role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 12, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L103 - Thu 12 Feb 1987 / Jeu 12 fév 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

SPRAY PROGRAM

FARMING

MULTICULTURALISM

STEEL SHIPMENTS

HOCKEY GAME

COURT RULING

TAX REVENUES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RESPONSES

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

IDEA CORP.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

MARKETING BOARDS

IDEA CORP.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FERRY DOCK

IDEA CORP.

RENT REVIEW

HOUSING FOR THE DISABLED

TECHNOLOGY FUND

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

PETITIONS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

FREE TRADE

TRANSIT SERVICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

ACT

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC OPINION POLL

OPENING OF THIRD SESSION

RESOLUTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

STATUS OF BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

THIRD READINGS

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

MIGRAINE FOUNDATION ACT

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

SUPPLY ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ashe moved second reading of Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Ashe: It is indeed a pleasure to speak briefly this morning. I do not think I will take my total 20 minutes, although I want to reserve approximately five minutes for closing remarks at the appropriate time.

In putting forth Bill 188, I should make it very clear what my own personal philosophy is in regard to shopping hours and days of doing business in Ontario, and indicate to the members in complete honesty that I am one who still does favour the fact that we should have a common day of rest in Ontario. Because there are seven days of shopping in other jurisdictions, particularly to the south, does not mean it is the right thing for Ontario to become a seven-day commercial operation.

The immediate reaction might very well be to ask: "What is the idea behind Bill 188? Is it not further expanding the opportunities for businesses to operate on the seventh day of the week?" The answer to that, of course, is yes.

In any of these issues, to be fair we also have to be honest. We have to recognize the realities of the marketplace. We have to recognize what is happening out there now and the number of businesses that are allowed to operate in a legal fashion because of the nature of the service or goods they provide, the size of the establishment and, in some cases, the numbers of employees they are allowed to use.

There are some things that, quite honestly and fairly, should be available to the consuming public, in a sense, for the public to be entertained. They can now legally be entertained in many fashions by going to various functions such as sporting functions. They can now go to the races and they have been able to go to theatres, etc., for many years.

It seems rather queer that certain people who may find the opportunity on Sunday to go and browse in a bookstore, to choose at leisure their favourite novel, do not have that opportunity, and similarly with art galleries. Bill 188 would allow those whose particular interests lie along those lines the opportunity, which they may not get on any other day of the week, to browse at leisure and entertain themselves, if that is their forte, and to have the opportunity to make a purchase, if they are so inclined.

Early last year, through our leader, my party set up a task force on extended shopping hours. It toured the province and had public hearings, and there was considerable input on this issue. As a matter of fact, something in the order of 30 representations were made by interested groups that participated in the hearings throughout the province.

There is no doubt that out of that came the conclusion that the general principle of a common pause day should be maintained. There was also a general consensus on other areas. One of those had to do with the possibility of extending some Sunday shopping opportunities prior to Christmas by the opening of retail businesses -- in this case, it reads "for books and records." The task force went into some areas such as Boxing Day and so on which are not overly relevant to the discussion today.

The committee and I were very well pleased with the kind of representations that were made. Regardless of what side of the issue people were on, they made reasoned representations, which were fair and put forth in an honest manner. I would like to read and put on the record, for the benefit of the members, one brief that is very relevant to the bookstore situation.

In a brief presented by Edward Borins of Edwards Books and Art, he points out the confusing and chaotic situation with respect to the right of bookstores to operate on Sundays. I am going to quote from that brief because it states the main points I am trying to make today much better than I could in any other words. He says:

"What we now have is a situation where bookstores are exempted from Sunday closing in certain parts of Toronto designated as tourist-attraction areas; bookstores affiliated with government-funded institutions such as the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum; bookstores which sell a certain percentage of magazines and newspapers; bookstores located in certain specific tourist areas, such as the CN Tower or hotels or quasi-bookstores which sell books and magazines bordering on pornography." These are presently exempted and they are classified as places of amusement.

"All of these operations are legally open on Sundays and holidays. However, a bookstore such as our newest Edwards Books and Art, located at the corner of Yonge and Eglinton in Canada Square, which sells art books and quality literature written by a variety of international and national authors, such as Robertson Davies and Margaret Atwood, is apparently breaking the law by being open Sundays and holidays and selling these materials. In other words, a person may buy Penthouse or Playboy on Sunday, but he can't buy a copy of the Bible unless he shops at specifically designated bookstores....

"Certain nonessential retail operations are allowed to remain open on Sundays because they would encourage people to engage in certain leisure activities. This is the rationale that exempts antique stores, fruit markets during the summer months, smoke shops selling tobacco, newspapers or magazines. But why not bookstores? Can the government in its wisdom impose a value structure on our society that suggests that people are spending their leisure time more appropriately by buying and smoking cigarettes or by purchasing a newspaper or magazine to read rather than a book?"

That sums it up just as well as anything. There are people whose form of leisure or form of pleasure is to be able to browse in a bookstore. In my view, those same words could apply to art galleries and art stores, to browse and yet to have the opportunity still to make a purchase.

I think that is the reason Bill 188 is appropriate at this time. I know part of the response may very well be, "The government has now, through the co-operation of the three parties, set up a new task force" -- a new select committee in this case; our party's was a task force -- "which is going to begin deliberations in the near future."

I suspect their conclusions will probably not differ greatly from those of our task force of a year ago, but why wait? Now is the time to clarify these two areas so that people can go, look for and buy good literature and/or good art on Sunday in the same way they can go to the corner store in the context of a different kind of outlet to buy other types of magazines and periodicals.

I hope that in the spirit of what the people and the citizens of Ontario are quite agreeable to, regardless of their overall general views on Sunday shopping -- and again I emphasize that I am not one who subscribes to the view that we should open up to seven days of commercial enterprise -- we should realize and recognize the realities during the time they are there and take this opportunity of making it legal for businesses that are in the business of selling books, newspapers or periodicals, and art galleries, to be able to carry on, if they choose.

Again, I think this is important. We are not forcing them to open. Those who do not feel they wish to for their own reasons, those who do not feel they are in the correct geographical area, will not be obliged to open, but they will have the opportunity to open to serve their clientele legally. I ask for the support of all honourable members.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the last 10 minutes and 30 seconds?

