thames, the pressure of a grilling at his old college and having to sit through a long dinner with Labour Party candidates, the Treasurer was able to get lots of publicity.

What a comfort this must be to the rest of the cabinet, to know that the Premier will not steal the limelight. If a hospital has to close, the Minister of Health can be assured that she will have the full limelight. When an environmental crisis hits, the Minister of the Environment knows she will be able to get full credit.

As we look skyward, with the Premier's plane from England circling, just awaiting the end of question period, I hope all of us will celebrate the human side of the Premier that has been so graphically displayed in the past two weeks.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tilson: Many businesses in my community have suffered the effects of the recession. They have had to downsize, go out of business or flee to the United States. The businesses that have managed to stay afloat should now be looking ahead to a brighter future as we slowly start to see a turnaround in the economy, but they are not.

The government's proposed changes to the labour laws have small businesses more frightened than ever before, and I would like the Minister of Labour to pay close attention to the comments I am sure are coming to him and other members of his government from constituents around this province.

A constituent of mine writes the following letter:

"My response to increased union and/or government involvement in the day-to-day operations of my business will be to downsize it to two employees, my wife and I. Unfortunately, 48 highly motivated and productive employees who have never indicated a need or want for union help will be job-hunting."

Who knows better how the minister's proposals will affect business than business owners? Their fears and promises of shutting down or leaving Ontario are real, and I hope to God the minister is listening.

EARTH DAY

Mr Christopherson: I rise today to inform members of a bill that will be debated in this House on December 5, 1991. My private member's bill would designate every April 22 as Earth Day. Its purpose would be to encourage participation in community, provincial, national and international activities that share a common purpose with the activities organized by the Earth Day movement.

As members know, Earth Day promotes and celebrates individual environmental action, and in 1991 some 700 organizations, 3,000 organizers and two million individuals in Canada co-ordinated or participated directly in Earth Day.

Positive environmental action begins at home. Each one of us has the ability to make a difference in maintaining and improving our community's, our nation's and our planet's ecological health. It is important to realize that this goal can be reached in manageable increments and that gradual changes in lifestyle will ultimately lead to a better quality of life for us as individuals and, as important, a sustainable global environment.

I believe enactment of this bill would be a small but important step in providing leadership on perhaps the most important issue facing us all. I invite and urge all members of the House to support this bill.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, just a brief point of order before we move to the next order of business: The point of order actually arises out of the orders of the day which I see here on my desk. I notice the government has placed some 25 orders in Orders and Notices today. It seems to me that under those circumstances, the Solicitor General may have inadvertently not only misled this House but misled the public as well. I heard him quoted this morning on the radio saying that Bill 115, which is going to allow the stores to stay open in December but make sure they stay closed the rest of the year in respect of Sundays, was going to be law as of today, that we were to be debating that bill for third reading in the House today and completing our deliberations.

There are a number of people in our caucus who are prepared to do that. I, as whip of the standing committee on administration of justice and one of the spokespeople on that bill, am prepared to debate that matter today. Apparently the Solicitor General suggested that it would be law today. I cannot see how the government House leader, the member for Windsor-Riverside, could possibly have expected us to deal with that matter, with the number of speakers who intend to speak on that bill, when he put some 24 orders on the Orders and Notices paper before consideration of Bill 115. I invite the Solicitor General --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. The member may know that he does not have a point of order. Following routine proceedings, the Speaker will call for orders of the day and at that point the government House leader will announce which order is to be followed.

Mr Bradley: On a brief point of order, Mr Speaker: We in the official opposition are prepared to delay the start of the session this afternoon so that the Minister of Agriculture and Food can make the statement he is making outside the House at this very moment.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines has indeed a point of interest but not one of order. It is time for oral questions.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As question period is about to begin, there are virtually no cabinet members of substance, with the exception of the Treasurer; none of the important members.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. The member for Oriole will know that she does not have a point of order. There is nothing in the standing orders to compel the attendance of any member of the assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr Elston: I have a question of my favourite storyteller, the Treasurer. The last instalment was given by this gentleman just this week, actually given here in a second phase of an announcement which he made earlier. What the Treasurer did not say is more important than what he did say. He has indicated that he will be raising provincial taxes. He has indicated he is going to stick to his deficit plan by way of ensuring fewer dollars being made available to people who are working in municipalities and school boards. Can the Treasurer confirm that what he has actually announced is not only provincial tax increases but an obligation by municipalities and school boards to raise their levies as well so that they can maintain their services?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not sure I understood the last part of the question.

Mr Elston: Are they going to have to raise taxes to deliver the services?

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, I see. I now understand the last part of the question by the former interim leader, the former interim leader who assured us all he would never run for permanent leader, but I will not dwell on that matter.

What I did say was that we know that next year the fiscal situation in which we will undoubtedly find ourselves is going to be very difficult. If there is one message -- not just some message but one message with about three parts -- I have received from the official opposition it is that (a) it wants us to maintain our expenditure programs, (b) it does not want any new taxes and (c) it does not want us to allow the deficit to go any higher. Having said that, all I can assure the member opposite of is that we will do what we can, in as creative a balancing act as possible, to make sure we do indeed carry out the wishes of the member opposite.

Mr Elston: That was not my question. Did the Treasurer not say, by way of his announcement last week and again this week, that municipalities and school boards would require an increase in their taxes to maintain their services?

Hon Mr Laughren: What I have been trying to signal to everybody across the province, including those people who are known as our transfer partners -- school boards, hospitals, municipalities, colleges and universities -- is that everyone is going to have to work together to try to cope with this very severe recession we are in. When the transfer announcement is made for funding next year for our transfer partners, that transfer announcement will contain a very small number. I think everyone understands that inflation is going to be considerably lower next year than it is this year and we simply cannot continue to fund our transfer partners at the level we did this year. It is just not possible.

1350

Mr Elston: I asked the Treasurer if his announcements over the last couple of years have not required the municipalities and school boards to raise their taxes to maintain services. The answer is obviously that this is required.

The honourable gentleman will know that for a family of four in Ontario having an income of $40,000, about $8,600 of that is already given to provincial and federal tax officials. Having announced that next year municipalities and school boards will have to increase their property tax, a regressive tax which the New Democrats campaigned against some time ago, as we know, how can the Treasurer stand in his place now and answer a question about fairness in taxation and other things when he is forcing those people he calls his partners to increase their tax burden to those constituents who will have to pay to just maintain the services they require from municipalities and school boards?

Hon Mr Laughren: No announcement I have made so far has required our partners out there to raise their taxes. At the same time, all of us in the public sector, whether we are in what is known as the broad public sector -- in education, health care -- at the municipal level or in the provincial government, are going to have to manage our affairs smarter, more efficiently and more productively than we have in the past. There is absolutely no question about that, because the money is not there to continue to spend the way the former government did in the last five years.

INVESTMENT FUND

Mr Elston: I have some interest in that last response, but I have another question of the Treasurer, who is finding new ways of spending money that is not his own.

In the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, November 20, there was an article quoting the Minister of Financial Institutions, a colleague of the Treasurer's, indicating they were looking at the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as a model for spending money in Ontario to do the things they want to do but are afraid to confess to the public they are really doing. Would the Treasurer tell us if in fact the Caisse de dépôt model is going to be the one he is going to use to set up the Bob Rae Investment Corp?

Hon Mr Laughren: We announced some time ago -- and I do not think it is a surprise to anyone -- that we want to have some kind of pension-based investment fund in Ontario. At the same time, I do not believe you can just transpose a model from another jurisdiction to Ontario. I do not think it is that simple.

Second, if we do work out an arrangement with the public sector unions and their pension managers, it will be done in a co-operative, voluntary and collaborative way, not in an arbitrary way.

Mr Elston: I understand there are a number of documents in the Treasury domain and in other places that talk about taking as much as $300 million a year from the teachers' pension plans and from the Ontario public service employees' pension plan, and there have already been some arrangements made perhaps even to go so far as tendering for space with respect to setting up trading areas that might be used for the Caisse de dépôt model the Treasurer is considering.

I would like the Treasurer to tell us what discussions have been held with the teachers and the public servants to get their permission to use their pension money for his expenditure priorities.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, they would be the expenditure priorities of all the people of this province, not simply mine. All I can tell the member opposite is that we are working away trying to develop a model for an investment fund, because we think it is absolutely critical, as part of our economic renewal plans as we come out of this recession, to have a fund that is targeted for high value added and very progressive kinds of industries or sectors.

We have had some preliminary discussions with the public sector unions on this. There has been no decision made at all as to exactly what we are going to do or how much money is going to be in it. But the member opposite is quite right, there is paper around. We have had discussions with committees. There is no big secret about it, but at this point nothing definitive has been determined.

Mr Elston: We have seen this Treasurer telling us some stories about his fiscal management and his budgetary plan. He has already put off several hundreds of millions of dollars in capital expenditures until next year. He has already used Ontario Hydro to do the bidding of the government to deal with the Kapuskasing issue, which our friend and colleague the member for Cochrane North spoke about today in the House.

The Treasurer has already indicated that there are now other arrangements by which the pension funds that belong to those teachers and public service employees will be used to do his bidding. In fact, he is now offloading, along with the offloading to the municipalities and the school boards, the requirements to make public expenditures at the expense of those pensioners.

It seems to me the Treasurer should tell us what his full fiscal plan is. He has not yet provided us with a clarification of who is participating in making the expenditures for his government priorities. Will he do that?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite is fundamentally wrong. We are not offloading on anybody. If and when the investment fund is set up -- I certainly anticipate it will be, but it is not there yet. I have learned not to count my chickens in this business until the eggs are hatched, or whatever that expression is. I know members of the Liberal caucus are aware of that danger as well.

I do want to say to the member opposite that it is not a case of offloading. It would simply be a case of asking the people in the public sector unions if they wanted to share with us some of the surplus funds in their pension plans to do good work in the province of Ontario. Nobody is taking money away from them. They have to invest their money somewhere. We are just suggesting to them, "Would you like to join with us and invest in Ontario?" That is all.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Housing. I know she is aware that the rally held on the front steps of the Legislature this morning clearly illustrates the effects of the NDP government's two attempts at rent control legislation. These misguided attempts have had ramifications far beyond their goal of tenant protection. What should be clear to this government by now is that Bill 4 has been directly devastating to the construction and restoration industries as well as to landlords and tenants.

This morning it was readily apparent that many people in these industries have already lost or will soon lose their jobs as a result of this government. An employment impact study has indicated that as a result of Bills 4 and 121, 25,000 jobs will be lost in this province. It is estimated that as a result of Bill 4, in the restoration industry alone, 63% of the apartment renovation contracts have been cancelled. The result is that thousands have been laid off.

Before it is too late, will the Minister of Housing consider withdrawing Bill 121 and introducing in its place legislation which not only protects the tenants' rights but also preserves our housing stock and promotes a healthy and active construction industry?

1400

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member is aware that Bill 4, to which she refers and to which people at this morning's rally referred, is a temporary piece of legislation. It was put in place by this government in order to provide time to consult around this province on the production of Bill 121, which is now before a legislative committee. I hope the member will understand that whatever holding action has been taken through Bill 4 -- and indeed it was a holding action which we brought about in Bill 4 in order to protect tenants during that period before we could put Bill 121 in place -- will be lifted as soon as we can deal with Bill 121 in committee. I hope we will be able to pass the amendments before us in committee before Christmas and be able to proclaim the bill in the spring.

Mrs Marland: This minister should recognize, if she understands what this legislation has done in this province, that the holding action to which she just referred has in fact cost 25,000 jobs in this province. If the minister is not concerned about the impact of her legislation on 25,000 jobs, with the pink slips in here that were signed this morning by the people outside in the rally, then I wonder how she can profess to be interested in protecting jobs and the rights of workers. Frankly, to say it is a holding action is not acceptable.

The numbers get worse. For every $100 million worth of renovation or repair work that does not proceed, almost 3,100 person-years of employment are lost. These job losses are a direct result of this government's initiatives. What does the minister intend to do to stimulate the construction industry so that not only are jobs restored but the rental housing stock of Ontario is properly maintained?

I would like to send these pink slips over to the minister, through the help of one of the pages.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member has brought to us, in a colourful way, her point. The rally this morning was impressive because it represented concerns of people who have been employed in construction, who have gone through a lot in this past year. There has been a serious recession which has seriously affected employment in the construction industry.

I am pleased to report that because of some of the actions of this government, particularly in terms of our production of assisted housing through co-operative ventures at the community level and also through non-profit housing, we have stimulated the construction industry at the local level and employment is beginning to rise. It is not good enough yet, but we believe when Bill 121 is in place no landlord or construction worker will have any reason to suggest -- not just to feel but to suggest -- there is any problem with rent control legislation in this province as far as employment is concerned.

Mrs Marland: I think it is worth noting the appropriateness of this minister's attire today. I would be wearing black too if I was responsible for these bills and this loss of jobs.

Hon Ms Gigantes: You are.

Mrs Marland: Exactly. These bills are not about protecting tenants. These bills are about taking away the rights of property owners and destroying jobs in this province. We can talk about the recession, and yes, I suggest to the minister respectfully that it is because of the recession that she should be even more concerned about the job losses directly as a result of her legislation. Surveys have indicated that more than 25,000 jobs were at immediate risk due to the government rent legislation and that by 1992, 52,000 person-years will be lost as a result.

How does the minister's caucus respond to these figures? They claim construction layoffs are a political ploy by landlords. I will tell the minister that if there is a political ploy here, it is not the landlords, it is the NDP government that is guilty.

Finally, I simply ask the minister, have she and her cabinet colleagues made any attempt to assist the industries to recover from the blows that will be dealt to them by Bill 121, or does she not care?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I hope the member will take time, as she sits in committee dealing with Bill 121, to read it, because as she does she will understand that this will provide a system which will not only protect tenants against unfair and unjustified rent increases, but also provide landlords in this province with the mechanism to look for capital increases if they need them, thus stimulating the renovation industry to which she refers and for which we have grave concern.

The member has to recognize that in a recession there is a responsibility on government to make sure that the 1.1 million tenant households in this province are not unfairly gouged by rent increases.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Witmer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. His white paper on reform of the Labour Relations Act said that his objective was to protect workers, increase labour-management co-operation and foster economic renewal. If these are indeed his goals, and I would certainly agree with them wholeheartedly, then he should shelve his labour law agenda and deal with an issue that is genuinely in the interests of all -- and I stress all -- workers and businesses across this province, and that is the Workers' Compensation Board.

Is the minister prepared to withdraw his white paper? Is he prepared to set up a consultation process that involves all three partners and puts labour law in the context of competitiveness, and would he agree to get on with the extremely important job of solving the mess at the WCB?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure just what the white paper is. There is a discussion paper, I am sure, that the member refers to. But I want to assure her that the purpose is to try to involve workers in Ontario a little more closely in the decisions that affect them, and I think that is one of the most positive things we can do.

Mrs Witmer: I would like the minister to focus on the question I asked. I tell him that the third quarter report of the Workers' Compensation Board puts the unfunded liability at a staggering $9.9 billion, up from $9.1 billion in 1990 and far above the June projection of $9.4 billion -- yes, billion.

The chairman has said he will not be able to retire the unfunded liability by the year 2014, as planned, without significant rate increases in 1993. This is something businesses and employees across Ontario cannot afford. The Treasurer has indicated he is committed to holding his deficit at $9.7 billion. I would like the minister to tell employees across this province what he is going to do to make sure they have jobs. What is he going to do to hold the unfunded liability at $9.9 billion?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It would seem to me the question has been changed a bit. However, I will respond to it. The situation at the Workers' Compensation Board is one that started in 1972. The first actions to deal with any unfunded liability were not taken until 1984, when the plan was set out to try to deal with that unfunded liability by the year 2016. We are aware of what the current economic situation is doing to the Workers' Compensation Board as well, and the board is currently in the process of coming up with a number of options and suggestions that it may be able to use as the answers to see whether or not we can still meet the unfunded liability by the year 2016 or whether there will be any change in that. That is under active consideration right now and when the board has its suggestions, it will raise them with us and we will have a joint discussion on them as well.

1410

Mrs Witmer: I am sure the people of Ontario are finding the minister's answers totally unacceptable. His government has an obligation to attract business investment and to create much-needed jobs in this province. The employer-financed unfunded liability is escalating at such an incredible and unbelievable rate that no one will want to invest in this province. The Workers' Compensation Board has a 14% decline in accidents, yet a 14% increase in benefit costs. Its revenues are down 5% and its administration costs are up 26%. If a business in this province were faced with these numbers, it would have to place a freeze on hiring and new policy development or it would go bankrupt.

Why is the minister now considering the inclusion of workplace stress? I can tell him the stress that is being created in this province by his workplace stress hearings is going to push business over the edge. Is the minister prepared to put these workplace stress hearings on hold and deal with the real problem at the WCB -- the financial crisis?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am sure, at least I think, the member understands that the Workers' Compensation Board operates on its own; it has an arm's-length relationship with the government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am doubly sure, having listened to the question that has just been asked, that the opposition members would not want us directly running the Workers' Compensation Board. But I can tell her also that the stress study that is currently being done is one that the board itself has initiated because of the concerns and problems that workers have with stress situations. They have not decided where they are going as yet, but they have initiated the study on workplace stress, and I think that is a good move.

Mrs Sullivan: The Minister of Labour does well to blush.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mrs Sullivan: On Tuesday of this week, the Minister of Health indicated to the media that the previous government had made a decision not to participate in a fund to compensate haemophiliacs who contracted HIV through contaminated blood supplies. In fact, as we have heard, the previous minister had indicated to Hemophilia Ontario --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take her seat, please. Would the member identify to whom she wishes to place the question? The Minister of Health is not in the chamber.

Mrs Sullivan: You are correct, Mr Speaker. I am addressing my question to the Treasurer of Ontario because, as the previous minister had indicated, this is a government-wide issue relating to compensation to victims of injury who suffered as a result of decisions made by the Canadian Blood Committee. The issue had in the past been referred to the Treasurer for action.

We have now seen in the response yesterday in a case before the Canadian courts how the Canadian courts themselves respond to questions of compensation to people who have contracted the AIDS virus, HIV, through medical procedures. Why then has the Treasurer said no to a compensation plan for Ontario haemophiliacs and others who contracted HIV through blood products, the security of which is vested in part with Ontario through the Canadian Blood Committee, when the federal government has urged provinces to participate? Why is he willing to accept court-induced settlements rather than being at the table right now and negotiating a reasonable and cost-effective solution to this matter?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is indeed a serious matter that the member raises. I recall the Minister of Health's response was that, first of all, Ontario was not acting alone in this regard, that other provinces were acting in the same way and that the real question was delivery of services to people, not compensation, the way the member is suggesting.

Mrs Sullivan: This is not a question only of delivery of services. For example, one of the first actions, if we are talking about delivery of services, was to arbitrarily remove from the formulary drugs that were used to treat AIDS patients. If we are talking about delivery of services, we are talking about arbitrary cuts made in health care delivery and I can provide a list of them. They seem to have been made for reasons imposed by the Treasurer in terms of cost cutting. They include arbitrary cuts in the drug benefit program, no flowing of funds yet to announced levels for funding for nursing homes, removing the billing cap for southern doctors who practise in the north, cutting laboratory fees without having any consultation with the laboratory association of whether those arbitrary cuts will indeed provide the savings he is asking for.

The Treasurer has been telling people -- his decision has been leading to these cuts in services -- about what services people will not longer get. We are very concerned about what steps he is taking to ensure people get the health care they need. Where is his plan for a cost-effective and universal health care system in Ontario that is not driven by the Treasurer and treasury board?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member opposite should appreciate the fact that what we are trying to do, for the first time in the history of this province, is to bring the growth in health care spending under control in a rational and sensitive way. I do not think any government or any party in this land has more credibility on the question of universal medicare than this party does. There is historical evidence of that.

I simply say to the member opposite that it is not possible to control the growth of the health care system without making some decisions that are going to offend some people, but I can assure her that it is our intention to make sure the health care system is managed in such a way that essential services will be maintained.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, there was an understanding that the Minister of the Environment would be here by now and we have an important question for her. Is she coming or what is happening? Everybody else seems to be away.

The Speaker: Do you wish to stand down your question?

Mr Cousens: Is she going to be here? We have a question on Keele Valley and the environmental issues and we have no one else to ask.

Hon Mr Laughren: On a point of order, if I could treat it that way, Mr Speaker: It was my understanding that the minister would be here about two o'clock, but perhaps you could stand it down.

DRUG OFFENCES

Mr Runciman: In view of the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I am going to pose a question to the Solicitor General. To acknowledge Drug Awareness Week, the government this week distributed a booklet in French and English detailing a rather costly exercise that some of its parliamentary assistants engaged in to inform us of all the wonderful things it is doing to deal with illicit drug use in the province. Today we open up the newspapers to read that Metro Toronto has chalked up a record 331 bank robberies so far this year and the head of the police holdup squad puts the blame on drug abuse.

Other than this expensive little make-work project for parliamentary assistants, can the Solicitor General tell us what his government and he, as the province's chief law enforcement officer, are doing or proposing to do to assist police in their fight against illicit drug use?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We received the document that came to my desk just yesterday with great interest. I believe the work that members of Parliament and the broader community placed with respect to this very valuable document will act as a guiding light as to how we might improve the circumstances of policing and the community towards attacking this very unfortunate circumstance that pervades our society. We will, as a ministry, review that particular document to see how we might enhance the very strong efforts the police are already undertaking to combat that type of crime.

Mr Runciman: Other than patting themselves on the back, it does not appear the minister is doing much that is positive, or at least he does not know what he is doing. I am going to advise the minister of what his government is doing. It has cut back the OPP budget when crime is going through the roof. It has produced a self-congratulatory and probably meaningless report on drug treatment. It has undermined police morale by re-laying charges against PC Brian Rapson, by police board appointments like Susan Eng and the Peel region appointee who believes police consistently lie in court. That is what this government has done. It is not a very impressive record.

When is the minister going to do something positive -- read my lips, positive -- to meaningfully help our policemen and policewomen in their fight against escalating crime and drug abuse?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The men and women of the law enforcement agencies of this province are, every day they are on duty, combating crime in the streets and making our communities safer. We have indicated on previous occasions --

Interjections.

Mr Ruprecht: It's not them; it's you. Number one, it's you. You're so sickening. Do something.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Parkdale.

1420

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Jamison: My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is aware that the commercial fishery on Lake Erie has been confronted in recent years with increasing pressures on the industry through the quota system. This is the time of year when my constituents are looking to the ministry for indications as to its 1992 allocations. Would the minister please advise the House where we are in the allocation-setting process.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member has raised an issue of very great importance to the constituencies along the north shore of Lake Erie, to all members and their constituents. He is quite right. Next week we will be meeting for discussions with the industry and with the sports fishery interests to gather information and have their involvement in setting quotas and allocations on the basis of the assessments.

The smelt advisory committee that was set up has been very helpful. The field work was done in late summer and fall. The data collected is being analysed by a biologist who was chosen in concert with the commercial fishing industry. Further to that, we have expanded the partnership index gill net fishing to assess stocks in other areas of the lake. This is a very difficult process. You have to balance biological sustainability with the economic viability of the fishing industry, and that is why we are proceeding and trying to involve as many of these interested parties as possible.

Mr Jamison: For some time now the criticism has been that the people fishing commercially in Lake Erie have not been full partners in the allocation process. I realize the minister has made steps through the establishment of the smelt fishing advisory committee to involve the people fishing commercially in that process, and I thank him for that effort. However, has the minister been able to make any progress in expanding the role of other resource users?

Hon Mr Wildman: As I said, we have expanded the gill net assessment and we will be looking at how we can expand the process. The initial allocation meetings will be held next week and the commercial liaison committee will be in Aylmer on November 25. The east and west groups of the commercial fishermen will be meeting there together for the first time, and we will also be meeting the sports fishing liaison committee on November 27. We are going to share both the groups' initial quota allocation of 1992 and allow the commercial fishers to plan for the first few months of the next year.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The government of Ontario obviously continues not to understand the plight farmers are facing financially in this province. Indeed, the member for Lincoln had to be held hostage by a number of his constituents before he could get a meeting with anyone of significance on that side. But as the farm community prepares for the annual convention of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture next week, farmers are voicing their concerns about how the government now wants to tax back some of the assistance it has provided and force new costs on farmers in Ontario.

They are upset about the government's plans to increase farm labour costs through changes to the Labour Relations Act, and are upset about a leaked report which also recommended that the government place new taxes on pesticides and fertilizers to pay for the government's costs under the new gross revenue insurance plan and the net income stabilization account program.

How does the Minister of Agriculture and Food explain his government's plans to target new taxes and costs to the struggling farmers of this province at the very time they are in such dire financial straits?

Mrs Caplan: That's a good question.

Hon Mr Buchanan: One of the members has suggested that is a good question. I am not sure it is because it seems to be based on a whole lot of speculation and suggestions that have come from various sources that to my knowledge have no merit at all.

The changes that have been announced with regard to labour relations have minimal impact on agriculture. The farming and rural committee has been, and will be consulted on that. It does not pose a major problem for agriculture and I do not think it poses a major problem in the Niagara district which the member represents.

Mr Bradley: A close listening to the farmers of this province would reveal the opposite of what the Minister of Agriculture and Food has said this afternoon. While in opposition, many of the people who sit on the government benches today, who are NDP members, echoed the concerns of farmers about the crop insurance premiums and said they were too high. The Liberal government responded with a number of new reforms to lower the costs of that crop insurance.

Yesterday I received a call from a constituent -- a farmer -- in my part of the province who indicated he was upset about the government's changes to the crop insurance formula, increasing the price of premiums for peaches -- the insurance on peaches -- by almost 50%, with the cost of premiums increasing in this case by over $1,200. This new cost in itself is more than many Niagara farmers will receive under the minister's announcement of new funding last fall.

Will the minister assure farmers that they will not become the sacrificial lambs in the government's failing attempts to manage its finances, and will the minister promise that the range of policy changes being contemplated by his ministry and by other ministries of the NDP government will not be implemented without full consultation with the farm community and they will not impose any new costs or taxes to farmers without new funding to offset these costs?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Congratulations to the member on his new appointment. I want to assure him we will not impose any new regulations or taxes that are going to affect agriculture adversely without recognizing the impact they will have. We have been working hard to provide assistance in the form of emergency aid and the long-term safety net programs we have funded this year.

On the announcement that came out of Ottawa today, when we looked at totalling what our share will be in Ontario, it looks to me as if the Niagara region is going to receive somewhere between $3.5 million and $5 million of the horticulture money being made available in Ontario. I think that is good news for the farmers of Ontario.

The crop insurance revisions are made from time to time. The crop insurance plan is based on each commodity and we try to have each plan actuarially sound so the premiums cover the losses over a period of time. Many of the premiums have been reduced in different commodities this year because there was a surplus in the fund. The premiums tend to fluctuate, depending on what the claims are.

The member suggested there will be an increase. It is due to claims or due to the fact that the program needs additional money in order to make it actuarially sound. It should not have that adverse a consequence on the tender fruit industry. If it does, in fact, we are looking at other programs to provide assistance.

1430

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Citizens are enraged at the minister's desire and order to expand the Keele Valley landfill site, pushing the Keele Valley landfill site beyond its original planned capacity and planning to use it in future without a full environmental assessment.

By enlarging this site, this government is increasing the contaminating life of the site. This minister is increasing the pressure on the leachate underneath. In turn, the leachate increases pressure on the clay liner, the only thing that separates this landfill site from the ground water underneath. There is not enough clay from present sources to handle the future expansion. The question I have relates to this environmental time bomb that the minister is creating with the expansion of Keele Valley. The clay liner is already half permeated. Can the minister tell this House what impact the enlarged Keele Valley landfill site will have on the ground water?

Hon Mrs Grier: Precisely because of my concern that there ought not to be any impact of this on the environment, in my order to Metropolitan Toronto, which is the operator of this landfill disposal site, I gave a directive about a series of studies that have to be undertaken in order that we can assure ourselves that in fact this is not a time bomb. I understand our discussions with Metropolitan Toronto are proceeding, and it is my hope that those studies can begin as soon as possible.

Mr Cousens: Bill 143, the bill the minister is bringing before this House and which we are debating next week, is an act of desperation by this government. Keele Valley is on the same parcel of land as the headwaters of the Don River. We have just gone through Save the Rouge Valley System and, fortunately, enough of us have been able to take that battle to a crescendo that we have something happening there. But the issue now for the east branch of the Don River, which shares the same property as the Keele Valley landfill site, creates the question which has to be answered as to what the impact of the increased size of this landfill site on the future of the Don River will be.

Will this minister agree to have a full environmental assessment on the expansion of Keele Valley and examine the impact it is going to have on the Don River?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I think this member indicated in his very helpful comments on Bill 143 in the House a couple of days ago, the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act is to consider alternatives. The studies that will look at what is actually leaching, what the effect of that leachate will be and what is contained in that leachate are going to be done under my emergency order or under the Environmental Protection Act or under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The member is well aware that we have to find some place to dispose of the waste of the greater Toronto area when sites reach capacity. He is also well aware that a number of things can happen that can prevent our needing to do that. It is my profound hope that we will not have to expand Keele Valley because we will have a long-term site up and operating as soon as possible. I invite the member to co-operate with me in accelerating that process so that we do not need to even contemplate the doomsday scenario that he is so fond of painting.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Ms Haeck: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. As the minister knows, students and parents alike have a great interest in OSAP. Can the minister comment on the consultation he has had with the post-secondary community, in particular with students, on the issue of OSAP?

Hon Mr Allen: I thank the member for the question. For a number of years, the students and indeed the university community called for a comprehensive review of the student assistance program in this province, and I was very happy to be able to accede to that request and set up a very comprehensive panel last spring, a general advisory committee, to deal with that question. It represented every single facet of the university system and, in particular, every student group in the system was well represented on it; for example, the Ontario Federation of Students, the Ontario Graduate Association, the Canadian Organization for Part-time Students, the Ontario Community College Student Presidents' Association and so on. Every student group in the system was very actively represented and made very good suggestions for the review.

That review was fed back into the system for response by October 15, and we are currently examining in detail the responses of the system to put forward a package for this year's consideration in the funding of the system in response to the tuition issues.

Ms Haeck: What types of improvements can be facilitated? I know all the members of this House would really like to see these improvements include the access for underrepresented students.

Hon Mr Allen: As the member knows, the entire purpose of OSAP is to facilitate enhanced access for all those groups that are underrepresented in the system. There is a full range of proposals that have come from, among others, students in the system in order to improve that access for those groups.

I must say that one has to consider all those in the context of the fiscal climate. Some things that are proposed will be possible and others will not be. But we are winnowing our way through those, and I certainly assure the member that access for low-represented groups in the system will be better with the new proposals that come forward and are implemented in the coming reforms than was the case in the past.

DRUG OFFENCES

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, whose name still does not appear on all the elevating devices in Ontario, I might add.

All indicators, including the minister's own report, show that the illicit drug trade is escalating in Toronto. In some instances, she is aware that the police note that owners of licensed establishments are turning a blind eye to the carrying out of illegal drug-related activities on their premises. Does the minister plan to take any steps to see to it that owners of licensed establishments think twice before permitting illegal activities on their premises?

Hon Ms Churley: At first, for some reason I thought the question was on elevators.

The question is actually an important one and a good one. I know that in Toronto and in other urban areas in Ontario in particular there are pockets where there are real problems, where there are unscrupulous people opening up bars and where there is illegal trade going on. In fact, by coincidence, I met with the chairman of the LLBO just this morning to talk about it. I have had several meetings with various community groups, some municipal councillors and the LLBO to talk about solutions to this problem, and we are working together to come up with some solutions.

Mr Ruprecht: I appreciate that statement very much, of course, except that it is in the field of the Solicitor General. Those people are doing absolutely nothing when it comes to maintaining a police force that is effective and fighting the illicit drug trade in Toronto and probably in other places in Ontario as well. When is the minister going to get up and tell this House specifically what she will do besides telling us we have one report after another report in which recommendations are all the same? She should do something and she is not.

My question is very simple. The report that was given to us and to the minister about the drug prevention task force of Metro council -- she received that report also in February -- recommended, "Owners who permit drug trafficking or other drug offences on their premises should have their licences revoked or suspended." Is she prepared to stand up in the House today and tell us that yes, she is willing to implement that recommendation, or at least tell us that people in the community where the illicit drug trade and licensed establishments are will have the right to say to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, "Please do something about these establishments"? Is the minister willing to do that today and stop mealy-mouthing and telling us something about another report?

Hon Ms Churley: I can say that we are doing something about it. There are a lot of concerned citizens' groups out there that I have met with. The board has been working overtime lately and working very hard, and it is involved in hearings about some of these premises. In fact, there are some premises that have been closed down on an interim basis while waiting for the hearings because the problems have been so severe. There have been some places that have been closed down permanently because of the problems.

It is a concern of mine and of the LLBO. In fact, action has been taken, and as I said earlier, we are continuing to meet. We are looking at the legislation and we are even looking at the Municipal Act. We are trying to figure out tighter controls, and I will continue to work on that. If the member has some ideas as well, I would be happy to hear from him on that.

1440

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I know the minister is probably very much aware that before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs we had words again from the universities of this province, from both the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations and the Council of Ontario Universities, telling us about their dilemma with regard to planning under these very difficult circumstances we face in Ontario.

We have already asked the minister if he would let us know about the money for pay equity. We do not know about that. I asked him earlier in the year if he had considered a new tuition fee policy, not just relating to the level of grant increase, but a brand-new policy, so that could be part of the recovery plan as explained by the universities, with support from the students, in these very serious times.

Today I am going to quote from the brief:

"Faced with a serious constraint on the grant revenue it can flow, and assuming existing financial aid programs can be adapted to protect against real hardship, COU believes that the government must revisit its past policy of constraining fee increases to the rate of growth in grant income."