Mr. Ashe: I would be quite prepared to hold on to just five minutes if that is appropriate.

Mr. Philip: It may come as a surprise to some members of the House, considering the views I have expressed on Sunday openings, that I will be supporting this amendment. In the past, I have argued that wide-open Sundays, particularly of grocery stores and large retail stores such as Eaton's and Simpsons, would be expensive to the consumer, would be harmful to families, would be coercive to employees and would be disastrous to some small businessmen who depend on a certain amount of large volume on Sunday when the large grocery stores are not open.

I do not believe this amendment in any way contradicts our strongly held views that Sunday is a day of rest when a majority of stores should be closed. What it does, as the member who has moved it has pointed out, is correct an inconsistency in the present legislation. As Robins, Appleby, Kotler, Banks and Taub, the barristers who have sent us some information on the proposed amendment, have suggested, the Supreme Court decision left bookstores, and in particular Edwards Books and Art, disheartened.

The fight of their committee that is lobbying for this particular bill -- and they assure us that they have the support of their union and of their employees -- is not for a wide-open Sunday, but rather it is to allow for a common quality pause day in the retail sector.

If we look at the Retail Business Holidays Act, we see under

section 3 an exemption clause. We see that the exemption is for "newspapers or periodicals, or tobacco or articles required for the use of tobacco." It seems to me blatantly absurd that I can buy a book in one store but not go into a bookstore to buy it. It seems to me blatantly unfair that a bookstore whose main product -- and in most cases only product, with the exception of perhaps a few calendars and stationery -- is books can have added competition it cannot meet. As someone who considers browsing in a bookstore to be my form of relaxation, my recreation, I can go to a baseball game or rent a videotape on Sunday but I cannot go buy a book or browse in a bookstore on Sunday.

I am looking forward to the hearings of the select committee on retail store hours, on which I will be representing our party. One of the first documents I looked at in preparation for these hearings was the Conservative task force report, dated April 18, 1986. I talked to some of the members of that task force. I congratulate them on preparing what I think is in many ways a balanced, nonpartisan document. Indeed, I think they did learn from the hearings they undertook.

I was so bold as to suggest that instead of our spending four weeks going around duplicating the Conservative Party task force, we should simply grill the Conservative members of that committee for four days and write our report. I gather that suggestion was unacceptable to the Liberals on the committee.

If we look at the Conservative Party task force report dealing with this specific issue, I think it comes to grips with it and makes some pertinent points. It says:

"The representations received, for the most part, argued one or the other side of the general principle of the maintenance of a common pause day. Very few attempted to make a case for further specific exemption, as one might have expected, from interest groups or particular sectors of the economy. However, a notably convincing presentation was received in Toronto from a group of new- and secondhand-book sellers. These included..." and it lists the various sellers.

Then it goes on to say that Mr. Edward Borins of Edwards Books and AR pointed out: "What we now have is a situation where bookstores are exempted from Sunday closing in certain parts of Toronto designated as tourist-attraction areas; bookstores affiliated with government-funded institutions such as the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum; bookstores which sell a certain percentage of magazines and newspapers; bookstores located in specific tourist areas such as the CN Tower or hotels or quasi-bookstores which sell books and magazines bordering on pornography, and classified as a `place of amusement.'

"All of these operations are legally open on Sundays and holidays. However, a bookstore such as our newest Edwards Books and Art, located at the corner of Yonge and Eglinton in Canada Square, which sells art books and quality literature, written by a variety of international and national authors, such as Robinson Davies and Margaret Atwood, is apparently breaking the law by being open Sundays and holidays and selling these materials."

In other words, a person in this city may buy Penthouse on Sunday, but he cannot buy Margaret Atwood's books. That seems to be blatantly absurd and unfair.

I note with interest an

article in the February 1984 issue of the trade newspaper Quill and Quire, in which the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), in his previous incarnation, argued in favour of opening bookstores on Sunday.

Basically, what this bill does is it logically slightly expands the exemptions under

section 3. In many ways, one can take this amendment as being analogous to exemptions under the Planning Act. Under the Planning Act, we have a certain set of guidelines or rules, but at the same time, there can be exemptions that simply make common sense. I suggest this is the same kind of commonsense amendment, an amendment which removes some of the inconsistencies in the present act and in no way interferes with the basic principle that Sunday is a day of rest and a day on which a majority of people and a majority of families should be able to get together.

As I mentioned, Bill 188 conforms with the findings of the Conservative Party task force on extended shopping hours. These people went around the province, and I think they heard a fairly wide variety of delegations and people. That task force did not come out in favour of a wide-open Sunday, but it did note that there was a problem in this one area. I think that was a reasonable request.

On this matter, one must look at basic principles, one must look at family life and one must look at society, but at the same time one cannot be dogmatic and prissy about the whole thing. I think this amendment is in keeping with the present act and with the present values of our society as they exist in Ontario. I hope other members will support the amendment and that we will pass it today.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I too am happy to rise in my place today and make a few comments on the private member's bill provided for us today by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe). It has been suggested that the Retail Business Holidays Act involves and evokes questions of social and economic issues which affect people throughout the entire province. I think this specific act demands our attention as conscientious legislators within Ontario.

I completely support the initiative of this bill, as I believe does each member of this House. I would like to take some time to discuss briefly the situation surrounding the Retail Business Holidays Act and how we as elected officials can best deal with its implications.

A year ago, in January 1986, the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) advised this House that after the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada had been passed down, the entire issue of holiday closing would be sent to a committee of the Legislative Assembly for review, "providing the opportunity for full, public discussion and the expression of the entire range of public concern to be presented directly to the members of this assembly."

This first step has now occurred. The retail store hours committee is presently preparing to travel across the province to listen to the presentations of concern and/or support from the people of the province. The second step is for this committee, on which I am pleased to have the opportunity to sit, to examine in detail proposals such as the one the member for Durham West has brought forth today in Bill 188.