The Speaker: Would the member place her question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: I will, Mr Speaker. Will the minister revisit his past policy of constraining these fee increases and will he be announcing in the very near future what his fee increase policy will be in both regards?

Hon Mr Allen: The member opposite has a deep concern about these issues, as always. She is aware of the general fiscal climate in which we are all struggling. I certainly feel very deeply for any person who is an executive officer trying to manage any of our broader public sector institutions at the present time. It is not an easy time for any of us.

I want to say with reference to another point the member made that this government is the first in Ontario that has begun looking at multi-year budgeting as a possible model for dealing with our broader public sector responsibilities. It will take some time to resolve that problem.

With regard to the pay equity question, those institutions know what their percentage increment will be for the past year in that regard.

Coming to the centre of the question, we will be making the transfer announcements reasonably soon. We will also be coupling that with a fee announcement. I hope that will satisfy at that time the member's interest and concern.

Mrs Cunningham: I am really more concerned about it satisfying the needs of the students and the universities across this province.

In the last few weeks I have received copies of letters that the presidents have sent out to all their departments within the universities describing the kinds of changes that will take place, the job losses that are being experienced, the increases in enrolment they are expecting and their dilemma as to how they are going to handle this.

Today, as we ask the minister again, we cannot afford to wait any longer, because it now becomes a planning issue. If the secondary school students in this province are going to be denied access because the professors will not be there to teach them, or if the minister has disallowed any really serious thought to allowing students to pay more tuition, I think we need to know that immediately.

Mr Sorbara: Get to the heart of the question.

Mrs Cunningham: I will get to the heart of the question with direction from my colleague in the Liberal back benches, who may soon be in the front benches.

The Speaker: Would the member place her question, please.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: I will ask the question, Mr Speaker. I cannot even think some days.

Can the minister advise the House today what percentage increase post-secondary institutions will receive both in transfer payments and in tuition fees?

Hon Mr Allen: I am afraid the answer is no, with all respect to the member.

MARKETING BOARDS

Mr Hansen: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He has just returned from the GATT negotiations in Geneva and the European Community's commission in Brussels. The farmers in my riding and across Ontario are very concerned about the results of these negotiations and future supply management in Ontario. The member for St Catharines has also been waiting quite a while for this answer here.

Can the minister tell the House what he hopes to achieve and what the prospects are of reaching a GATT agreement on agriculture? Also, can the minister tell the House what steps he is planning to take next?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It is true that I led a small delegation to Geneva and Brussels to demonstrate Ontario's support for the Canadian balanced position on agriculture. We believe that reduction of export subsidies on grains and oilseeds and the preservation of article XI, which allows us to continue to have supply management, are very important to the agricultural industry in Ontario and indeed in Canada. The reason for making that journey was to demonstrate to our trading partners Ontario's support, and indeed all provincial support, for the federal government.

The farm leaders who went with me had an excellent opportunity to talk to the negotiators themselves. They had very valuable input and were allowed to ask questions of the other countries. I think it is very important for farmers to have that input to the negotiators, and they had an excellent opportunity to do that.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Buchanan: In terms of where the negotiations are --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- the GATT negotiations appear to have entered a final phase. There is a lot of optimism that the GATT round will conclude before Christmas, including an agreement on agriculture.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was very obvious what just took place a moment or two ago. The minister refused to make a statement in the Legislature about his trip to Geneva. He allowed his colleague --

The Speaker: Would the member for Essex South take his seat, please.

Mr Mancini: It is a question of vital public importance. The whole thing should be ruled out of order.

The Speaker: I asked the member to take his seat.

Mr Mancini: We are asking you to defend us.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

Mr Mancini: We are asking you to defend us against the government. We are losing our rights here.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. A question was placed, to which an opportunity for response was given. It was a lengthy response which denied the member for Lincoln an opportunity for his supplementary.

Mr Mancini: He denied our right to ask an important question. That is what he denied.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the member to take his seat and come to order. The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: Could I ask for a ruling on this, Mr Speaker? I am asking for unanimous consent that I could ask my question.

The Speaker: I will place the question. Is there unanimous consent for the member for Scarborough North -- no? All right. I draw to members' attention that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order.

Mr Mancini: If you wanted order, Mr Speaker, you should not have allowed what happened five minutes ago.

1450

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: I would like to draw to members' attention that today is indeed the last day for our current group of pages to serve us. I would hope all members would appreciate, as the Speaker has appreciated, that these pages have indeed served the members and served the House with distinction for the past while and they deserve our appreciation and thanks.

HOME GARMENT WORKERS

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would like a point of order to correct the record, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, in responding to a question from one of my colleagues, the member for Fort York, who raised the issue of the treatment of home workers, I inadvertently used the word "homemakers." I want to correct that. I meant "home workers" myself.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ADMINISTRATION FINANCIÈRE

Mr Laughren moved first reading of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act/Projet de loi156, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration financière.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Laughren: These amendments to the Financial Administration Act set out the responsibilities of the Treasurer in managing the financial position of the province. The act has not been substantially revised since the early 1980s. Major changes in the province's borrowing program require the use of contemporary borrowing mechanisms to minimize borrowing costs. Our borrowing program now focuses on the public capital markets, largely resulting from the decision to cease using the public sector pension plans as our main source of capital.

Proposed amendments to borrowing policies will enable the province to take advantage of opportunities to reduce debt-servicing costs and manage risk. Amendments to financial management practices will provide the additional flexibility needed to manage a large borrowing program. Changes to the province's investment program will allow it to utilize the services of non-bank financial institutions such as trust companies and credit unions by making them eligible for investment of liquid reserves. The amendments will also enact an accounting framework for the new capital fund announced in the 1991 budget.

These amendments will bring the Financial Administration Act more in line with existing financial practices and procedures and increase the province's ability to effectively manage its financial position.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, there was a request yesterday from the member for Brampton North that we give unanimous consent to have the late show on Monday when the Minister of the Environment can be here, rather than tonight. If that is acceptable to all members of the Legislature, that is fine with us.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991, AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 43, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and its companion legislation, Bills 43-64/Projet de loi43, Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées et les projets de loi, 43 à64, qui l'accompagnent.

Mrs Marland: I am happy to have the opportunity to briefly comment on these health professions bills today. Before doing that, however, I want to compliment the member for Simcoe West on his participation in the process of the public hearings, in conducting these bills through the committee. He was at that point the newly appointed Health critic, and we have all been very impressed and very grateful for the thoroughness with which he took his responsibility in listening to the many delegations both from many public organizations of the professions and from individuals who had very serious and very important comments to make on this legislation. I know that for the member for Simcoe West it has been a particularly heavy and onerous job, but we do commend him for the thoroughness and the commitment he took to that responsibility.

I want to comment on the legislation where it pertains to whether or not people who have acquired a doctorate in philosophy would be able to use the term "doctor," to be addressed as "doctor." Under the legislation, only dentists, medical doctors, optometrists, psychologists and chiropractors are allowed to use the title of "doctor." Nurses, pharmacists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists are among the accredited PhD health professionals who will not be allowed to use this title.

Our Health critic, the member for Simcoe West, introduced an amendment reflecting the right of PhD-prepared individuals -- from recognized academic institutions of course -- to use their earned title of "doctor." We were extremely disappointed that the government used its majority on the standing committee on social development to vote down our amendment.

I just cannot understand how this socialist government does not appreciate what academic degrees are all about. If someone goes to university and studies for all the years it takes to achieve an academic degree, and it happens to be one that has a doctorate at the end of it, for the government to say these people are not entitled to use that degree simply is totally abhorrent to me. I cannot understand how they wish, through these bills, to differentiate between the traditional doctors of medicine or dentistry or doctors of chiropractic and doctors of psychology.

As far as I am concerned, if you earn a PhD and it is from an accredited academic institution, you have earned it. There is no differentiation. What is the difference between a doctor of medicine or a doctor of chiropractic or a doctor of psychology and other people who earn their doctorate in other specialties and other fields? It is totally ignorant on the part of this socialist government to denounce the right, in my opinion, for people who have a PhD to be addressed as "doctor." I think it shows the smallness of the thinking of the socialist government that it would even want to debate or discuss this particular issue. It is significant to those people who have acquired that level of education.

1500

I frankly do not know if there is a member of the socialist government caucus who has a PhD. I know there is a member who has a doctorate in medicine. If there is a member of the NDP caucus who has a PhD I am not aware of it. I stand corrected. Of course, and I appreciate it, there is the member for Hamilton West who is the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development. He is an individual member of the NDP caucus I personally have admired for the six years I have been in this Legislature. I apologize to the minister for not recalling that. I know very well he has a PhD. I also respect him very much on a personal basis because of the kind of individual he is as a representative in this Legislature.

The member for Hamilton West is someone who knows better than anyone else in this House who does not have a PhD how much work it took for him to achieve that. I am sure that if anyone in this House recognizes what the PhD represents in terms of commitment to education on a personal basis, it is the minister. I am sure that if I could get the minister in a private corner he might share with me the concern that this legislation before us today does not permit other professionals in health care service in this province to use the title of "doctor" if they have a PhD outside the areas I have already addressed.

To end that subject, it is pretty small potatoes for this government to make an issue where they could not accept the fact that anyone with a PhD in any area of specialty should automatically be allowed, if they choose, to use the title of "doctor." Funnily enough, I am married to somebody who chooses not to use that title. It is a personal choice. I think that if people have that academic degree, it is up to them to have the choice to use that title.

I wish this government would recognize excellence in education. This government has decided to do away with the Ontario scholarships that recognize excellence in academic achievement for grade 13 students across this province. It is very hard for us to understand where we are headed with this socialist government and its attitude towards higher learning, post-secondary education and education generally. The very fact that it does not think it should set goals for individuals to work towards and strive to achieve in education, such as Ontario scholarships for grade 13 students, I think speaks of this government in a way I would not be proud of were I a government member. If we do not recognize excellence and give young people something to strive for, we are saying it is okay to be mediocre.

I know this government's argument on the issue of recognizing people with education is that it makes it too competitive, that there are always going to be people with ability and there are always going to be people without ability. That is absolutely true. But in the real world, as soon as those students leave their academic institutions, even if we are talking about secondary school, they are in competition. We are all in the world of competition, so we might as well be in it in our secondary school years where we set goals and work towards achieving them, and if we are able to achieve those goals, have the recognition we have earned.

I do not have a PhD, and I doubt very much whether that is a level of academic achievement of which I would be capable. But I respect very much those people who have worked and studied very hard for a lot of years to achieve that degree. The title and recognition is due to them, I say with respect.

The other health care profession bills I want to speak about are Bills 47 to 52. The bill in particular I have some concern about is Bill 50. Bill 50 is the Denturism Act. As a result of extensive consultation with the Ontario Dental Association and the public committee hearings that were conducted, our party actually introduced an amendment to the Denturism Act restricting denturists from fitting or dispensing partial dentures except on the order or prescription of a member of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario. We believe a diagnosis by a dentist would allow for the most appropriate treatment plan. We are also concerned that those seeking dental services would see the denturist as the primary provider of dental services.

The Ontario Dental Association presented the standing committee on social development with strong evidence demonstrating the importance of a dental diagnosis in prescribing partial dentures. We are extremely disappointed that the NDP and the Liberal committee members voted against our amendment. I think even more important is that when the member for Simcoe West asked that this matter be referred to the advisory council in clause-by-clause deliberations, that was not accepted either.

In a submission to the standing committee on social development, the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario recommended that "the status quo be maintained until the advisory council can fulfil its stated function under Bill 43 to obtain information from interested parties and advise the minister on whether denture therapists should be afforded the right to fit removable partial dentures without supervision."

The irony is that there is a provision for this process to take place. According to section 12 of Bill 43, "The minister shall refer to the advisory council any issue within the matters described in clauses 11(a) to (d) that a council or person requests the minister to refer to the advisory council unless, in the minister's opinion, the request is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious." I believe the matter of partial dentures falls within the parameters of section 12 that I have just read, and I would appreciate it very much if the minister would respond to this matter immediately.

The reason this is so significant is that we are not questioning the ability of the denturists to fit and make dentures for patients, but we are questioning how much further their ability should be extended. Frankly, when you are talking about the emplacement of partial dentures that are dependent on the permanent teeth remaining in the mouth, you are dealing with an entirely different sphere of practice. You are dealing with the kind of knowledge that is required to know and to be able to interpret whether the teeth remaining in the mouth are in a fit condition to support a partial denture being attached to them. Even though they are removable, partial dentures are attached and dependent on the permanent teeth remaining in the mouth.

1510

What this is allowing denturists to do is to come into the area of dental practice for which the dentists receive entirely far more in-depth training before they are allowed to work on permanent teeth in the mouth. The kind of training, I would respectfully suggest, that dentists receive in order to practise dentistry does not compare to the kind of training denturists require. That is fair because in the past denturists have only been permitted to make dentures. They are not involved with the permanent teeth, the balance of which may remain in a patient's mouth. It is an entirely different sphere in the practice of dentistry. It is rather scary stuff to think that this next step is being permitted to denturists without the seven years of training and in-depth medical and physiological knowledge that a dentist is required to have before he or she can practise dentistry and the treatment of teeth in the mouth.

I hope the Minister of Health will see fit to refer this matter, as I have asked and as our Health critic has asked, to the advisory council and let it decide in an independent way what the outcome of this very significant question will be. It is very significant to the future of the dental health of patients in this province. If the next step is that we allow denturists to do this, is the next item the fact that we are going to allow denturists to go even more into the general area of the practice of general dentistry?

General dentistry is something that is very important to the total health of our bodies. So often in diagnosis the knowledge of the dentist who is trained through years in medical subjects associated with the practice of dentistry enables him to diagnose other problems, because the mouth itself is a great mirror of the health of our total body. That is very important.

On the aspect of the bills having to do with denturists, I want to note that the member for Simcoe West, our Health critic, also put forth an amendment proposing that the Regulated Health Professions Act be amended to extend the use of prescribed forms of energy to dentistry. We are pleased in fact that the government introduced comparable amendments we were able to support.

Finally, something else that is important to all the people in this province under all aspects of health care is Bill 55, the Medicine Act. Currently the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario council includes representatives from each of the five faculties of medicine in Ontario. The Medicine Act is going to reduce that number to three. The Health critic for the Progressive Conservative Party introduced an amendment to retain the current representation of five academic appointments, one from each medical school, on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario council.

Over the years, the academic appointees to the college council have offered a unique and valuable perspective on CPSO activities. They bring administrative, educational and professional expertise to the college. The faculty representatives also give the college ready access into the system of educating physicians, and this system varies in each medical faculty. They provide feedback from the college directly to medical faculties and are often critical in effecting change in medical education.

We share the disappointment of the medical community that the NDP members of the committee voted against our amendment. There is nothing more important to all of us than the education of our future doctors in this province, and that was not very much to ask. Why not just keep the status quo of the five representatives of the five faculties of medicine? It was a very simple request, but there again the socialist members, for whatever reason, failed to understand and recognize the significance and the importance of that.

No wonder people are deciding not to go into medicine or attend our medical schools, for all the other areas of problems that I have addressed in the past about how the socialist government is now treating physicians and doctors in this province. But here we have an intrusion into the very beginning of their opportunities in education. No wonder they are not going in there. No wonder they are going other places, not only to learn medicine but to practise medicine.

I have appreciated the opportunity to place these comments on the record. There are many other areas of these bills I would have liked to have an opportunity to comment on, but as usual, because of the last-minute pressure of business brought into this House by the government, I have no time or opportunity to make further comment.

Mr Sola: Due to the fact that I substituted on this committee several times, I thought it appropriate for me to make a few comments, particularly in regard to one brief that was presented to the committee in Sault Ste Marie by a person from my home town of Sudbury: Diane Petrucka from the Sudbury Nurses for Life organization. I just want to put down some of the concerns she expressed to the committee, which I understand have not been met in the final legislation. I wonder if the government could reconsider and incorporate these concerns into the final bill. I would like to quote from her brief:

"We believe that the destruction of human life is in direct contradiction to the moral and ethical responsibilities of our profession. We believe the definition of nursing demands that nurses utilize the scientific information and skills they have before them to effect life and health. We recognize the value of and support research beneficial to all humanity done with consideration for the dignity and with the full and informed consent of the individual involved."

What these nurses want for themselves is freedom of choice. The people wanting the abortions have the choice of either having the abortion or not, but the way legislation in Ontario is today, nurses do not have an option. It is interesting that doctors, who are mostly male, have the option of performing this procedure or refusing to perform this procedure and referring the patient to some other doctor who will do it, but the nurses who must take care of the patients before and after the fact do not have this option, and as we know, the nursing profession is mostly female. It comes to the point where these nurses are having a battle with their conscience and are also suffering intimidation at work and being threatened with the loss of their job if they do not succumb to going against their conscience.

1520

I would like to point out that most people who oppose this support the principle of a woman's right to control her own body, and I think very few people are opposed to that, but by opposing the provision the Nurses for Life want, the government and the legislation prevent these nurses, these women, from controlling their own mind and conscience. It makes it difficult for them to live with their own conscience.

It is interesting that even in the military during times of war there is such a thing as conscientious objection for people who do not believe in using arms, whether in offensive or defensive measures. But in the nursing profession we do not allow for a conscientious objector, and somehow this seems to be contradictory to me. In essence, because most nurses are women, the fact that these nurses cannot avail themselves of the right to refuse to assist at abortions -- they are being discriminated against.

I think a further thing that should be borne in mind, with the recent headlines about provisions being considered for dying with dignity and whether euthanasia should be allowed in some form or other, is that this dilemma will pose problems to people who have similar concerns at the other end of the scale. Abortion is at the beginning of life; euthanasia deals with the termination of life. I think there will be more and more pressure for people who have difficulty accepting these sorts of procedures to assist at them.

I would ask the government to reconsider in this legislation, either in Bill 43 or in Bill 57, to include some provision for a conscientious objector clause. Many other jurisdictions already have similar clauses in effect without affecting the quality of their health care, and I wonder why Ontario could not be at the forefront in providing protection for its nurses, rather than lagging at the rear.

In conclusion, I would just like to read the legislation from the state of Texas, which is the preferred legislation for the nurses as far as the brief they presented in Sault Ste Marie is concerned.

"A physician, nurse, staff member or employee of a hospital or other health care facility who objects to performing or participating, directly or indirectly, in an abortion procedure may not be required to perform or participate, directly or indirectly, in an abortion procedure....

"A hospital or health care facility may not discriminate in any manner against a physician, nurse, staff member or employee or against an applicant for such positions who refuses to perform or participate in an abortion procedure. No physician, nurse, staff person or employee shall be discriminated against for their willingness to participate in abortion procedures at other facilities. An educational institute may not discriminate against applicants for admission or employment as students, interns or residents because of their attitudes concerning abortion.

"A person whose rights under this act are violated may sue a hospital, health care facility or educational institute in district court in the county where the hospital, facility or institution is located to enjoin further violations of this act and including, but not limited to, administration or reinstatement of employment with back pay plus 10% interest and any other relief necessary to ensure compliance with provisions of this act."

In conclusion, I think these nurses, although opposed to abortion, are not trying to prevent access to abortion for those people who feel it is their right and want such a procedure. They are just asking for protection for people like themselves who have a conscientious objection, who have a moral viewpoint that does not allow them to participate in such procedures. I think people of such strong conviction should not be put in the position of either going against their conscience or losing their job.

Mr Beer: I would like to make a few comments by way of closing for our party on this bill, or indeed on all these bills.

I want to say in the first instance that I think it is something all members can take a good deal of pride in, in terms of what has been accomplished. We should reflect back on just how long it has taken for this to come forward. I know several of my colleagues have commented on that, but I think it is significant and important to underline that Health ministers from all three parties have been very involved in the beginnings of this review, the development of the legislation and finally the presentation of the legislation to the Legislature. Now we are at the point where we are closing on third reading.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to note the important contribution which the former Minister of Health, the member for Oriole, made to this whole process. I also want to recognize other ministers of Health, indeed the present minister, because I think in the committee discussions we have had an opportunity to look at the legislation in a non-partisan way, as members of the three parties, as laypeople, and we have tried to struggle with the various briefs and presentations that were made to us and to make further changes. Out of that, I think we have a better piece of legislation than we had when we received it as a committee. I think the way in which that committee worked, under the guidance of the Chair, the member for Oriole, was a good indication that we all wanted to try to make sure that, on the one hand, we were going to protect the public interest and, on the other, we were going to expand access to a variety of health professions. I think we have achieved that with this legislation.

On behalf of our party, I would like to thank a number of people in particular with whom we worked very closely, both in government and then as members of the committee: first of all, Linda Bohnen and Alan Burrows from the ministry. They were with us through all the hearings of the committee and we greatly appreciated their counsel. We may not always have agreed with everything they said, but certainly we recognized the professionalism with which they said it and, without them, it would have been a much more difficult process. I would also like to thank Mark Spakowski, from the legislative counsel's office. It was his task to try to make sense of our words and put them into appropriate form for amendments. The clerk of the committee, Lynn Mellor, had the very difficult task of trying to sort out all those who wished to come before the committee and ensuring that we had a process that was going to be fair for all those who wanted to participate. Last but certainly not least, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Alan Schwartz, who of course prepared the original report and started his work some eight or nine years ago.

This took a long period of time, but I think it was important in the end that it took that time, because what we have now is something that very definitely moves us forward in the regulation of health professions by adding a number of new professions to that group and just updating the whole process. Somebody mentioned that one of the acts we were dealing with and bringing up to date had originally been set forth in 1925.

1530

As I said before, I think the critical part of this legislation is in balancing the public interest with expanding access to various health professions. It is interesting to go back to the mandate of the Health Professions Legislation Review and simply note that the mandate the then Minister of Health gave to Mr Schwartz in November 1982 asked him to make recommendations, in the form of draft legislation, with respect to which health professions should be regulated, updating and reforming the Health Disciplines Act, devising a new structure for all legislation governing the health professions and settling outstanding issues involving several professions. If we look at what we have accomplished in the committee and brought forward to this House, we can see that the goals and objectives set out in 1982 have been largely met.

As a number of members have mentioned, and I want to make a couple of comments myself, no piece of legislation, and certainly no omnibus bill with all the other bills, that has come forward in the process we are engaged in will be perfect. None the less, the important thing is that we have been able to reconcile most of the differences of opinion and have set up what is perhaps, going beyond this legislation, a most important body -- the advisory council.

The council will be able to hear various questions put to it by the minister and will be able to work with the new colleges around areas that are still in dispute or perhaps new areas where there may be problems. Indeed the advisory council will have the role of being able to see whether other professions can be brought within the ambit of the legislation at some point in the future. This is really going to move us much further than where we are presently.

A number of concerns have been left with the government. I want to look at several of the acts briefly, just to note those for the record.

J'aimerais aussi souligner l'importance de deux choses. Je pense que, comme les députés le comprennent très bien, le gouvernement d'aujourd'hui, comme le gouvernement passé, a essayé de développer une gamme de services en langue française pour la population francophone. Je pense qu'avec ce qu'on vient de faire aujourd'hui, en effet, ça va mettre à la disposition de la communauté francophone maintenant plus de services en français, comme nous en aurons aussi en anglais. Donc, c'est très important pour la communauté francophone comme pour la communauté anglophone.

Une question un peu à côté mais quand même importante, je pense, c'est cette question des titres en langue française. Nous avons eu une discussion avec les avocats sur la manière exacte dont il faut procéder avec les titres. Ce qui est intéressant c'est que, après la discussion en comité, j'ai eu plusieurs appels et lettres de différentes personnes disant qu'on espérait bien que, entre le Québec, l'Ontario, le Nouveau-Brunswick et le gouvernement fédéral, on puisse continuer à travailler sur la façon d'exprimer en français les titres, où on va mettre les titres masculins et féminins et si on peut trouver un système global.

Alors, je sais qu'on a eu une discussion fort intéressante, mais pour la communauté francophone ça reste toujours une question. J'espère bien que le gouvernement va continuer à discuter de la meilleure façon d'exprimer les titres des lois et des projets de loi dans les deux langues.

I will briefly note several questions that arose in terms of Bill 43, the omnibus bill. First is the harm clause. As has been mentioned, my party provided an amendment to bring this clause back into the legislation. We worked very hard with those in the unregulated professions and with the members of the other parties to express this so that we made sure exemptions for those groups we did not want to involve or implicate were clear. I believe we have done that in this legislation. For those who were unregulated and had concerns, like the social workers, teachers and clergy, this legislation does what it set out to do. They may proceed and do all of the things they have been doing in the normal course of their activities. That is important.

We shared as well some of the concerns around the protection of title and felt there should be provision for those with PhDs working in the various institutions to be able to use the term "doctor." We understand, as has already been mentioned, that the minister may consider allowing, via regulation, those with PhDs in institutions to use the title "doctor." It is still our contention that if somebody has earned a PhD, he should have the right to refer to himself as "doctor" and that there are other ways of indicating clearly whether this person is a medical doctor or dentist, or whatever profession the person is in. We recognize some of the concerns around that but frankly feel it is something where the consumer can understand that difference. The use of the term "doctor" should be permitted.

One of the other changes we made which we felt was very important and in which all members of the committee shared and where we found the co-operation of the group involved was with respect to those with physical disabilities. Members will recall that at the beginning there was real concern expressed by those in the disabled community around whether in fact this bill would somehow limit their own ability to control their lives. It was significant that the members of the ministry and the members of the committee were able to hear the presentations made by a number of individuals and groups representing the disabled and were able to make a specific change which will ensure that those who have disabilities will be able to direct the kind of care they will receive. That was an important and significant change.

Mention has also been made of the changes made with respect to sexual abuse. The task force's final report, if I understand the papers, will be out next week. I think it is important that we proceeded and were able, through an amendment brought forward by my party, to begin already. We know we are going to have to look at that task force report. Presumably later next year, there may be further changes brought in because of their recommendations.

The patient relations program, which is now set out in the legislation, and the announcement the parliamentary assistant made that the minister has requested all of the colleges to come forward with plans as to how they will deal with sexual abuse definitely set us on the right track. I suspect the patient relations program in some form or other, with whatever changes are suggested through the task force report and the consultation process after that, will provide us with a good way of proceeding.

It was clear to me, especially from the presentation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, that those organizations are certainly well seized of this issue and recognize their responsibility in making sure they have the appropriate provisions. What we have done there is good and is a significant step forward.

Finally on Bill 43, we should also be pleased that we were able to work out the agreement around the aboriginal healing element and that we were able to bring in changes which were to the liking of the aboriginal community and will provide it with what it felt it needed to go forward in developing its own health care services. Those were positive things we were able to do. It is welcome to see them in the legislation.

There are perhaps three or four of the actual acts I want to comment on. After our hearings were over -- this relates to Bill 45, which deals with the profession of chiropody -- some concern was raised, in letters I believe we all received, around diagnosis and what podiatrists and chiropodists would be able to do. I hope the ministry will sit down with the representatives of the Michener Institute for Applied Health Sciences and see if there really is a problem there or if that is something which can be resolved through discussion. As we said on many occasions, we were not trying to limit what people were doing. I do not think that was the intent. But concerns have been raised by those who were active in chiropody and podiatry around just what they will be able to do in terms of diagnosis.

1540

Bill 56 relates to the profession of midwifery. Here again is a place where we believe we have made some major strides forward. We recognize now the question of identifying and defining clearly the role of the midwife and the relationship between the midwife and nursing and other professions, a question which came before us. Our sense is that the new college that will relate to midwifery will work closely with other health professionals so that some of the possible areas of conflict or misunderstanding will be resolved. I underline that we felt it was very important to go forward and set up the college of midwifery at this time.

We had one question with respect to nursing which we still feel is important and want to put on the record. We have to be, I believe, very conscious of recognizing that nursing is a full and equal partner with all the other professions we were dealing with under this legislation. We expressed a concern, and express it again, around any attempt to identify any kind of hierarchy in the health care field that would seem to suggest nurses were at some other level. When we had taken out of one part of the legislation the reference to nurses only being able to do certain things at the direction of doctors or dentists, we were concerned that specific reference was made in another part of the act to nurses doing certain procedures at the direction of doctors, dentists, chiropodists and midwives, not because we believed they would not work in a very co-operative and collaborative manner with those professions but because we felt that should be something set out by the colleges and not in the legislation. I simply say to the government I think it is important that we continue to ensure nursing is seen as a fully equal profession within this legislation.

With respect to Bill 60 and the regulation of the profession of optometry, I think all members of the committee -- all members -- were concerned when we listened to the testimony provided by witnesses from the College of Optometrists of Ontario, from the University of Waterloo, on the definition of what they believe they did and what they felt were the professional skills of optometrists and what the ophthalmologists, through the Ontario Medical Association, felt. This was the one place where we as a committee were not really able to resolve those differences.

I think it is fair to say it is sometimes difficult for laypeople to make a judgement on what seem to be differences of professional opinion. We say to the government that we hope that, perhaps through the advisory council, the college of optometry of Ontario and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association, efforts would be made to bring the ophthalmologists and optometrists together to see if some consensus can be worked out.

The parliamentary assistant will know there is still a great deal of concern within the college of optometry in terms of just how they are going to set out some of the regulations regarding how optometrists will practise. I believe they can find a way to resolve that. This is one issue where, in our view, optometrists in fact can do more than is set out in this act. I think that will need to be looked at on a continuing basis.

Finally, and on a positive note, it was significant that we were able to resolve the problem around the psychologists so that those with doctorates as well as those with MAs will now be together in the same college. Again, that was a place where the committee's work was instrumental in bringing people together. What was so important was that they came up with the final resolution and we were able to ensure it was included in this legislation.

What we have here is a significant step forward. I hope the government will move to set up the advisory council that falls within the ambit of the legislation as soon as possible. I really think the role of that council, which is going to be made up of laypeople, will become very critical as all of these acts are implemented and as we go forward. At this point, we are pleased to support all of these bills on third reading.

Mr Wessenger: I would like to thank the members for their comments on this legislation, which I think is a landmark that we are doing in Ontario. I would also like to thank all the past ministers of Health who have dealt with this legislation. They all made a contribution in pushing this forward. Particularly, I would like to again thank the member for Oriole for her role as past minister and also for her role and the guidance she gave as Chair of the committee. It certainly helped us expedite this legislation and make it go much more smoothly than it might otherwise have done.

I would like to make a few comments with respect to the legislation. When we started out it was very clearly the intent of the legislation that it would define the existing scopes of practice of the health professions. As a result of the hearings and as a result of several amendments, not only have we at a minimum defined existing scopes of practice but we have in several instances increased the scopes of practice. This legislation, in our opinion, does not in any way restrict any existing scope of practice of any health professional.

On another aspect, there was some concern expressed about the whole question of communication of assessments. We believe that as a result of the amendments made, it is now much clearer that assessments may be communicated by those people who are not regulated health professionals and those who are not authorized to give diagnosis.

I would also like to thank the staff for the assistance they gave me in taking this legislation through committee and through today; that is, Linda Bohnen and Alan Burrows. They were of great assistance to myself and to members of the committee and they gave me a very good education on the legislation and very good advice, and I thank them very much for that.

We now have legislation we can be very proud of. We are already setting an example for other jurisdictions. On a note blown from our own horn, I would like to share with the members these words noted in the recently released British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, "A more appropriate, cost-effective and timely health care could be provided to more patients if British Columbia were to follow the Ontario initiative."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Initially, these bills were all moved simultaneously. Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed and vote on all of these bills simultaneously?

Agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that these motions carry?

All those in favour of Bills 43 to 64, inclusive, please say "aye."

All those opposed to Bills 43 to 64, inclusive, please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

1550

RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL

Mr Pilkey moved third reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.

/Projet de loi115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des établissements de commerce de détail et l'emploi dans ces établissements.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Does the Solicitor General have opening comments?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I do. Mr Speaker and members of the Legislature, I am proud and privileged today to return to this House for third reading of Bill 115, the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill is a product of our government's principles, the hard work of the all-party standing committee on administration of justice and thoughtful input from a broad range of Ontarians who made submissions for the committee's consideration.

Bill 115 is fundamentally about maintaining and enriching the community life of Ontarians and ensuring that as many people as practically possible can take advantage of the benefits of a common pause day to pursue personal and family activities.

This bill is about protecting the rights of retail workers, small retailers and their families to enjoy a day on which they can relax and rejuvenate from the daily grind and commercialism of the week, and it is about recognizing the unique nature and requirements of Ontario's tourism industry, which promotes and enables leisure and recreational activities.

Bill 115 also enables municipalities to recognize the unique nature of their communities. Under the bill, bylaws may be enacted which exempt retail business establishments from the restrictions of the Retail Business Holidays Act in accordance with tourism criteria set out by provincial regulation. That regulation has been developed to ensure that the tourism exemption under the Retail Business Holidays Act, as amended by Bill 115, is administered with consistency across this province. These criteria offer guidance to those applying for exemptions and to municipal councils dealing with those particular applications.

The criteria are designed to assist businesses and municipalities in determining exemptions which maintain and develop tourism while, at the same time, ensuring that the need for common pause days in the community are in fact met. Every effort has been made to ensure that there is no undue burden placed on those seeking legitimate tourism exemptions.

The regulation has been developed with the assistance of a special advisory group made up of Ontarians from a representative cross-section of interests. This advisory group serves as a model for government partnership with the community. The role these dedicated individuals have performed confirms our commitment to consultation and open government. I thank them and I commend them for their excellent efforts.

I would also like to offer my personal thanks to Mr Andrew Faas, executive vice-president, National Grocers Co Ltd, who served so ably as chair of the advisory group. Mr Faas is in the gallery here today. I would like to recognize you, sir, and thank you for your very capable assistance with respect to these tourism criteria -- a very fine job indeed.

With the mandate to strengthen and improve the criteria for the tourism exemption, the advisory group supplied invaluable advice. The resulting regulation is based on their unanimous recommendations. The tourism exemption is the best mechanism for ensuring that exemptions to the Retail Business Holidays Act are both consistent across the province and responsive to local requirements.