I think I can safely surmise that, in principle, we have an all-party agreement supporting this morning's proposals. Without doubt the anomalies in this act must be rectified. A few weeks ago, during the estimates prepared for the standing committee on administration of justice, under the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) questioned the minister on this very same matter and used the words "the plight of the bookstores."

The suggestions discussed by the member included one which encouraged the minister to fine-tune the retail bookstores thing. To do so effectively demands that all views be heard through our democratic process. It is necessary that this should occur as laws are considered for both modification and/or amendment.

There are numerous issues to be discussed on this matter. We must discover who should open, exactly what a so-called tourist area is and who should be eligible to qualify for this exemption. To do this and to discover these answers, we need what our Premier (Mr. Peterson) has appropriately called a social consensus. Since the end of 1985, our government has verbally supported a major review of the Retail Business Holidays Act and hopes to achieve this much-desired social consensus, regardless of the Supreme Court decision brought down on December 18, 1986.

I am sure we are all aware that within Ontario today there exist numerous and varying opinions regarding the propriety of the current act. To be responsible legislators, we must allow for all segments of Ontario's population to have the opportunity to voice their grievances or their support for this act. With regard to the proposals before us today, we must hear how Ontario feels about this specific amendment.

During his opening remarks prior to the presentation of his task force report on this act, my colleague the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) admitted the task force did not hear from all segments within Ontario's population. My hope is that during the next month, as we travel across Ontario, we can hear from all possible segments of Ontario's population. l trust an all-party legislative committee will encourage representatives from all parts of Ontario life to come forward and discuss this issue from their own perspectives.

Today our immediate perspective focuses on the amendment before us, which would allow all retail establishments that sell only books, newspapers or periodicals, and all art galleries, to be open on Sundays and other public holidays. In theory, as I have already mentioned, we cannot help but agree with this proposal. However, the Solicitor General suggested to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, once again during the estimates in the standing committee on administration of justice, we must be cautious with such an amendment.

Initiating a change of this nature could invite several repercussions, such as other retail businesses that share similar attractions to those provided by a bookstore or an art gallery -- such as browsing, for instance -- demanding that they too receive exemption from the act. The minister cited the example of a pet store. I can think of others, but the point is it could begin a chain reaction if initiated at this stage. To prevent this possible chain reaction from taking place, we have the committee process where we hope these possible repercussions can be eliminated.

It might be worth while to mention it is not the arguments presented in support of today's bill that I am discounting. For the most part, I believe all the points presented by our bookstore lobbyists are extremely valid. Not only are these issues valid concerns, but stores in designated tourist areas are allowed to open on holidays and Sundays

whereas the exact same store in a nondesignated area is prohibited from doing the same; and there is the availability of videos and magazines versus the nonavailability of other types of good literature.

More important, the validity of these concerns serves another purpose at this stage of the legislative process. I am sure there are many stores in my own riding where videos are available on Sundays and other holidays. I guess this is something we want to address as we go about the province listening to the different presentations that may be made before this committee. They illustrate the difficulties and the confusions inherent within the act itself. They demand and reinforce the necessity for its review.

As a member of the committee who will be reviewing this very important issue, I am looking forward to the next few weeks of discussion. I would like to thank and congratulate the member for Durham West for the instigation of his private member's bill. I support his proposal and we will be pleased to examine it in detail during the committee procedures.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act presented by my colleague the member for Durham West.

I had the opportunity to be part of the task force that travelled part of the province and to hear what the people of the province felt about the many different aspects of Sunday shopping and retail hours. We are dealing today with this amendment which is part of the report that was prepared. The report has to do with books and records. It has to do with the presentations that were made in the city of Toronto and briefs that were received which indicated there are sections in Toronto that are classified as tourism areas and are classified for Sunday shopping. However, there are sections here that would not allow books to be sold on Sunday.

Really, what the report has said is that it urges the government to give effect to the genuine demand for additional shopping in Ontario. The amendment put forward by my colleague is just part of this report. I think it is a step in the right direction. My colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) indicated that instead of a new committee travelling the province to look into the aspects of business retail shopping time, we should look at the report that has been done. The last speaker indicated that only part of the survey has been done in this province.

I am here to tell members that it does not matter how many different committees there are that want to travel the province, one can always come up with some different ideas.

I do think the report that was done is a very thorough report. It was done right across the province and there was some great input that went into it. The radio stations in my riding and the chambers of commerce all did surveys of the people. The greatest indication was that there were about 70 per cent who always wanted that common pause day.

In some of the conclusions and recommendations, there was overwhelming support in favour of the maintenance of a common pause day, which is based upon the necessity of the preservation of the quality of life and the family unit. This argument stresses the potential effect upon family life.

If Ontario should change its policy with regard to the legislation, maybe 10 years down the road there will have to be another change. The tourist parts of the province can have a designation; they can pass a bylaw that will allow certain stores to stay open if they want to classify them as tourist areas. I went through that many years ago as reeve of a municipality, so I know the requests that come in.

When we look at the overall report, it appears to me that there will be no change in the effect on family life if we maintain the status quo, but then everybody is not in favour of that. There are people who want to have their stores open on Sunday. Some people like to go to ball games on Sunday, some like to go to the movies and some like to go to the theatre.

In Ontario, business people have indicated to me that they did not want to be open seven days a week. They felt that the price of the products they were selling would have to be increased to pay those extra people over that extra day. There is only so much money, whether people spend it in six days or seven. I believe this amendment is a step in the right direction. It is an amendment that is going to set a tone that there is need to change some of our laws in the province with regard to the Retail Business Holidays Act. I hear from the people who discuss it with me that there are some who really do have a very sincere concern with regard to this.

I am sure the committee that will be travelling the province will come up with a lot of the same recommendations that are already in the report. When I realized there was going to be a committee working for a month, l thought some of the business that has gone through this House and been referred to committees would have been a lot more important for this committee to deal with than some of the referrals that have been made to it.

When we stop and think of the number of people, the increased population and how times have changed, perhaps a little broader extension of the law would be in order, but I believe this report sums it all up. What this amendment is really doing is strengthening that report and trying to change some aspects of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

I support my colleague's resolution, the amendment to the act, and I wish every other person in this Legislature would do so.

Mr. Reville: I am pleased to take

part in the debate on Bill 188, brought forward by the member for Durham West. I want to say at the outset that I think the bill is reasonable in itself and is one with which I suspect many people would feel quite comfortable. Of course, the problem is that there is no consensus on the issue of Sunday shopping and, regrettably, I suspect it will be very difficult to achieve consensus on the issue.

As a graduate of Toronto city council, for my sins, I was enveloped in this debate a number of times over the five years I served on that council, and I suspect I have listened to virtually every possible argument on one side of the issue or the other. I will be finding out whether that is correct when I serve on the select committee on retail store hours.

The legislation that currently exists in the province is somewhat bizarre and reflects the difficulty in achieving a consensus about this matter. In fact, I suspect the previous legislation took its shape because of certain trade-offs that were made during the interesting and sometimes invaluable negotiating that goes on in a legislature. Of course, it has created a number of fairly bizarre situations in which stores next to one another and in approximately the same business are treated differently in terms of holidays.

I always find it difficult when dealing with a piece of legislation that is not understandable. In fact, I think one of the prerequisites of a good piece of legislation is that it make sense to people. There is no question that the Retail Business Holidays Act does not make sense to people.

It certainly does not make sense to those who believe there should be no holiday shopping; it does not make sense to those who believe there should be total, anything-goes Sunday or holiday shopping; and it certainly, and maybe more important, does not make sense to those who live next to retail strips or those who are responsible for the activity of a retail strip.

In my own riding, I get fairly frequent deputations from business people who are in some perplexity about the way the Retail Business Holidays Act works and why it is as it is. Some stores are fined or charged for being open when a very similar kind of store is not, and that, of course, leaves people wondering just what is going on and whether or not legislation is being applied with an even hand.

On some occasions, because of the nature of the shopping district in my riding, some people feel there is a racial connotation to the way the law is applied. The Metro police are responsible for enforcing this legislation. Some of my Chinese business people believe they are singled out for particular abuse, and we have met on some occasions with the business people and the police to try to sort out whether or not that is correct.

The dilemma I have with the bill of the member for Durham West is that, while I do not object to it in a personal sense in any way, I think it is somewhat premature, given that we are about to embark on yet another review of the matter and the committee will be charged with trying to make some sense out of a situation. That creates a lot of fairly firm opinion.

I do not know how we could add a particular type of business to the list without creating unhappiness among other businesses that are not added to the list. I think, too, we will discover that we will encounter people with very strong opinions that this should not happen or that this should happen, and we will not, of course, encounter people who have not much opinion at all. A large majority of people are in that last category; they do not really much care one way or the other about this issue, and they would shop on a Sunday if stores were open but it is not going to be the end of the world if they are not.

People who are in business do not have unanimous opinion either. We will hear representations from businesses that absolutely do no want to be open on holidays and are very concerned that they will be required to open on holidays if they are in a mall that has a contract that says they will be open when everybody else is open. Interestingly enough, I expect Birks will take that position. That was the position they took recently in one of the interminable debates at Toronto city council on the matter.

In conclusion, I think there is nothing offensive or inappropriate about the member for Durham West's bill, except perhaps the timing.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I, too, am pleased to be able to rise this morning and participate in the debate on Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. In the beginning, I would like to indicate that I cannot support the bill, for reasons I would like to put forth. I believe we have had to deal only with the store closings. Before Christmas, it came before the court, and the decision was that stores that were open had been open illegally.

I feel strongly that Sunday should be a day set aside for rest, and that has been a tradition in Ontario and in Canada, for that matter. I would like to see that maintained somewhat for our future generations. I realize this bill is specifically dealing with the selling of books and newspapers, and it is a portion of the overall Retail Business Holidays Act, but I think we are reviewing that at present. A committee has been established by the government of the day.

I respect that the official opposition had a task force which went around Ontario looking at options. Certainly, it is going to be useful input into any new legislation brought forward, but under our system any new changes have to be brought in by the government of the day. I do not think we would want to do it in a piecemeal fashion. The bill was reviewed, I believe, 10 years ago, again when we had a minority government, and changes were made at that time to support tourist areas. I believe we do have to listen to the public and provide services at its request, but it cannot be done in a piecemeal fashion.

I believe it should be done in an orderly fashion, and the way the government is approaching it at present is the way it should be dealt with. Therefore, I commend the fact that a committee has been established. The work done by the official opposition will certainly have an influence. Those ideas will be utilized.

With all the committees being established, we do not have a lot of time -- one month is not adequate to go around the province -- so shortcuts will have to be used to come up with a report that will be useful for the minister or the government of the day to move forward with proper legislation to deal with the overall review of the Retail Business Holidays Act. The last speaker indicated that. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) was saying something similar.

While I respect the member for Durham West, his expertise and his sincerity, I believe the bill has generated debate this morning. It is going to be useful as far as the changes and the overall review of the Retail Business Holidays Act. I commend them for that. I hope it will make for better service to Ontario and the residents therein.

With those comments, I would like to say thanks for the opportunity of participating in the debate this morning.

Ms. Bryden: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 188 and urge all members to support it as an indication of the need to change the exemption relating to retail bookstores. My colleagues have pointed out very clearly that there are a number of anomalies in the act and that this is one of the most serious ones. It puts retail bookstores in the position of being treated unequally with regard to selling books and art materials on Sunday,

whereas books can be sold in drug stores, variety stores, tourist areas and even corners of grocery stores that may have a little

section on books. Also, other similar material, such as videotapes, can he sold on Sundays as a matter of entertainment.

I want to draw to the attention of the House that there is a subsection in the Retail Business Holidays Act which says premises may be open on Sundays. Subsection 3(6) says closing on Sunday "does not apply in respect of the admission of the public to premises for educational, recreational or amusement purposes or in respect of the sale or offering for sale of goods or services incidental thereto."

In effect, what this bill is doing is simply clarifying that bookstores really offer educational activities and do fall under subsection 3(6). It is not clear in the act. Therefore, they need a separate exemption. I think it would be very useful to pass this bill to indicate our support of it and not to leave it entirely up to the committee that is sitting.