In addition, there is an appeal procedure for those objecting to municipal bylaws and special protection for affected workers who exercise that right of appeal. Also, anyone who can demonstrate an interest will be able to seek an injunction which compels a retailer to comply with the Retail Business Holidays Act. A structure of minimum fines for violations of the act is also set out under the bill.

In response to retailers' concerns, as they enter their most critical season, Bill 115 allows all retail stores to open on Sundays in December prior to Christmas Day.

However, overall, Bill 115 is not about Sunday shopping; it is about Sunday working. Included in the bill are amendments to the Employment Standards Act which give retail workers the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work assignments and which guarantee to these workers 36 consecutive hours of rest every seven days. Through these amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act, the rights of Ontario retail sector workers are very well protected.

I ask the members of the House for their co-operation ensuring quick passage of this bill so that the people of Ontario can be assured of a fair, enforceable law that protects holidays enumerated under the act as common pause days for all of us to share in.

Our common pause day legislation supports the quality of life we have come to expect and enjoy in this province of ours, our Ontario. With Bill 115 our government fulfils our long-standing commitment to provide common pause day legislation that protects the rights of retail workers while recognizing unique requirements of the tourism industry in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I wish to thank the honourable Solicitor General for his opening remarks. Questions and/or comments on the Solicitor General's opening remarks? Seeing none, further debate on Bill 115.

Mr Curling: I thought I would await the time to make my little remarks here. I call this a small remark because I will not be very long in pointing out some of the discrepancies in Bill 115. Before I do so, I want to commend the minister who came into this fray pretty late. I want to commend him for attending quite a few of the committee hearings. It showed he had an interest, and at least that is a start.

I also want to commend the member for York Centre, who was very constructive in pointing out daily as the committee met discrepancies in the bill and how it could be improved. While the minister was in attendance -- and, yes, I commend him for that -- I am not so generous in giving him that compliment for listening to the member for York Centre, who pointed out numerous discrepancies in this bill.

What struck me in this bill was the fact that the minister continued to talk about a common pause day. The common pause day was targeted to Sunday, and we talked about Sunday shopping. Somehow it was morally wrong to shop on a Sunday. It was in a sense a family day. All the family should be together on a Sunday and it was therefore necessary that we have that pause day.

I am not at all worried about the fact that we were looking for a common pause day, but what struck me as a double standard with this minister, or the government on that side, was that when it came to December, it was okay to shop in December. Therefore, what we are going to have is a bill or a law that states that there should be no shopping continuously on any Sundays of the year except in December. I hope in his wrapup remarks the minister explains why it is right and okay to shop in December on Sundays and wrong to shop on Sundays the rest of the year. The inconsistency there baffles my mind.

1600

I thought too that seeing we had a municipal election and seeing that some of the municipalities took the opportunity to have a referendum to find how they like to go in regard to Sunday shopping, I cannot recall -- and I stand to be corrected -- that any municipality indicated the people did not wish to shop on Sunday. It clearly came out that they would like to shop on Sundays.

The minister stood up in the House a few minutes ago and stated, "We listened to the people." That is the direction this NDP government would go, "We listen to the people." I think they do listen, but there is a time when we listen but we do not hear. I think they go through the motions of saying: "We are a listening government. We consult with you, but we will not take anything you said seriously." Since the municipalities have voted in their referendum, "Yes, we want Sunday shopping," I do not understand how the minister can stand in the House today and say, "No, we will not give it to them."

We thought one of the best ways to go in this very difficult bill -- because Sunday shopping debates have been around for years and years, and they have approached it from many directions -- instead of sitting in this pink palace deciding on our own what is morally right or what is a family day, is to, as the minister said, consult with the people and find out what they want. They have said very loud and clear that they would like to shop on Sundays.

The previous Liberal government went further and said, "You decide when you want it and how you like it." Therefore, the municipalities themselves would have to be responsible to the people within the community. We thought it was a good way to go. When this government came in it felt it was the moral light of the entire people. They know what is right and they went against that. I am very saddened by that. This bill is about protection of workers, but not in December. The reason we do not want to shop on Sundays is to protect workers, but in December we will not protect workers.

I am a resident of Scarborough North and I listened to the people. I will not bring my own personal view here. My job is to bring the views of Scarborough North residents here. They have told me that, yes, they would like Sunday shopping, and the member opposite in his remarks asked if I had spoken to everyone in Scarborough North. No, I have not spoken to every single soul in Scarborough North, but I have spoken to as many as is humanly possible, and all stated they would like to shop on Sundays. But no, this government decided it would tell people not to shop on Sundays. However, they may shop in December.

In supporting the quality of life, I do not think any government, any member of Parliament, must enforce its quality of life on my constituency. I am completely against that, because that is what the constituents told me. They know their priorities and do not want the government telling them this is its priority in all this.

I want to quickly comment on the tourism criteria and guidelines. If I was able to get that guideline in my hand today and find out what is a tourist or who is a tourist, or whatever definition they would like to put to that, then I would be able to understand what is happening. I presume at one stage they said anyone outside of 30 miles coming in to that area is a tourist. I am not quite sure if that definition has been cleared up yet.

I am sure anyone from downtown Toronto coming to this wonderful, beautiful area of Scarborough North would be a tourist. We have many of those people coming, so I would like to indicate to the minister today that Scarborough would like to be designated as a tourist area. There are so many people coming here outside of 30 miles that the entire area will be designated a tourist area. They are all tourists coming into my riding and I welcome them, although I do not regard them as tourists really. I regard them all as friends and families who will contribute to this great country and province of ours.

We are unable to pin this government down to definitions about what it is calling a tourist area, what is a common pause day, why a common pause day could be a Sunday but not in December, and I am utterly confused. I sat in quite a few of the hearings, and as the member for York Centre pointed out the discrepancies, I asked those members to listen very carefully. We feel on this side we have done everything possible to convince them of the direction they should go. I think they have heard but they have not listened. I wish them luck as we proceed to finalize Bill 115.

Mr Fletcher: I want to express a few concerns about what the member for Scarborough North was talking about, especially the idea of a common pause day except in December. I think the honourable member knows that is not the case. The labour reforms introduced with this bill do not end just because of December. They continue and the workers have the same protection and the same rights no matter what month of the year. So this bill does give a common pause day for the working people of this province.

As for the quality of life, this government is not trying to introduce its own quality of life to the people of this province. People will adjust to their own quality of life. We cannot legislate quality of life; we cannot legislate the morals of the province. That has to come from the grass roots, and I think the member knows that.

In the municipal elections, as far as referenda are concerned, we also have to look at the question that was asked: "Would you like to shop on Sunday? Yes. Would you like to work on Sunday? No." I think he will see that the reverse would be in order when that question is asked. The people would be saying overwhelmingly: "No. I don't wish to work on Sunday."

That is what the introduction of this bill has tried to do, to protect the working people of the province to ensure there is a common pause day, to protect the people who do not have unions to protect them, and the retail workers in other areas. This bill is far-reaching, not just for unionized workers but for unorganized workers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Scarborough North has two minutes to respond.

Mr Curling: As I said, we have said it all. We have done everything possible in the committee for the government to listen to some of the directions of the honourable member for York Centre. I feel that to make any other comments -- they would not listen. I just hope that in the future, when the minister presents those regulations today, we will be able to say, if there are any amendments later on, we can make something that is bad even a bit better.

1610

Mr Carr: I want to start off by thanking all my colleagues with whom I spent the long, hot summer travelling around this province. It was a great opportunity, as was mentioned often in committees, to get to know one another a little better as we went on the bus from Thunder Bay all the way to Ottawa. Almost the entire province was covered. To my colleagues and to the staff who spent so much time, I want to say how much we appreciate it.

Having said that, like the speaker before me I am very disappointed, as a result of this bill having come in and having heard the summer hearings, that not much was changed. During the summer we heard from people on both sides, those in favour of Sunday shopping and those opposed to Sunday shopping. Both sides of the issue came in and were very disappointed and discouraged with this bill. It was the previous Solicitor General, I guess, who okayed the initial push for the bill, but it did nothing to please either side on this issue. The new Solicitor General had to come in and shepherd this through. Unfortunately there were no changes.

We will be voting against this bill. The reason is that, like the Liberal legislation before it, this bill is unfair, unworkable and will hurt the economy of Ontario. It is interesting that the government talks about the workers being the reason it brought this in. In fact workers will be hurt because of this piece of legislation.

The member for Guelph talked about the fact that during December there will still be protection for workers. In other words, the stores can open but, under the Employment Standards Act, workers will still be protected during the month of December. During the hearings the minister said, "You can't protect employees through the Employment Standards Act; the only way to do it is to close on Sundays." But now he says, "We can do it during December, because if they don't want to work they'll have the right of refusal."

During the summer hearings we said, as we have continually said and I think even the Liberals said, we could improve the Employment Standards Act so that anybody would have the right to refuse to work on Sunday. The minister said: "No, that never works. You can't do that because people will be forced and coerced." Now he stands up in this House and says, "Boy, because of these standards we can protect the worker." It cannot work both ways. If it does not work for the other 11 months of the year, to my friend the member for Guelph, it does not work in December.

It is interesting to see how members of this government can change their dialogue in the House. They can change what they say about a piece of legislation depending upon what they do. The turns, the spins and the dialogue are 180 degrees, and quite frankly I think that is why people are so cynical and sceptical about politicians, particularly this government.

I want to be fairly brief because I have spoken at length. I think I asked a question of almost every witness who appeared before those summer hearings, so I have spent a great deal of time on this. I know very clearly that this government will not be listening. They did not listen to the people from Thunder Bay to Ottawa during those hearings, so I suspect they will not be listening to me.

There are a few points I think the public of Ontario should know about, as we have a new Speaker who should be well aware of this piece of legislation.

The regulations are one of my big concerns. We have the folks here who helped and were part of the regulations, another member of that body looking at the regulations. The problem with the regulations and the concern we have is that when you put the tourism criteria in there that are so fundamental to the bill, this is the whole essence of what is going to happen when a municipality opens a tourism exemption. What we have said is that they should put it in the bill so that the politicians can be accountable for their actions. If they put them in the regulations, the criteria can be changed tomorrow with a stroke of the pen. All the fine work the Solicitor General says they are doing could be changed tomorrow. A poll comes in that changes it. The Premier says, "It looks like we're going down," so he changes it through the regulations.

It was interesting that during the discussions on the Police Services Act the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Welland-Thorold said, "You shouldn't put things in regulations because if you do, you don't know what will happen."

Mr Kormos: He was right then and he is right now.

Mr Carr: The member was right then, as he says. Guess what happened during the Police Services Act? This province lost the oath to the Queen without any debate in this Legislature because regulations are not where it should be done. I say to the members opposite, the reason is that we are accountable in this House with our seats, which can be lost next time if the public is not happy. The people who make and change regulations are not accountable and they cannot be defeated the next time an election is held.

What we need to do is to have input. Unfortunately, we did not have the input from the public, and my fear is that these regulations that are so fundamental to the principles of this bill can be changed overnight, with a stroke of the pen in the darkness, with no input from the public of Ontario, and I think that is wrong. On that point alone, I think this bill should be defeated.

On that point alone, I think it is improper and this bill should be defeated, regardless of when they get into the regulations or what they are. The original ones that were tabled of course were very broad to allow municipalities to open. Regardless of whether members agree with the regulations, they should not be in there. They should be part of the legislation so the people in this House can be accountable when they stand up and vote for this piece of legislation. On that point I feel very strongly.

The next one is the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. That, quite frankly, was a result of some lobbying from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which came through and said, "Well, if you leave it up to the municipalities, we'll have open Sunday shopping," which in fact we did here. By my recollection, about 60% to 70% of the municipalities said, "We'll take the tourism exemptions such as they are, such as we know them at this time, and we will open." But then the United Food and Commercial Workers came in and said, "No, that can't be, because we need to have an appeal process."

In this day and age, when we are talking about scarce resources, when we are talking about the Workers' Compensation Board, which does not work because of the delays -- we all know that as members in here, sometimes having spent 60% of our days dealing with the workers' compensation.

The rental hearings: I had the opportunity to spend two full days at a rental hearing in my riding. Guess what happened after those two full days? We did not even get to the discussions. We politicians think we spend a lot of time, but when the rent review hearings were on, they spent two full days and they did not even debate the issue once; they just debated whether they were going to go ahead. The public, 75 or so tenants, came out of there and were so disgusted with the process they said, "This doesn't work." I say to members, not only does the WCB not work because there are bureaucratic nightmares; the rent hearing boards do not work because of the bureaucratic nightmare.

What do we do? The Ontario Municipal Board right now is backlogged 12 to 14 months. That is the date you will get if you start, but we say we are going to put more into the system with Sunday shopping.

Non-profit housing, which was supposed to have a fast track, cannot get approval through the Ontario Municipal Board because of the backlogs, the delays and the bureaucracy. So what does this government that believes in bureaucracy say? "We've got a solution to the problem. We'll just give it to the Ontario Municipal Board."

Quite frankly, the reason is very simple. When a municipality decides to open up, government members will be able to say: "Well, it wasn't us. It was the big, bad municipal politicians. They're the ones who decided to open up. Then the Ontario Municipal Board went there and ratified it. Don't blame us when there's Sunday shopping in this province. We did everything we could."

The minister, in his briefing notes that we got hold of -- I was very pleased that he at least did not sick the OPP on me, and I appreciate that he said he would not, because I was quite frankly expecting them to come. The speaking notes said they would spend about $1 million. To the question, "How much are we going to spend on the Ontario Municipal Board?" the Solicitor General said they would spend $1 million.

It is interesting to note that we have resources for that. We do not have resources for the Ontario Municipal Board to deal with non-profit housing, but it is going to have them now, as a body; all these appeal processes coming before it. Quite frankly, $1 million to set up another level of bureaucracy is even worse than the previous Liberal bill where the municipalities had the final decision. Again, the only group that talked about that during the presentations was the United Food and Commercial Workers.

One of the other concerns we have is with the appeal process to the courts. Again, it goes back to the entire principle of this government looking to some other agency to blame when in fact some of the municipalities decide to open, because the process is very simple.

What happens now when we hear the presentation through the Toronto police? They say: "We don't want to be involved in Sunday shopping. We've got a 38% increase in crime." We literally are afraid to go out at night in Metropolitan Toronto. The murders are up. We heard today that the bank robberies are up dramatically in this province.

The police said: "We do not want to have to be going around and deciding whether somebody like Paul Magder is open on Spadina Avenue. We've got criminals who are getting away with violent acts." We have drunk drivers being sprung from the court system right now, and they introduce an amendment which will say that any individual who sees a store open can go to the court and have that court issue an order to close, and the police will have to be involved instead of catching the murderers who are out there, doubling in this municipality alone.

I have had in my riding two young women who were murdered this summer. People are scared and crime has become the number one issue in this province. So what do we do with a court that is backlogged so much, quite frankly, that we now have well over 35,000 cases -- cases of sexual assault, cases of drunk driving that have been thrown out -- and what are we going to be doing? We are going to say: "If anybody disagrees with a decision and a store is open and it is not supposed to be, you can go to a court of law. Don't go there if you need a drunk driver off the road, or somebody who has been charged with sexual assault, because he is getting off free; but if you want to go there to close down a business that is trying to survive on Sunday, you can do it in Ontario." I say that is scandalous in the province today.

If the public were to look at it objectively and say, as we have heard the Treasurer say many times, "It is a case of resources. The resources are limited. We have to apportion them according to priorities," I say to the members opposite that if they think anybody in this province thinks the priorities for more resources to a court system that is already backlogged should be to handle Sunday shopping openings ahead of the crime that is facing this province, I say they are out of touch. I say they are out of touch and I believe the vast majority of people say that. I believe, in a non-partisan manner, they are wrong if they believe that.

1620

Of course members know there are different levels of courts and they will say this is not the court that deals with criminal action. But the fact of the matter is that they are talking about resources that will have to be put into the court system now to handle Sunday openings or closings, or whatever members would like to call them, at a time when in both the civil cases and the criminal cases the backlogs are so long that we are throwing people out on the street. For the Solicitor General, the top policeman, to put resources into the courts at a time in this municipality and all the way out to my area in Halton when the police are virtually under pressure and under constraints and we have court cases where people with violent crimes are being let off, I say it should not be a priority to put that in there.

When the amendments on that piece of legislation came through to my office, all through the summer we heard the people say: "Whatever happens, at least make a decision. The province should make a decision and have the political courage to do it." We heard that from both sides of the issue. People who want it to be open or want it to be closed said the province should take the responsibility.

So what do they do? They do not take the responsibility. They push it off and they are going to be able to say, "Well, if somebody is opening illegally, you go to the courts," and believe me, there will be groups going to the courts to close down retailers who are just trying to open in this province, and I say that is wrong.