This will be a further guide to the committee that a large number of members are in favour of giving this special clarification and exemption to retail bookstores, because certainly they perform a very important educational function and the ability to browse through bookstores on a Sunday, as well as to purchase books, is part of our cultural development.

I know the group of retail bookstores that has been holding press conferences and urging this activity has had the support of a great many of our writers, artists, journalists and educators. Therefore, this is another very strong reason for supporting this bill as an indication to the select committee of the kind of legislation that is needed in order to remove anomalies and promote our education activities.

Mr. Ashe: First, I want to thank all honourable members who participated in the debate this morning. We did have the opportunity to hear from six other members. Needless to say, I particularly want to thank the member for Etobicoke, the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine for their indicated support.

One thing that came across loud and clear, in my view, was that even with the two other speakers, the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith) and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) -- even though they may not be thinking that way right at the moment, if they read over their remarks in Hansard I am sure they will agree -- I got the impression that not only are they thanking me for bringing forth the issue but they also subscribe to what this bill is trying to do. However, they have their walking orders that suggest it is premature. It is too bad, because we always have the opportunity to procrastinate in righting a wrong.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of the speakers who spoke in support of Bill 188 are not for a wide-open Sunday. Again I emphasize for those members who were not here earlier for my opening remarks, neither am I. I think we do need that common day of rest, but there are anomalies that can be and should be rectified as quickly as possible. Procrastination does nothing to rectify those situations.

To go ahead now and pass Bill 188 will in no way impede the work of the select committee and its hearings. Again I want to emphasize that I am quite sure it is going to end up with a similar report to what our task force did about a year ago, so why wait? If we can clear up some anomalies now to let people have the opportunity to take forth their particular form of entertainment -- if you want to put it in that context, to be able to go to the bookstore instead of the theatre, the racetrack, the football or baseball game or whatever -- legally, I see nothing wrong with that.

It is the same for those who have attractions, stores, art galleries and so on. Whether in both instances it is just because of the nature of the day that they have more time to enjoy themselves, to browse, and yet to ultimately have the opportunity to make a legal purchase, I think that is important.

We are not trying to open up the seventh day to wide-open situations, but there are absolutely crazy anomalies out there, particularly in these two areas, and we do have the opportunity today to rectify that situation. I hope and feel this resolution will receive majority support of the Legislature on second reading this morning.

I go so far as to call on and challenge the government. Let us not procrastinate. Let us even go for unanimous consent this afternoon to call this bill for third reading and start the opportunity right away, to correct the anomalies and give people the opportunity to be able to buy a book, to be able to buy the Bible instead of Penthouse or Playboy as they now can legally, to be able to go to and browse in the art galleries and make purchases. Let us correct that anomaly today. Why wait until tomorrow?

FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

Mr. Wildman moved resolution 10:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that small municipalities do not have the financial base necessary to purchase modern, effective and reliable fire protection equipment, the government should provide direct financial assistance to small municipalities for the purchase of fire protection equipment.

Mr. Wildman: I am very happy that this resolution, which I introduced in the House in July 1985, has finally come before the House for debate.

I have tremendous respect for the volunteers who give their time and risk their lives to save the lives of the general public and to protect property in very serious emergency situations. These volunteers have to drive great distances, some times at high speeds, and they have to enter burning, smoke-filled structures that are very dangerous. In my view, they require and must have modern, efficient equipment to assist them in their work.

The reason I have introduced this resolution today is that I do not believe the unconditional grants now available to the small municipalities across Ontario are sufficient to allow them to purchase this kind of equipment. The unconditional grants are just too low and are not directed to the needs that these small municipalities have.

I realize there are a number of members in the House who have small municipalities and communities with volunteer fire departments. I hope they will pay attention to the debate because I do want their support at the end of the day.

It has been suggested that in the resolution I should have defined the word "small" and limited it at a certain number. I intentionally did not put in a figure. I wanted to leave it to the discretion of the government to determine what figure was more appropriate. Other members may have suggestions in the debate as to a figure of population that would be desirable for a definition in terms of which municipalities would be eligible.

I indicate that 88 municipalities in this province have endorsed this resolution and not all of them were small municipalities that would benefit from my proposal. For example, the city of Timmins passed a resolution endorsing my resolution, indicating it believed that small municipalities need to have adequate fire protection equipment and that it was in support of a move by the government to provide this kind of equipment and assistance to smaller communities.

This matter was brought to a head by the fact that under the leadership of my colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), the Ministry of Northern Affairs a number of years ago instituted a program to provide financial assistance and equipment such as rapid attack vehicles, portable pumps and turnout gear, etc., to unorganized communities in the north. This has been a very important and useful program for the small unorganized communities across northern Ontario.

We used to joke sometimes in the House about the member for Kenora arriving in the fire truck with the light going and siren blaring, to the celebration of everyone in the community. The reason everyone celebrated as they did was that all the people in those small communities recognize how important it is to have this kind of equipment so they will not be vulnerable to losing everything, perhaps even their lives, if there is a fire. It is a very important and useful program.

We have to recognize that small organized communities, that is ones with a municipal organization, in some cases have smaller populations than some of the unorganized communities. Small municipalities, particularly in rural areas, have too small a local tax base, even when combined with the unconditional grants from the provincial government, to be able to purchase the equipment that their volunteer fire brigades need. Often they are dependent on old-secondhand and even thirdhand-obsolete equipment for which there are no longer parts available.

This equipment may fail just at the time it is needed, putting the lives of the volunteer firemen at risk and, at the same time, putting the lives of the people they are attempting to save at even greater risk.

I have a number of examples I would like to read into the record of the reason that it is so important that the House pass this resolution today. The first one I want to refer to is from the township of Barclay at Dryden. This is a letter from the clerk-treasurer. It says:

"We in Barclay feel that we are being penalized for being incorporated. There is very little physical difference between our township and the surrounding unorganized rural areas. However, since the residents of Barclay chose to become organized in order to exert some control over development of the community and to support provincial policies, we are ineligible for Northern Affairs grants for firehalls and to receive a fire truck.