One of the other concerns we have is with the old tourism criterion that we put in, the 7,500 square feet. We had protesters out here virtually on the front steps confronting the Solicitor General on the 7,500-square-foot rule. I will explain it again for the Solicitor General. In the old tourism regulations he had, anybody with over 7,500, even if a municipality decides to open, will have to come back and apply separately. What that group has said to the province is that it will be the key for taking this to court, basically because they say the minister should not be making a determination of where the tourism exemption can be had, based on the square footage of a particular facility that wants to open.

Of course I am not a lawyer. I guess the only people who will benefit from this will be the lawyers. They are the ones who will argue this in municipalities all across the province. In fact, that goes for the appeals to the courts too, because the lawyers are the ones who will be able to go there. I think most of the lawyers who sit there and see the backlogs right now are very concerned about them.

We proceeded to move this through fairly quickly, in spite of the fact that we were accused of holding it up. Anybody who was there would know I was very brief in many of my statements, more so than I wanted to be. I probably would have been a little longer if I thought I could convince the government. One of the reasons was the December openings prior to Christmas. Essentially what happened -- I think we were all surprised. I guess it was the last presentation of the day. All summer we heard a lot of presentations on the issue, pro and con, and the last group came in and said: "What about this? If in fact you decide you are going to go ahead with this bill, what if you opened Thanksgiving to Christmastime as a bit of a solution to the problems some of the retailers are facing?"

What we attempted to do in the bill that I tabled in this Legislature was to say: "Don't make it a part of this bill. Don't use it as political leverage to get a bill through quickly just because you wanted to have the December openings." The Solicitor General chose not to look at that bill. All he needed to do was to change the date. It could have been from December 1 and we would not have had to deal with it and have the rush and the pressure and the indecision that has been a part of this bill. Even today we do not know what is going to happen with this particular bill. Although they blame the opposition parties, the fact of the matter is that they came in late with amendments; they came in with amendments after agreements had been made and deals were broken. In all fairness, as I said in the committee to the people involved, it was deals that were made by people on the standing committee on administration of justice who said, "This is what we're going to do." Unfortunately, as we know, the decision comes from one office in this province and that is the Premier's office. When they say whatever is going to happen, that is what happens.

The December opening became an issue of this bill basically, because I am now getting calls, as I said in the committee the other day. I actually had a call from the office of the former Solicitor General, who is the Acting Speaker, asking when my bill would be coming through and when it would be completed. It is interesting to note that people see this as my bill. For those people who are at home watching this, it is not my bill. It is a terrible piece of legislation brought in ad hoc by a group that quite frankly I do not believe has any confidence. As I said today, unfortunately it is the people of this province who are going to suffer from it.

I will be fairly brief, as I said I would, but I hope this government has learned a lesson from this bill. I suspect they have not. Again, just as a quick conclusion and a wrapup, the only good thing that came out of this particular bill was the opportunity to spend a little bit of time with our colleagues going across the province and learning what some of the other communities are feeling about a number of issues. Outside of that, there was no good that came out of this particular bill and we will be voting against it.

Mr Sorbara: Oh, here we go.

Mr Mills: My colleague across there says, "Here we go." I do not know what he is expecting, but I am very pleased --

Mr Sorbara: I'm expecting a marvellous speech.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. There really is no cause for this kind of interjection. The member has simply started to address the House, and I request that the member address his comments through the Chair and that members refrain from interjection.

Mr Sorbara: Well, I'm looking forward to your speech.

Mr Mills: Thank you. I must say that during the summer months when I got to go across the province with the other members of the standing committee on administration of justice, it was an enjoyable time. It gave me the opportunity to get some insight into some of the members, their thoughts on many issues, not only on this issue. We got to know one another better. I think that nothing but good can come out of that sort of process, as we discussed this bill and as we went across the province.

As members know, this is perhaps one of the most contentious issues that has appeared in the Legislature. It generated more correspondence and more input than perhaps any other item has ever done here before. It is not new; it was done before, way back in the 1800s and so on. It has always been a sore point with many people in Ontario.

On the tour, I can remember that we would go into one particular city and, for an example, the owner of the local Canadian Tire store would appear before us and he would really go on about needing the ability to open on Sundays. That was the problem. You could not get a consensus, because then we would go into another community and the Canadian Tire store owner would say that on no account did he want to open or have anything to do with Sunday shopping or Sunday working.

The same could be said for chambers of commerce. We had points of view from chambers of commerce that were not consistent. I can say that with anything we faced the points of view were not consistent. As a result, it was a very difficult period in which to listen and form some consensus of what the government or what the committee should do on a very contentious issue.

1630

As the Solicitor General has stated, Bill 115 is fundamentally about maintaining and enriching the community life of Ontarians. This will now be achieved by this legislation which preserves holidays as common pause days in this province. A common pause day means just that: a day on which most people do not have to work.

I remember speaking to the bill when it was first introduced some months ago, speaking about how precious Sundays were to me, having been brought up in England before the war in a home where we always had to work, every minute of the day, to make a living. I can remember, when I used to work on Sundays, saying just a simple thing, "Wouldn't it be nice to lie in bed and read the Sunday newspaper and look at the football results?" That is how precious Sundays were and still are to me.

These common pause days listed under the Retail Business Holidays Act are in harmony with traditional rhythms of the week in Ontario. This ensures that families can enjoy these days together and individuals can pursue personal interests to rejuvenate and refresh themselves. I think it is very important in this day where we are faced with stress, marital separation and all kinds of family problems that we get a chance to rejuvenate and refresh ourselves. These opportunities today are all too rare in this hectic and often frantic society we all live in. Without thoughtful legislation they could disappear for ever.

I spent the summer listening to many people make presentations to the standing committee and I can say with some firsthand authority that many people in this province believe common pause days are essential to our quality of life. I can also say that I echo those sentiments personally. Urban, rural, north, south, east or west, support for the common pause day legislation came forward from all over Ontario.

Clearly this is an important issue, and it is an issue that is important to Ontarians of any economic, geographic or cultural background because we are all concerned about our quality of life. That is why this government is committed to Bill 115, a bill that preserves the concept of common pause days in Ontario while protecting the rights of retail workers and also recognizing the unique requirements of the tourism industry.

Yes, retail workers in the tourism industry have been singled out, and for very good reasons. Retail workers are not second-class citizens in Ontario. They should not have to give up their day of rest to provide unlimited shopping convenience for others. They are also generally underpaid, underorganized and otherwise unprotected. Tourism is the cornerstone of Ontario's economy and does require a seven-day-a-week operation. As well, the tourism industry provides unique opportunities for Ontarians enjoying their common pause days and for the tourists who spent over $16 billion in our beautiful province last year alone.

With respect to the provisions in Bill 115 that permit retailers to open on Sundays in December prior to Christmas, I urge this House to act quickly to pass this important and timely legislation. The government has recognized retail businesses and the fact that those few weeks before Christmas are so vital, perhaps even to the life and death of any given particular retail business. We have recognized that and we have shown flexibility, and we have also shown some consideration for those folks in this time of need.

We must eliminate confusion on the part of retailers, retail workers, municipalities and all other Ontarians. With that, I urge all members in the House to pass this legislation quickly so that we can get on and people can get to know where they stand on this important issue well before the appointed time runs out.

Mr Sola: It is my pleasure to join in this debate, not because I was a member of the committee this time around but because I was a member of the committee the previous time around when we were debating Sunday shopping and Sunday work legislation, Sunday protection, as Bills 113 and 114. It seems to me we had a very extensive trip around the province, because the Liberal government of the day was not afraid to visit the cities that were opposed to its legislation and wanted to hear the opinions of all the people of the province.

If memory serves me correctly, the groups most vehemently opposed to Sunday shopping were the Christian denominations that believed in Sunday as the common pause day. I recollect a certain member of the opposition, the member for Cambridge, being quite histrionic in his opposition to the bill of the day. As a matter of fact, he almost caused a riot in Brantford, and he did the same in Windsor. He carried around a little rubber chicken because he decided in his own mind that the Liberal government of the day, by asking municipalities, as the lowest level of government, to have the final say over Sunday shopping, was taking "the chicken way out." The other thing he said with that same rubber chicken was that I think he put earmuffs on that chicken and said, "I hear you, but I am not listening."

When we see the result of Bill 115, it brings back to mind the very words of the member for Cambridge, the former Solicitor General and now the Acting Speaker, and I am wondering how satisfied he is with this bill. It seems this government claims it has a common pause day and yet December is open for business. When did December stop being a part of the year? If it is a common pause day, it should be common throughout the year, not 11 months of the year. I think this government's claim of having observed the common pause day falls by the wayside. By the way, Christmas happens to be the most important festival of the Christian year.

Those people were opposed to Bill 113 because they were afraid it would bring about "wide-open Sunday shopping," to quote the member for Cambridge and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Rainy River and David Reville, who is now the principal adviser to the Premier. Bill 113 was going to bring about "wide-open Sunday shopping," and yet it did not happen.

Municipalities at the time were widely opposed to Bill 113 because they did not want the ball dropped in their laps. Yet if my reading of the hearings on Bill 115 is correct, municipalities favour the former Liberal government's legislation. Windsor, which vehemently opposed getting the authority to decide whether or not to open, now likes having that authority. All the border towns which have to compete with the wide-open Sundays in the United States and which are afraid of losing business because of the cross-border shopping spree prefer to have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to open or close.

1640

I am wondering whether the words of the member for Cambridge are not appropriate to this present NDP government, "I hear you, but I'm not listening," because the people seem to have changed their minds since the committee went around the province for hearings on Bill 113. Now the province seems to favour Sunday shopping.

I wish this government would at least be open about which way it wants to head. On the one hand the government is trying to appease the lobby that wants to have closed Sundays and a common pause day, and at the same time it is trying to appease those who want to work Sundays and shop Sundays. I think Bill 115 not only fails to satisfy both camps but aggravates the opposition of both camps.

As far as labour protection under this government is concerned, I can recollect quite clearly all the arguments about how it would be impossible to protect workers who refuse to work Sundays or who do not want to work Sundays but who are vulnerable because they do not have any seniority or they do not have a union protecting them, or if they do have a union protecting them, the boss would still be able to get back at them in some way or another.

I think it would be interesting if the member for Cambridge and the other members I have referred to read their own comments in Hansard and see how satisfied they are with the protective elements of their own legislation regarding Sunday shopping. I think their own words would come back to haunt them.

The member for Cambridge identified that toy as a chicken. It took a member of the Liberal government of the day, Harry Pelissero, the former member for Lincoln, to identify the bird properly. The bird was a duck. I do not know whether the member for Cambridge will admit to having misidentified his showcase even to this day. The NDP government still cannot tell a chicken from a duck. They still call Sunday shopping closed Sundays, they still consider wide-open Sunday shopping as having satisfied the craving of the public of Ontario for a common pause day, and at the same time they seem to think, despite the fact they are offering neither, that their labour legislation protects the workers who do not want to work when this government will be legislating them to work.

I want to point out the hypocrisy of travelling the province, railing against wide-open Sunday shopping on a bill that allowed municipalities which are the closest to the electorate to decide what the people in their particular area wanted and the step they have taken now, which seems to be going back to the future, because this is a pale imitation of the former Tory legislation which tries to reinvent the wheel by reimposing the tourism exemption while at the same time handcuffing the municipalities, not allowing them to decide what is or is not a tourist area and forcing them to go to public hearings which will just delay matters, make things more costly and exasperate both the applicants and those opposed.

Mr Hope: During that speech I had a hard time understanding whether the legislation was too tough, not tough enough, weak or whatever. There was no clear distinction. I can understand why the member for Cambridge walked around with and took to committees a chicken or a duck with earmuffs on when the Liberals introduced legislation. It was because they did not listen. This committee -- I was not part of the committee -- listened to the people and the concerns they were raising under tourism and other areas. I commend the government members for listening to some of the concerns. But I share the concern the member for Cambridge had when he was on the committee and walked around with his rubber duck.

There was reference made to the fact that a lot of municipalities were not in favour of the Liberal legislation. I might as well tell the members why a lot of municipalities were against the Liberal legislation. A lot of the labour movement people were out there talking to the municipalities and putting resolutions forward that indicated how devastating the Liberal legislation was to workers in a lot of workplaces. We have added a lot of extra areas. Under tourist restrictions we added protection for the workers in those jurisdictions, which is very important.

I was one of the people who fought against the Liberals. I look today and ask if the legislation goes far enough in my expectations, and I say no, it does not. But I know it is a stepping stone in the right direction to protect those communities and those workers who need protection. That is talking about listening to people if I am willing to set down my beliefs and my understanding of legislation and worker protection, set aside my personal viewpoints and listen to the concerns of my community, because when you pose the questions in my community, "Are you in favour of Sunday shopping?" they say yes, and "Are you in favour of Sunday work?" they say no. That is the important issue the Liberals neglected. I understand perfectly why the member for Cambridge walked around with a chicken with earmuffs on. It was because the Liberals did not listen before.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the opportunity to make a couple of observations about this piece of legislation because I am one who watches very carefully during election campaigns to see what people are promising. I listen to people out there. Their concern is that people in opposition say certain things and people during election campaigns say certain things, and then they see something different showing up in the form of legislation.

Even if you disagree with what an elected government said it was going to do when it was in opposition and on the campaign trail, at least you know what you are disagreeing with. What we have in this legislation, I am afraid, is something that is neither fish nor fowl. We have so many exemptions in this legislation that it is going to be totally chaotic.

Either the government is in favour of closing down this province on a retail basis on Sunday or it is in favour of opening it up. My fear is that with all these exemptions it is going to be a total hodgepodge across Ontario. Workers in some parts of the province will have to work on Sunday, workers in other parts of the province will not have to work on Sunday and the government will not achieve what it set out to achieve in the first place.

In addition to this, there is provision for going to the Ontario Municipal Board. Those of us who sit on the standing committee on government agencies have found the Ontario Municipal Board is already full. It cannot even handle the material it has now. We are going to ask the Ontario Municipal Board to make some decisions on whether or not there is to be an allowance for shopping on Sundays and presumably on holidays in individual circumstances.

One would look for a bill that said one thing or another and then people in this House would have to make a choice, but this bill does neither, close on Sundays or open on Sundays.

1650

Mr Stockwell: It is somewhat baffling to listen to the defence of the Solicitor General and his partners in perpetrating this piece of legislation. It is humorous to hear exactly what the interim leader of the Liberal Party said when he was on the campaign trail -- there was no chance we were going to shop on Sundays -- and we had a union worker here who himself fought this piece of legislation the Liberals brought forward about Sunday shopping, etc. How he can stand in his place today and suggest, "I can set my beliefs aside, because my constituents want to have Sunday shopping" -- and then you ask whether they want to have working on Sunday and he says no.

So what have we got? We now have a member of this caucus and this party who says, "Gee, I think we should have shopping on Sunday in all the months that start with the letter D," and that is about how much sense this piece of legislation makes. "All the months that start with the letter D you can shop on Sundays; anything else you can't." When they broaden their horizons, they may move to months that start with the letter J as well as D and June and July would open up. Of course the member could set his beliefs aside long enough to do that as well.

That rivals this nonsensical piece of legislation, and I will tell members, every single opening in any municipality is going to appeal to the OMB. We all know that, because there are groups out there that will want to see them open. It is neither fish nor fowl. They cannot make up their minds. They are not right-handed; they are not left-handed. They do not know what they are doing.

They made a series of promises in the election. They broke those promises, and then they could not keep their promises. They cannot even break their promises properly. This is insane.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Further comments and questions? The member has two minutes in which to respond.

Mr Sola: In response to the member for Chatham-Kent, on whether this legislation is too tough or too weak, I would like to say it is neither. It is a sham. It does nothing to achieve the ends it supposedly is intended to achieve. It is just an exercise in pantomime to appear to be doing something while doing nothing. There is no substance in the bill. It is interesting to note that the member was not a member of the committee, yet he can guarantee that the committee listened. That is something very unusual. He did not sit on the committee, yet he can verify that whatever arguments were heard by the committee, the committee responded to them.

I would like to thank the member for St Catharines for pointing out that this is another broken promise by the NDP government, another NDP flip-flop. His description of this legislation being neither fish nor fowl is quite accurate, except I would say in a sense it is foul, to agree with the odour emanating from another broken promise.

I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke West for pointing out that the NDP has once again set its beliefs aside by allowing Sunday shopping, pointing out that every municipality will have to appeal to the OMB and pointing out another type of incompetence most of us were unaware of, that the government cannot even break promises correctly.

Mrs Marland: In rising today to speak to Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them, I am happy to have the opportunity. It happens to be a subject I think I have risen in this House every year for the past six years and spoken on.

Nothing changes. We still have a piece of legislation in front of us that is totally unworkable. It does not do any of the things this socialist government purports to support. It does not in fact even begin to implement the promises on which they campaigned, the promises they made to the people of Ontario, the promises they espoused very vigorously about protecting workers from working on Sunday. They talked about the need for a common pause day to protect the family unit, to give families and friends the opportunity to spend Sundays together. There is nothing in here that does any of those things. Bill 115 is a total, absolute sham.

The minister for northern affairs --

Hon Mr Wildman: Natural Resources.

Mrs Marland: The Minister for Natural Resources, the member for Algoma, was a fairly reasonable individual when he sat in opposition. He stood in opposition on this side of the House, as we did, and lambasted the Liberals for Bill 113, because Bill 113, the Liberal bill dealing with the subject --

Hon Mr Wildman: Where are the Liberals?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The Minister of Natural Resources will please refrain from interjection and allow the member for Mississauga South to continue.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I thought actually I was being helpful to the member.

Mrs Marland: It is always the same. When you say anything in this Legislature that hits home with this socialist government, the members opposite get very upset. I just came from speaking at a committee meeting where the six socialist government members were equally upset. They just do not want to hear the truth.

The truth is that every one of them campaigned promising the people of this province that there would be a common pause day legislated in this province, that people would be protected from having to work on Sundays. This bill simply creates a chaotic situation. This bill creates a further problem for the municipalities.

Even if the socialist government members do not want to listen to the opposition parties in this House, I would have thought they would want to listen to their unions. We are told they are very concerned about workers, we are told they are very concerned about jobs and employment, but when it comes to an issue of whether or not people are going to have to have Sunday working because we have Sunday shopping, suddenly they are nowhere on this issue. They are no longer protecting the workers who do not wish to work on Sundays.

These socialist government members do not even listen to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. AMO's response to the former Liberal government's bill, Bill 113, was, "Please do not give the jurisdiction for whether or not we have Sunday shopping to the municipalities, because if you do, then we will have one municipality opening and an adjacent municipality that may choose not to open having to open because it is adjacent and one group of retailers is then in competition with another."

The fact is that what is happening with this socialist government bill, Bill 115, is that we have a situation that is even worse than under the Liberal Bill 113. We have the whole problem compounded. The fact remains that the cost for businesses to be open is always the same per day of the week.

The other thing that does not change with the cost of doing business is the amount of disposable income the public has. When the argument is that the public wants stores to be open on Sunday, it does not mean they have any more money to spend. People do not suddenly get a raise or an increase in their wage packets because they can shop on Sundays. But there are people for whom working on Sunday is a great impediment to their wellbeing.

I personally am totally opposed to Sunday shopping because of Sunday working. For six years I have stood in this House and said I support a common pause day.

1700

Mr Sorbara: Talk to Mike Harris about that.

Mrs Marland: I have a right to my individual opinion and that is the opinion I am putting on the record.

My opinion is based on public meetings I have held in my riding. It is my understanding that during all this debate of the last six years on whether we should have Sunday shopping and Sunday working, I was the only member, in the former Legislature at least, who held a public forum on Sunday shopping. From the outcome of that public forum and all the telephone calls and letters we have received in my community office and my Queen's Park legislative office, we have an eight-to-one majority opposed to Sunday shopping and Sunday working in my riding of Mississauga South.

We respect very much that if Sunday is not the day of practice of religion or faith for individuals, they have the option of another day off. That we totally respect and that was totally respected in the original legislation of the former Conservative government. What we have here is a situation where this legislation is so two-faced that it says it is okay to be open some Sundays before Christmas and not other Sundays. As the member for Etobicoke West said so well a few moments ago, what will it be next? It is now the Sundays in a month beginning with D. What months are next?

Either we think it is all right for people to have to work on Sundays or we do not. The fact is that all the rhetoric about who already works on Sundays is not an argument to expand the number of people who have to work on Sundays. Certainly there are all kinds of people who work on Sundays now. I have heard all this before. I do not need to be told that people in transportation, hospitals -- health care providers -- restaurants, some entertainment venues, etc, all work on Sundays. That is true. But when they took their jobs and went to work for those establishments, they knew it involved Sunday working. It was a choice they made knowing what they were going into.

Now what we are looking at with wide-open Sunday shopping are people who chose a five-day work week so they could spend the weekends with their families, or their friends if they do not have any families, and for their own leisure, recreation, and in many cases, their opportunity to worship in a church of their faith on Sundays.

Weekends, whether we like it or not, are important to our society. We only have to look around us to recognize what is happening to our society -- the loss of our social fabric, the erosion of values. All of these things are happening because we are losing the very core, the very stability of what a balance between work and recreation is about.

We have children in schools Monday to Friday. Saturday and Sunday are the only times families have to get together. I have heard an argument about, "I like to go shopping with my children on Sunday." I think that with all the free, available recreational opportunities there are in this province, there are better things to do with our young people on Sundays than to go indoors and shop. Frankly, when they do, it means that the people who are serving them do not have the same opportunity. The people working in those stores they say they like to shop in do not have that option of doing anything with their families on Sunday, whether it is to take their children to church, shopping or some other leisure or recreational activity, maybe just visiting family. They do not have that opportunity because those people have to work in order that those establishments are open and operating.

In consideration of the minimal amount of time left to debate Bill 115, I simply say in closing that I am totally and unequivocally opposed to this legislation. I think anyone who votes in favour of it obviously does not recognize the chaos with which it will impact on this province. The fact is that we are going to have appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board that will be costly and time consuming for the people of Ontario. We could avoid some of this expense to the taxpayers of Ontario if, for once, we could develop a piece of legislation not like Bill 115, but similar to the legislation the Conservative Party of this province had when it was the government. Once and for all, let's protect the rights of individual Ontarians to a common pause day.

Mr Mahoney: I am interested in the comments in opposition to the bill. I certainly oppose the bill too, but from a little different perspective. I suggest the member might attempt to hold a forum today on Sunday shopping. She might find a little different result than eight to one against it, because people realize that with the state of the economy in this province, people in business today need every competitive edge they can get, particularly in border communities.

The member will recall, from the days when she and I were both serving on Mississauga council, that under the Tory legislation, when we had the option and the opportunity to allow Sunday shopping based on a tourism exemption, we exempted the Malton Fruit Market and said it was a tourist attraction and we exempted the Port Credit business improvement area and said it was a tourist attraction. The member may have been opposed to that -- I do not know -- but based on the tourism exemption, we allowed in our community the opportunity for business areas that needed that extra day to open on Sunday.

Surely to goodness it is time we got government out of the shopping malls and out of the stores and out of the pocketbooks of the residents, so that if people want to shop on Sunday, they should simply be allowed to. At least the existing Liberal legislation that is in place allows for a community to make its decision not based on some political puffery or decision as to whether a fruit market or a business improvement area is a tourist attraction, but based on the will of the people.

In the recent municipal elections there were countless plebiscites taken all over this province. I suggest that if people were listening, they would see that the people of Ontario would like government to get out of Sunday shopping regulation. If they want to shop, let them. I too am opposed to this legislation.

Mr Lessard: The member for Mississauga South said that weekends are important to families. I cannot disagree with that. In fact, I am looking forward to spending the weekend with my family just as soon as possible.

Mr Mahoney: Are you going to go shopping in Detroit?

Mr Lessard: I am probably not going to be shopping this weekend.

I agree with the member for Mississauga South as well that there probably are a lot of other pastimes that are a lot more worth while and enjoyable than going shopping with family members, especially on Sundays. However, there are a lot of people who said to us while we were out on the committee during the summertime that they do want that opportunity to shop with their families on Sundays.

I do not happen to share that point of view. However the member for Mississauga South does illustrate the fact that there is a very wide divergence of opinion with respect to this issue. She indicated that she had a public forum where a great deal of people were not in favour of Sunday shopping. The member for Mississauga West suggested that maybe she should have another forum, that she might find there would be far different results if she were to do that again. It may be possible. I know there seemed to be a change of opinion in the Windsor area in the nine months that people were able to shop on Sundays, when the legislation was before the courts.

I appreciate the fact that she indicates what her own personal position is with respect to this issue. I can tell her that she does not really have the same position as other members in her party, but she does indicate the great divergence of opinions with respect to this issue.

1710

Mrs Marland: I appreciate the comments from the member for Windsor-Walkerville, especially where he says that he knows the views of the people within my own caucus. I think that is very interesting.

In responding to the member for Mississauga West, when he talks about the state of the economy as being a reason to have stores open and to have that option, he obviously is not listening to people within his own constituency, because Lansing lumber, which is owned and operated by Howard and Ruth Kitchen, has invested thousands of dollars and taken a very public stand on behalf of its employees to make the point that apart from forcing people to work on Sunday if it is open on Sunday, it also adds to the cost of its operations. Instead of paying to operate six days a week, 12 hours a day, we now would enforce on them a seven-day operation.

As I said earlier, and maybe the member for Mississauga West was not here at that moment, the cost of doing business is what the retailers have to deal with. The fact is that the public does not have any more disposable income to spend, so whether they spend it on Sunday or Saturday or any weekday, it does not increase the amount of business they do, and that is the whole point.

Also, I wish the member for Mississauga West would listen to the wishes of his own mayor, who I understand is supporting him in his leadership bid for the Liberal Party, because Mayor Hazel McCallion does not want it as a municipal option. She has been so outspoken; she has said so many times it is a provincial jurisdiction. For this member to say it is something that the people in our ridings are now in favour of is something I challenge him on, because I am quite sure he has not had a public meeting on this subject.

The Speaker: Further debate, the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I notice the tone of surprise in your voice. I was surprised too when I was told that, yes, I could speak to this particular bit of legislation, especially in view of some considerable criticism I have had and, I tell members, continue to have about this legislation.

I was here, as some of the members in this House will recall, for a couple of years prior to this last election in September 1990. I was elected in a by-election down in Welland-Thorold, where during that by-election, like my friend the member for London North, I campaigned strongly and clearly on behalf of a common pause day and in opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping.

When I came to this assembly as a member of an oh, so small caucus, I was given the opportunity to serve on the justice committee. Once again, like my more recent service on the justice committee, it was only temporary. I had the opportunity to engage in some of the debate about the first round -- it really was not the first round; it was more like the third or fourth round -- of debate and battle over Sunday shopping/common pause day. But it was the debate over the then Liberal government's bill creating the municipal option.

Just as I was opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping, I was opposed to this approach of municipal option, and I was not alone in that opposition. There was a great deal said in the Legislature by members of the opposition at that time and in the course of the committee discussions about the entire inappropriateness of municipal option, that if there was going to be legislation, it should be uniform, that it should be across the board, that it should be across the province, and that the provincial government, which has jurisdiction, should exercise that jurisdiction and should exercise it responsibly.

I opposed the Liberal government when they introduced the prospect of municipal option. Along with a whole lot of other people, I spoke about this whole business of municipal option inevitably creating wide-open Sunday shopping across the province if it was permitted to take its course, and I still believe that.

I suppose it comes down to the real battle. I recognize there are a whole lot of people out there. I am not about to say that my community is unanimous in its opposition to Sunday shopping or that it is unanimous in its support of a common pause day. I am not about to say that by any stretch of the imagination. I am prepared to concede that I do not think my community, Welland-Thorold, is much different than the communities of any of the other 129 people here in this Legislature in that there is a wide range of views.

There are no two ways about it. Big plaza owners, developers, the ones who are not going to have go and work in those retail shops on Sundays, are outspoken advocates of Sunday shopping. They think it is just the neatest thing since buttered popcorn. They could give a tinker's dam, I am convinced, about the fact that people are going to have to leave their families, leave their homes, leave their grandparents, their children, their neighbours, their friends, their spouses and go work at a retail shop on a Sunday.

Just last Sunday I was down in Welland-Thorold, but I was blessed with the opportunity to be at the St John's Greek Catholic Church over on Second Street. I suspect there are some other people here in the Legislature who have been the guests of that particular parish. It is one that I am proud of my rapport with.

I was there with Rev Leslie Marajean and Rev Deak and Father Dychuk. Father Dychuk is really the priest over at St Michael the Archangel Ukrainian Catholic Church, but since St John's Greek Catholic Church does not have its own full-time priest, it just has a deacon, Father Dychuk serves both parishes. Father Dychuk, a Ukrainian, to his credit learned Hungarian so that he could accommodate the Hungarian Greek Catholic community.

I was at St John's Greek Catholic Church for their special service which starts at 4 o'clock. It is their annual service which celebrates the parish. It is followed at 6 o'clock by the dinner in the basement, and people who do not make it to St John's Greek Catholic Church for the church dinner are missing out on the finest food that one could ever eat. Sharing the community that I did with those great people -- children, their parents, factory workers, retail workers, office workers, retirees, farmers -- I realized what an exemplary way to spend a Sunday, to share it with your friends and your family, to celebrate your church community, to celebrate the fraternity and sorority that you have with people like those great people in the parish at St John's.

Of course, women and more than a few men had spent some hours in the kitchen preparing that meal, just like others who spent time in the church lighting the candles, making sure flowers were laid out, making sure that all the celebratory tools were prepared. These were labours of love; these were labours of passion; these were labours of commitment to their faith and to the sense of community.

1720

It struck me that those people could not have done that had they been required to work in their retail jobs, because there are more than a few people in that parish who are retail workers. We would not have had that great celebration of community that we did were these people required to work on Sunday. I have a feeling that the celebrations at St John's church down in the basement on a Sunday afternoon and evening of community, well, they are not going to be quite as complete down the road as they have been in the past, because there are no two ways about it, the legislation before the House today retains local option. It is legislation I have expressed my concern about a number of times.

I am happy to have in the House here today people from Welland: Tony Wszolek and Leonard Wszolek. They are as typical a couple of Welland folk as you could ever find; hardworking people from a hardworking family; family people who care about that sense of family; who live within walking distance of their parents and grandparents and who still, by way of tradition, celebrate Sunday not just as a day of worship, although that is very important in so many people's lives, but who celebrate Sunday as a day of family and a day of community. I am proud of people like Tony and Leonard Wszolek and their family, and I know their parents, their children and their grandparents. I am proud of the kind of contribution they have made to our community.

We are talking about the children of immigrant parents here who have worked so hard. We are talking about the children of a retiree -- Mike Wszolek retired from Union Carbide only last year -- who remembers the fight to create the five-day workweek and who participated in that fight, that struggle, with more than a little bit of sacrifice on his own.

We are talking about people like Mike and Josie Wszolek, who fought hard and worked hard as members of their community to make sure that, yes, there was common pause time available to people and they celebrated that as quality time. That is right. I have a little bit of trouble because I have heard as part of this committee -- I was permitted to serve with the committee for two weeks. I feel that I started too late and ended too early, but it was a fine two weeks and I enjoyed the companionship and the kindness of my colleagues from all parties.

But I heard from people across Ontario, just as I have been hearing from people in Welland and Thorold and in communities I am capable of visiting and listening to. I am so pleased about the Treasurer's recent announcement to freeze consultants' fees. Some members have heard my criticism of high-priced consultants, and I am convinced I can go back to Welland-Thorold or to virtually any town or city in this province on any weekend of the year and hear far better advice than we are going to get from high-priced pollsters, spin doctors and consultants.

I know the developers wanted to build new plazas and have their stores open seven days a week. These are the wealthy developers who have no intention of ever having to visit those workplaces on Sunday. They could not give a tinker's dam about the hardworking people. It is as often as not women who are going to be forced into working on Sunday with wide-open Sunday shopping.

We also have a couple of people here who have fought the good fight: Andy Faas, the executive vice-president of National Grocers Co Ltd, and of course Gerald Vandezande, the executive director of Fairness for Families. That is not to overlook by omission the not just hundreds but thousands of people who have fought the hard fight for a common pause day in this province. They fought it because of their commitment to church, community and family and because they believe the commercialization of that final last day of the week will impact, condemn and attack church, family and community. I agree with those people.

I know there are people who have been sold this bill of goods about the right to shop. Some of the same kinds of promoters and developers who were talking to the standing committee on administration of justice about the right to shop say, "Quality time; please bring your kids with you."

Of course they want you to take your kids with you when you are shopping at Eaton's, K mart or Zellers. That will tax the credit cards at two or three times what it would have been otherwise. Give me a break. You and I both know, Mr Speaker -- I recognize the acknowledgement in your face -- that those who talk about the right to shop or shopping plaza time as quality family time are not just out to lunch, they are engaging in flim-flammery that is not quite unequalled but none the less somewhat rare.

There is the whole issue of cross-border shopping. I grew up and continue to live in one of those communities close enough to the border that we are well aware of the phenomenon of cross-border shopping. Cross-border shopping has nothing to do with shopping on Sunday. It has everything to do with the fact that some things are cheaper across the border.

The fact is that those same people who are lured -- and I am not about to condemn people looking for bargains, although we have to mention that the taxation that attaches to some of the products we buy here in Canada, which are inevitably cheaper in the United States, is the type of taxation that maintains a health care system of which we can be very exclusively proud. It maintains an educational system and a whole lot of other services that our friends to the south, Americans, simply do not have available to them.

So I do not buy the argument that we need Sunday shopping because somehow it is going to have an impact on cross-border shopping. It will have zero impact. The fact is that I am not convinced we need Sunday shopping in those weeks preceding Christmas because, and let's face reality, this is not going to be a particularly prosperous Christmas for retailers whether they are open seven days a week, six days a week or only five. The fact is that families are exercising restraint over their spending in a way that they have not for a long time. We are facing very difficult times. Free trade has robbed so many of our workers of their jobs.

An hon member: The GST.