"Needless to say, our residents look askance at our neighbours across the highway who live, work and play in the same way as we do and simply because they choose to remain unorganized are entitled to a bigger slice of the provincial pie." In this case, they are referring to the program of assistance for unorganized communities under the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

I have another one here from the township of St. Joseph at Richards Landing on St. Joseph Island. It says:

"The township of St. Joseph presently has a pumper truck, being the municipality's main fire truck, which is 25 years old. Following a recent inspection of this truck by a certified mechanic, we were advised that major repairs were required and that this vehicle was not safe to be on the road in its present condition.

"Upon investigation, we learned that the parts necessary to repair this vehicle were no longer available because of the age of the vehicle. This vehicle was consequently removed from service, which thus greatly reduced the municipality's firefighting capabilities.

"This vehicle is now back in service, however. The fact that the replacement parts are not available for this vehicle serves to reinforce the municipality's belief that this vehicle must be replaced in the very near future. It appears that some form of financial assistance from the provincial government will be required in order for this municipality to provide adequate fire protection for its inhabitants."

Here is another letter, in this case from the secretary of the volunteer fire department in the township of Blake near Thunder Bay. It says:

"The Blake volunteer fire department has become a reality only through the hard work and determination of the people in Blake. We have held dances, raffles, teas, bake sales, stags and any other activity that would bring in some funds. Since the group got organized in November 1982, we have managed to purchase a 1943 Ford pumper, a 1950 GMC pumper and a 1965 Mercury tanker. In this time too, we have built a main fireball and this summer a satellite station.

"Most of the fire equipment has been hand-me-downs from other departments because we could not afford to purchase it at all. There is still a lot of equipment needed, a numbering system set up, and also we will one day have to update our trucks. As you can see by the years, they are quite old. Where will all the necessary funds come from? Our township does not have the tax base to build and support a fire department completely.

"As you can see, we have not sat back and waited for grants. The association members have gone out and worked hard to raise funds, and I think we have done well. It does not seem fair that our department should be denied funds just because we are in an organized municipality. I think we have proved we are willing to work. All we ask is a little help now, and we are having trouble raising more money."

From the town of Charlton at Englehart: "Presently, the town of Charlton is being asked to share in the purchase of a new fire truck for Englehart area fire department. The price is around $85,000, our share being 4.67 per cent. This amounts to a tax levy on our ratepayers of about 10 mills in one year. This is indeed a heavy burden for our small municipality with its present population of 222 and such a low tax base."

I have one from the administrator of the township of Fauquier: "We have put the onus on the volunteer firefighters to raise 20 per cent of the required dollars for the purchase of equipment. The municipality will raise the remaining 30 per cent, with 50 per cent coming from JEPP. I do not think it is right to ask volunteers, over and above their duty of firefighting, to raise funds, but under the circumstances, we had no choice."

In this case, we can see that volunteers are not only being asked to train, become conversant with the ways to fight fires and go out to risk their lives, but they are also expected to go out and spend a lot of time raising funds for the equipment that is needed to protect the community. In my view, it is just not fair.

I have a letter from the fire chief of the town of Rayside-Balfour as well: "It must be considered that the fire protection in a community, large or small, is very important to resident safety. When fire occurs in a community, jobs may be lost, depending on the location of the emergency. More dangerous goods are being transported by rail, road or air. All types of commodities are being transported. Increasingly, hazardous material spills will have to be controlled by the local fire departments.

"In many cases, this emergency service is deprived of necessary equipment because of the inability of the local municipality to pay, because there are no grants available for this emergency service. The community will sometimes have to face disaster because of the lack of emergency equipment that will be supplied by a fire service."

These are just a few examples of the large number of letters I have received from fire departments and small municipalities across the province. I also have a letter from the secretary of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs in which he endorses this proposal. When I finish up, I will refer to this.

What has been the response of government so far, both the previous and present governments? In most cases, the Solicitors General have been very sympathetic, as have the Ministers of Municipal Affairs; but sympathy does not pay for fire trucks. We still do not have any commitment from the government. I believe the passage of this resolution would be a step towards the assembly persuading the government to respond.

The latest letter I have is from the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) to the town of Latchford, dated January 28, 1987. In that letter, the Solicitor General concludes, "I am not optimistic that additional resources will be available from the province to assist municipalities in dealing with their firefighting responsibilities, at least in the immediate future."

I believe it is time for this House to speak out on behalf of the volunteer firemen who are risking their lives across Ontario to ensure they get the kind of equipment they need. I believe it is time for this House to speak out on behalf of the small municipalities that have too low a tax base and do not have sufficient funds or ways to raise those funds to provide the equipment their fire departments need.

It is time we spoke as a group to persuade the government to move in this area. It is of the utmost importance. I urge my colleagues in the House to support my resolution today as a first step towards persuading the government to provide the grants that are necessary for small municipalities, in the same way it is providing them to the unorganized communities in the north.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to reserve the rest of my time for the end of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Six minutes even.

Mr. McKessock: I rise to speak on this resolution provided by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I congratulate him for bringing this resolution forward.

It has been an area of concern to a lot of small municipalities throughout Ontario, and I have received many letters from municipalities in my riding. There is no doubt that smaller municipalities, particularly, could use help with capital for fire equipment expenditures. There is little in the way of direct funding or shared-cost arrangements with such small municipalities. To qualify as a small municipality, a population level of 15,000 could be an appropriate demarcation point. There are approximately 725 firefighting facilities in Ontario communities of fewer than 15,000 people.

Historically, it was felt the grant system would be limited to incorporated municipalities and would not be applied to unorganized communities, because they had available to them the financial resources of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to help them build and equip fire facilities through the unorganized communities assistance program.

In the past, the government chose to place emphasis on the need to provide capital assistance to upgrade fire and police facilities, as opposed to the firefighting equipment; although it is acknowledged that there is an additional need to upgrade equipment, it has been felt other grant structures were in place that could deal with these problems, such as the unorganized community assistance program and the extrication equipment program.

The needs for both new firefighting facilities and new equipment go hand in hand. The unorganized community assistance program is exclusively for the unorganized communities and provides no benefits to small municipalities. This has resulted in anomalies being created wherein unorganized communities find themselves in a more preferred position with respect to firefighting equipment than their neighbouring municipalities. The extrication equipment program provides nominal assistance to municipalities to buy extrication equipment and does not provide them with any financial assistance to acquire expensive firefighting equipment.