Mr Kormos: And yes, the GST has created a tax burden on consumers. The GST imposed by the federal government has created a tax burden on consumers that make it impossible for them to carry on in a way that retailers and a whole bunch of other sectors in the community would want.

I know all about small businesses. My family, my grandparents and then my parents ran family businesses before I was born and all throughout my life living with my family. I worked in those small businesses as a kid. Small businesses need a common pause day more than anybody in the retail sector because those small businesses are small enough that they do not have to hire great numbers of outside help, but big enough that they can sustain families and support them and send kids on to university, kids like myself who were blessed with opportunities our parents and grandparents never had.

Small businesses are going to be cursed and damned into oblivion by wide-open Sunday shopping. That is the truth. Small business people are not calling out for Sunday shopping. Small business people are pleading with government to please provide them with at least one day of rest, because they are simply not going to be able to compete with the K marts and the Zellers and the chain stores if they are forced to stay open seven days a week. They simply cannot do it.

1730

It is going to kill small-town downtowns. It is going to be the final nail in the coffin of small-town downtowns. Thorold resents being called a town, as well it should, because it is a city; but it is a nice, healthy community that is still reasonably small in the total scheme of things. Sunday shopping will be the death knell for small-town downtowns, like Welland, like Thorold.

I am left with some very difficult choices. I am oh so impressed with the arguments that again Mr Vandezande made on behalf of families. I am impressed with the logic and the reasoning of people like Gerrit de Boer from Idomo Furniture who almost singlehandedly has persevered in bringing this issue, a common pause day, home to people across the province.

I will tell the members this, and I am recommending it to people who are listening now: I think we should pay close attention to those people like Gerrit de Boer from Idomo, like Andy Faas from National Grocers, and I intend to restrict my patronage to those retailers who have fought the good fight for a common pause day and for family and church and community. If I have to make a choice, my choice will not be hard to make. I will be buying at Idomo and Gerrit de Boer before I will be buying from somebody who is a fanatic about wanting to commercialize that final day of rest, that final common pause day.

I am left with something of a dilemma. I am also thankful to the Solicitor General for permitting me to speak on the legislation, and I have not been at all envious of his role. He has been thrust into a position in cabinet and acquired the carriage of this legislation, and was immediately struck with a number of forces coming at him from literally all directions. But about this I can be certain. I have been very specific and very clear about my support for common pause day and my opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping and I have been consistent in that regard, which is far more than I can say for most of the members of both opposition parties.

I am not happy about this legislation. I am not happy about Sunday shopping during the weeks in December preceding Christmas. I am not happy about local optioning. I am not happy about as yet non-existent, but I am told soon to exist, tourist criteria, but when I hear the Consevative member for Oakville South tell this House and the people of Ontario that he is opposing this legislation because it does not create wide-open Sunday shopping, I feel my hand being forced, I tell members with great reluctance, knowing full well the pain and the struggles that the minister, the Solicitor General and his parliamentary assistant and, I am convinced, this whole government have gone through over the Sunday shopping issue.

Notwithstanding that, the final position is one with which I do not agree and about which I have great fears, because my fear is the fear of wide-open Sunday shopping. My fear is the fear of checkerboarding that is going to be created by virtue of local option that is going to create not cross-border shopping but cross-municipal shopping. It is going to put pressures on adjoining communities that wanted to hold the line and make them wide-open as well, which means we will have no common pause day and no day of rest and no day on which to celebrate church and family and community.

I am fearful about the fact that this legislation is not tough enough, but I am enthused by the fact that it is still one heck of a lot better than what the last government left us holding the bag on. I am confident that I do not want in any way, shape or form to be aligned with the Conservative Party, which would want to oppose this legislation not because it thinks the legislation does not create a common pause day, but because it thinks the legislation is not sufficient in creating wide-open Sunday shopping.

The honourable members will see I will not align myself with a party that has no concern for family or church or community, that has no concern for working people. I heard the member for Oakville South outside the House earlier today talking about how he wanted to be perceived as the stalwart defender of working people, yet his opposition to the prospect of a common pause day is a condemnation of working people to seven days of labour and a destruction of those things that even he should hold dear and important.

Mr Carr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I should let you know that I did not say that. I believe the member is mistaken and he should know that.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order; perhaps a point of disagreement.

Mr Kormos: Here I am. I argued as strongly as I could the position that I believe in. I persisted very much in what I believed in for the last year, two years and three years. I am in a position where I vote with the Tories against working people and against families or where I vote with my government in support of legislation which I am not particularly enthusiastic about but which I concede is again a far cry better than what the last government hung us with.

My position on local optioning, on tourism criteria by regulation, has not changed at all. My fears about this legislation being less effective than it should be remain.

But my fears about the Tory agenda of wide-open Sunday shopping are so overwhelming that it is my intention to vote with the Solicitor General in support of this bill and to work as hard as I can to achieve the goals that the bill purports to achieve. At the same time I think it is incumbent upon people in this assembly to be honest about the fact that compromises have been made, and it is important for people in this House to monitor the legislation and its impact with a view not just to encouraging but to insisting upon remedial legislation as promptly as possible in the event that my worst fears about the inadequacy of this legislation are realized.

Mr Mahoney: I have now seen the ultimate form of justification. I have now seen a member stand up and pontificate at some length about how wrong this legislation is but then say he cannot support it because the Tories support it. He has found a way to take himself full circle and show that clearly what we have we have been saying is correct, that many of the members over there have principles, and if we do not like them, they have others. That is clearly the message we just got.

Let me ask the member to come back in his two minutes and tell this House -- he went on at some length about the church serving dinner -- who cooked the dinner? It was on a Sunday. Or did they do it on Saturday? Who served it? Who cleaned up afterwards? Who works in the police departments, in the fire departments, in the recreational halls, in the arenas in the community centres? Who works in the hospitals? Who works in emergency services? Could the Ministry of Labour tell us who works in the steel industry 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all over this province?

Now this wonderful government has come along and decided there is one specific sector that says, "We're going to generate a common pause day except in December," for some reason. I guess a lobby got to them. Once again their principles have been put aside for other sets of principles.

The inconsistency of the former speaker is unbelievable, but it fits into the inconsistency of this government that fails to understand that small business, particularly in border communities, sits in darkness on a Sunday while in the outlet malls in Niagara Falls there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of Ontario licence plates on vehicles while people shop and spend their money. These people have their heads in the sand and are not paying attention to modern-day reality.

1740

The Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: I appreciate the opportunity to address some of the comments that have been made by the member for Mississauga West. My comments are not going to be very long, but when the member talks about cross-border shopping and he talks about Sundays --

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understood from the rules and procedures that the two-minute comments were to the speech that was given by the member, as opposed to my remarks. I would be delighted to cut in and debate with the gentleman, but I would like to hear his opinion on what the member for Welland-Thorold said.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West indeed has a valid point of order. The comments and questions opportunity is to be directed to the member who made the speech, and in this case it is the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Perruzza: In that case, I will wait for another day.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Welland-Thorold has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Kormos: I have to use this two minutes most carefully. What kind of person, what kind of mind, would equate the emergency services of hospital care, of health care, with the need to buy shoes or television sets or clothes? What kind of mind would equate the necessity of police work with the need to provide retail services seven days a week rather than the six days on which they are provided now?

If some of those women from the Hungarian community in Welland were here to listen to this comment about their labour of love and faith on a Sunday, they would be most outraged. As a matter of fact, the member for Mississauga West would have his ears pinned back good by some of those ladies from St John's Greek Catholic Church. They would straighten him out in short order. These ladies and men, with their faith and compassion for each other and their enthusiasm about sharing Sunday, have no difficulty in equating work as in work for wages, have no difficulty in understanding how it is that we do not need to have Sunday commercialized, that we need to maintain Sunday as a day of rest, as a common pause day, as a day of faith and as a day of community.

The Liberals and the Tories are insistent that "workers be damned." Make people in non-essential sectors work seven days a week. Those people, as often as not earning the lowest of wages, unprotected by trade unions, let them be damned and let them serve the types of minds that occupy those benches. I say they are wrong. I say that is a frail and pathetic response. They may well have their day. The frailty of this legislation may well give them what they seek, but let them be a little bit clearer about where they really stand on the issue.

Mr Sorbara: I guess the orchestra is packing up its instruments; the windbags have now all spoken.

Mr Mahoney: A point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I think you probably have one.

Mr Mahoney: I can only assume my honourable friend was referring to the windbags opposite. I wish he would take the time to clarify his statement in this House.

Mr Sorbara: I will not have any comment on that other than to say that I do not think we are going to bring the leadership campaign into this chamber.

I guess I just do not have any comment whatever about the remarks of the member for Welland-Thorold, who tried to justify in a very loud speech why he thinks the legislation is entirely the wrong way to proceed, yet is going to vote for it. I find that very difficult to understand.

We are now into the final minutes of the debate on Bill 115. What I would remark in closing this debate on behalf of my own party is that even the arrangement and commitment of the government and the government House leader today to provide me with some time to reflect on where this bill has gone over the course of the past five and a half months has not been honoured. I think it is just another example of the difficult time this government has had in ordering its agenda.

I want to say just a couple of words about the course of consideration of this bill. I thank particularly the member for Prescott and Russell and the member for Nepean, both members of my party, who did such an admirable job in considering the bill during public hearings and finally debating the bill during a very lengthy clause-by-clause consideration.

I also want to say a word of congratulation to the member for Oakville South, who is elected for the first time to Parliament and who did, I think, a very commendable job in considering the bill in all of its aspects and offering an opposition that was both intelligent and informed.

Mr Mahoney: He wasn't that good.

Mr Sorbara: No, he was pretty good, as a rookie.

I want to tell my friends in this House what is wrong with this bill. I want to say to them that what is wrong with this bill is the same thing that is wrong with so much of what this government has been doing in its first 15 months in office.

The Treasurer the other day had yet another crisis with his budget, but he was not able to realize and he was not able to acknowledge in this House that the budget is in shambles because the economy is in shambles. In his defence and his suggestion that the federal government is going to bail us out, somehow he thinks he is suggesting an answer.

What is wrong with this government is what the Minister of the Environment did when she introduced Bill 143, suggesting that the garbage crisis can be solved by taking away the rights of this Parliament and the people of this province.

What is wrong with Bill 115 is that it has us debating a topic that has now passed by the people of this province. They are no longer interested in a government and a Parliament trying to make their choices as to what they do on Sunday or any other day.

If the government members wanted to see the real issue in retailing, they should have been with us on the committee and they should have walked the streets of Windsor to see the empty stores. They should have walked the streets of Sault Ste Marie to see store after store on the main street of Sault Ste Marie and the main street of Ontario for rent, gone out of business. They should have come to Cornwall to see that business after business in the retail sector is feeling the pain of a crushing recession.

The Solicitor General says he is going to protect retail workers. I will give him another way of protecting retail workers. He should give them an opportunity to work. Our businesses are dying. Our businesses are uncompetitive. Our businesses can no longer attract the consumers they need to hire the workers, to pay the taxes and to feed themselves. For the past five and a half months in this Parliament, we have been trying to figure out a way to keep them closed on Sunday, even those ones that are willing to open. That was wrong.

Even if my friends in the government accept that they want to bring about a common pause day in Ontario, then, my God, this would not be the bill to do it. If they want to do that, they should bring in a bill authored by the member for Welland-Thorold. This bill is not about a common pause. This bill is not about retail workers. They have solved the problem with retail workers, by giving them the absolute right to say they do not want to work on Sunday. What more could they do? What more could the law offer?

Mr Fletcher: You even said that in committee.

Mr Sorbara: No, no, I say to my friend the member for Guelph. It was the former Solicitor General, who was recently sitting in this chair, who said it would not work. I say it will work and I said it would work when I brought in worker protections as Minister of Labour, and that is good, that is fine.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: If members want to heckle, we can be here for about seven days if they like. They agreed to give me some time to speak.

If they want a common pause day for people, then they should give people a common pause day. They should give the steelworkers a common pause day, give the nurses a common pause day, give the factory workers a common pause day, give the construction workers a common pause day, give the ambulance drivers a common pause day. They should not stand up and hypocritically say in this House that because maybe 100,000 retail workers will not have to work as a result of this flawed, poorly thought out legislation, there is going to be a common pause day in Ontario. They know that is not true.

The even worse and even greater hypocrisy is that the government is going to bring in tourism criteria that are going to allow stores to open. My God, the Solicitor General congratulated the gentleman in the gallery for having chaired the body that is going to give us our tourism criteria: a very competent man who is the head of a grocery company and who was ably assisted by the president of Hudson's Bay Co. These are not tourist operations. If they have reached consensus, we know what those regulations say: If you say you are a tourist operation, then it is okay. That is another fraud on the people of Ontario.

1750

The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say we have tourism criteria that will accommodate anyone who wants to open, a great consensus from Hudson's Bay Co and Loblaws, tourist outfits all. Yes indeed, they will comply. Is that what the Solicitor General is telling us? That is another deception, I say to him, in this stupid, crazy, unfortunate debate on Sunday shopping.

The December issue was the greatest folly. The government talks about a common pause. My God, December is the busiest month for all of us. We have Christmas plays to go to. We have shopping to do. We have work to do. We have driveways to shovel. In that month, for some strange reason, the notion of a common pause, which is at the heart of everything the Premier talked about when he was in opposition, does not apply. It is hypocrisy, it is stupidity and it will not work. The people simply want their freedom. The people simply want an opportunity to make up their own minds as to what they do with their lives seven days a week. The people simply want to decide whether they will go out with their spouses and their children in the afternoon to a baseball game or to a park or to a store.

Local communities want the opportunity to establish their own standards. We saw that over the past two years. The community of Windsor decided it would prefer to allow its shopkeepers to stay open. This bill will pass and those stores will be forced to close. At the same time, the people of North Bay decided they wanted to keep their stores closed. North Bay's decision did not affect what Windsor wanted to do and Windsor's decision did not affect what North Bay wanted to do. People had the freedom to make up their own minds.

The New Democratic Party used to like to talk about freedom; now it talks about some stupid notion that somehow Bill 115 is going to give the people pause. It is going to give them no such thing. It is going to give lawyers hundreds and hundreds of hours to bill on behalf of clients who have to apply through the most complex application and appeal procedure we have ever come up with in this Parliament for so simple an issue as whether or not a store can open or close. It is going to give workers in this province no new opportunity to work. I think that is the greatest defect of all in this bill.

I know some people in this province would prefer to return to the Ontario of the 1940s and the early 1950s when frankly the swings in the parks were locked up. You could not see a movie; you certainly could not shop; you could not go to any kind of sporting event. You could not do very much of anything. There are some people who want to return to that kind of Ontario. It is very romantic and attractive, and I guess in a society based on freedom that is a valid point of view. But our obligation is to legislate for the Ontario that is about to be. The Ontario that is about to be does not want to discriminate between stores that are tourist stores and stores that sell chips rather than exotic fried potato chips to some tourist who is walking down the street. You cannot discriminate between a business that says, "I've got a 20% tourist clientele" and one that says, "Tourists come in maybe once or twice a month." If they want to open, they should be given their freedom. Democracies are all about vesting in people freedom.

We have considered this poorly drafted legislation freely in this Parliament for almost five and a half months. The legislation will not work. I can guarantee to members that within days of a new Parliament sitting this bill will be repealed because it does not work. In the meantime, I want to say to my friends on the government benches that in this matter, as in so many other matters, they have not served the people of Ontario well. That is why I and my party are going to be voting against this bill.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I would like to thank my colleagues in the House from all parties for their constructive exchange of views on Bill 115. There were days and moments when I did not enjoy the sessions in the clause-by-clause, but understanding that the government is here to promote legislation and the opposition is here to oppose, I took many of the comments then and today in that particular spirit. But overriding all of that, I did appreciate the appreciation of the various members on the committee as they attempted to do their job.

It is important to remember that this bill, borne of long-standing principles, timely commitments and diverse and thoughtful input from the public, is also a significant piece of legislation in its intent, in its content and in the open and consultative way in which it was developed.

Now as we move ahead towards a new year, I feel confident that an important position we have taken will be affirmed in law and an important promise that was made to the people of Ontario will be kept. That promise, as outlined in the throne speech of November 1990, involves legislation that provides for common pause days all Ontarians can share in. I believe Bill 115 achieves that.

I conclude my remarks by again thanking members of the government caucus and the opposition for their very thoughtful input with respect to this matter.

The Speaker: Mr Pilkey has moved third reading of Bill 115. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

1757

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 27(g), it is requested that the vote on the motion by the Honourable Allan Pilkey for third reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Monday, November 25, 1991. That request is by the member for Niagara South, the chief government whip.

Vote deferred.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for next week.

On Monday, November 25, following routine proceedings, we will have a vote on Bill 115 and then have royal assent on a number of bills. We will then resume the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday, November 26, we will continue Bill 143.

On Wednesday, November 27, there will be an opposition day.

On Thursday, November 28, in the morning, we will deal with private members' business, ballot items 47, standing in the name of Mr Mahoney, and 48, standing in the name of Mr Harris.

In the afternoon, we will continue the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 143, An Act respecting Management of Waste for the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

The House adjourned at 1801.