Should direct funding be extended, one hopes municipalities will share in the cost and commitment. It would be preferable to have matched grants, as opposed to outright grants, thereby encouraging municipalities to improve their own facilities to a desired level.

In Ontario, there are in excess of 650 fire departments. There are 33 full-time departments, 122 composite fire departments and 519 part-time fire departments. It is important to appreciate that the provision of fire protection services has placed severe financial burdens upon small municipalities. Fire protection is very expensive. Recent surveys conducted by the office of the fire marshal have demonstrated that 95 per cent of those municipalities surveyed required new or upgraded facilities and new or refurbished firefighting apparatus. A new fire truck costs approximately $100,000, and it costs approximately $25,000 to refurbish an old one. A new water tanker costs approximately $50,000.

Unlike police protection, fire protection is not mandatory at this time. There is no doubt the provision of mandatory fire protection service is desirable; however, it may not seem appropriate to obligate all municipalities to provide fire protection services without a corresponding grant structure which would assist such municipalities in financially supporting such a service.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General, up to this point, has been supporting the municipal fire departments by providing training for the volunteer firefighters at the fire college. The provision of grants to municipalities to provide fire protection services has never been undertaken. It would be expensive, and one would anticipate that at some stage municipalities with more than 15,000 residents would expect comparable grants to assist them in providing this expensive, but truly needed service.

The provision of fire protection has been a municipal responsibility. The unconditional grants program of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs currently provides extensive financial support to small municipalities referred to in the resolution. The extent of this financial support is substantial. Through the unconditional grants program, a small municipality in northern Ontario recovers as much as 50 per cent of any expenditure it incurs to provide municipal services, including the purchase of fire protection equipment.

I have a table here, which shows that 50 per cent of fire protection costs in the north have been covered by unconditional grants. The table also bears out that 32 per cent of the other municipalities of Ontario have been covered by an unconditional grant.

In 1987, nearly $160 million will be paid to northern municipalities under the program. An often neglected fact about these funds is that they carry no condition as to the way they are spent. This allows municipal councils to establish their own spending priorities, which may include, in addition to fire equipment, all other services provided to local ratepayers.

Other initiatives that municipalities can take include an exchange-of-service agreement to provide an enhanced level of fire protection services in a cost-effective way. I think this is being carried out more and more each year, as fire protection departments work together.

It is clear that any extension of a direct grant program for fire protection equipment must be undertaken with caution and a commitment to fiscal responsibility, while at the same time recognizing the needs of these small communities.

It concerns me a little bit that many have just built new facilities, but the equipment is an ongoing need. A grant program, should it come in, should span a 10-year to 15-year period so that municipalities can take advantage of it as the need arises and not feel obligated to rush out and buy new equipment right off the bat.

I do support the member's resolution. Of course, it is a little bit like motherhood. It is hard not to support a resolution that is going to assist our local municipalities.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to rise this morning to support the resolution from my colleague the member for Algoma. This private member's resolution states, "That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that small municipalities do not have the financial base necessary to purchase modem, effective and reliable fire protection equipment," etc. Then he indicates that the government should provide direct financial assistance to small municipalities to purchase this equipment.

In the small municipalities of Ontario, budget matters are in many ways calculated on a different base to those in the major urban municipalities. On the matter of the provision of fire protection for the citizens of the smaller municipalities, certain factors come into play that have to be addressed, both by that municipality and by the provincial government.

There is little doubt that the smaller municipalities have limited resources to purchase extremely costly equipment and, not only that, for the smaller municipalities it is also necessary to have this equipment and the protection. They have a tax base that, generally speaking, is based on residential and farming rather than on industrial revenues. Much smaller per capita revenues are generated for these municipalities, thus presenting the difficulties. I am referring specifically to proper firefighting equipment and related resources.

With equipment costs escalating yearly, the financing problems faced by the rural municipalities in relation to firefighting equipment increase proportionately. A fireman's regular clothing now costs in the area of $1,000 per man, and his helmet could cost another $100. A basic, fully equipped fire engine costs about $125,000; and a more elaborate, fully equipped vehicle would run in the range of $300,000. I am sure the honourable members can easily understand that these costs are far beyond the capabilities of the majority of small municipalities and communities in Ontario.

The problems of limited funding are further demonstrated by the several unique problems facing the small northern communities of the province. They generally have a more limited firefighting staff and are dependent on volunteers only. The often severe climatic conditions add to the difficulties and to the costs necessary to freezeproof equipment. Many of the roads also are unpaved, and fire equipment has to travel a much longer distance to reach its destination there than it does in the city.

In the cities there are hydrants, of course, and a system that provides for rapid fire containment. Not so in rural communities. Water is available from static sources such as ponds, rivers and storage tanks. It is apparent that more modern fire equipment would help offset this disadvantage. But more modern fire equipment is extremely costly, and the taxpayers of the province are not easily convinced that the large portion of their dollars should be spent on fire protection. It is much easier to bury a $250,000 fire track cost in a $500-million budget than in a $5-million budget, or even a $1-million budget.

Provincial support has traditionally been given to what are called unorganized communities, or those centres with established populations that are not legal entities like towns or cities. Just short of 50 of these communities have received equipment and training support from the provincial government, and this was the policy of the former government of the province. It is hoped that this, at least, will continue to be the policy of this government.

My concerns, however, are that there will be cutbacks in the provision of funding for this type of very necessary service, such as the weekend training of volunteers, as was brought before this House by me last week. The former government always had the policy of supplying small municipalities and unorganized communities with portable pump packages, which cost in the area of $15,000 to $25,000, and they paid the workers' compensation costs of the local firefighters in certain areas.

These actions are no longer enough, and with our growing population, much more will have to be done. The present system of providing unconditional grants to municipalities to be used as they see fit was a valid method until recently. A municipality could assign the grant money to whatever it felt was necessary. This inevitably led to a great deal of debate on priorities, and often the moneys would be diluted down to where, in the case of fire equipment needs, there was insufficient money available.

The problem that I and my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) brought up in the House last week regarding the ending of the weekend fire training courses at the Ontario Fire College is another example of the effect that rising costs are having on the safety of our smaller communities. In 1986, 10 courses were run for the weekend volunteers by the Ontario Fire College, and this year, with 300 applicants already awaiting training, budgetary restraints have held up the decision to continue with these courses in 1987. These volunteer firemen are willing to give up their weekends to take the necessary courses, but so far there appears to be no money in the budget to allow them to do so.

I am disappointed that the Solicitor General is not in the House this morning to listen to this debate, because I think it is very, very important. Members can see that the province is faced with a very real dilemma. The rural municipalities, towns, villages and unincorporated communities have similar needs when it comes to fire protection, as do the large urban centres, but they do not have the funds to pay for it.

It is this situation in the province that we are facing today. Where are we going to obtain the necessary funds to maintain and update the firefighting equipment and the training of the volunteers who man this equipment? Ontario already supplements the northern communities' unconditional grants by an additional 17.5 per cent, but this is still far below what is required in relation to fire equipment needs. Small villages and unincorporated communities may have equipment on loan, but this must be considered a stopgap measure only.

Similarly, the present three training sessions per year allotted to firemen in northern communities are hardly sufficient, especially as these firemen are then expected to return to their own units and pass on their training to their fellow firemen: more stopgap measures.

Action has to be taken to address these problems. They are very real and they are life-threatening problems. Money is hard to come by everywhere and all members of this House are aware of that fact, but we cannot allow people to die because we spent the taxpayers' money on a computer museum or on flying around the country instead of on the somewhat less glorious item of firefighting equipment.

There is a well-known story in firefighters' circles that tells of the fire on a New Year's Eve a few years ago near New Liskeard. The house was located in an area where the two closest fire departments did not have an agreement to go into the area where the house was burning. Neither fire department would respond to the call, and the house burned down. Fortunately, no lives were lost.

The township where the fire took place had asked for a fire department to be set up to protect its residents, but even after possible subsidies that might be available from the federal and provincial governments the balance would be extremely high. As a result of cases such as this in Ontario, many areas do not have reasonable fire protection available to them, and something must be done about this.

In conclusion, I would urge that this government immediately institute some action whereby the small municipalities and the unincorporated communities of Ontario may be provided with proper firefighting equipment and training for the volunteers who will operate it. The Solicitor General should take action. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) should take action. People's lives are at stake. I am sorry if any honourable member feels that I am being melodramatic about this, but action must be taken, and it must be taken now.

I want to indicate to members some of the incidents close to me in my riding. I can mention the municipality of the township of Rama, which does not have its own firefighting equipment; it has a contract with the township of Tay and a contract with the township of Mara in order to provide services for that municipality. It is a small municipality with a small tax base.

The township of Matchedash is another area where volunteers went out and raised money. They have had raffles; they have done all kinds of things in order to establish a firehall in that community. It took them years to do it, but they had the volunteers and the Women's Institute. They all donated and they built this firehall for the people's protection.

Why does the province not help more dramatically these very small communities? As I said before, there are lives at stake. It is so important for these communities that help be provided because of their small capital base.

Mr. Hayes: I certainly want to congratulate and compliment the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) for really knowing the subject and putting it forward in a very eloquent manner.

It is indeed a pleasure for me today to stand in this Legislature in support of the motion made by my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), which says that the government should provide direct financial assistance to small municipalities for the purchase of fire equipment.

I live in a municipality that to some might be considered one of the larger rural municipalities, with a population of nearly 10,000 people; that is the township of Maidstone. I sat on the township council as councillor, as deputy reeve and as reeve, and I can tell members that even though Maidstone may be considered as one of the larger municipalities, when it comes time to purchase fire protection equipment it is a real financial burden. I can certainly understand why the member for Algoma has introduced this motion. I know it is a very high financial burden for the municipality I come from.

The member is introducing this motion because the population up in those areas is considerably smaller. Instead of talking about thousands, we are talking about a couple of hundred people, and it is very unfortunate that a handful of people have to try to carry such a high financial burden to protect lives in those communities.

In 1980, when I was reeve of Maidstone township, we were in the market for a new fire truck. At that time, we took advantage of the timing of there being a firefighters' conference in Hamilton. I and one of the other councillors went to that convention and took a room. We informed the three fire equipment dealers there that we were going to purchase a fire truck before we left the conference and that the company that came up with the best deal would get the sale.

At the same time, we did not go through the tendering process, which does give companies the chance to put a higher price on their product. When it is tendered, they just put a fixed price, which can create another financial burden for municipalities. What we did saved the municipality a considerable amount of money, but I can just see some of the other municipalities not being able to do the same thing. I do not think the small municipalities can even afford to send people to these conferences. They cannot afford to drive or fly all around this province or the country to try to get the best deal for their municipality. That is another burden.

I really wonder what many or all of our municipalities that have volunteer firefighters would do if they no longer had these volunteers. Volunteer firefighters are very proud and very dedicated people. They are always ready to leave and they are always available when a fire call comes in; whether it be in the middle of the night or during the day, it does not matter.

I know in my municipality we have people who work in the automobile industry, for example. When there is a fire call, these people get up and leave and actually lose money out of their own pockets by doing so. That does not bother them because they are very dedicated people and their concern is to save property, jobs and lives.

I also know in my municipality, and I am sure in many of the other municipalities, the volunteers spend long hours and many weekends trying to maintain the equipment they have. They do this on their own time and without any remuneration. The reason they do it is that they know many of the municipalities could not afford to send all their work out to keep their equipment up to date. That is just one more area.

Firefighters are very dedicated. They are concerned and they are proud. If the funds are not available for these small municipalities the member for Algoma is speaking about to purchase modern, effective and reliable fire equipment, these municipalities stand to lose some of these dedicated firefighters, these dedicated volunteers.

When a fire department does not have reliable firefighting or fire protection equipment, morale can become very low. The firefighters can get very frustrated and depressed when they do not have dependable fire protection equipment. They can get very frustrated and depressed when property, jobs and lives are lost because their equipment was outdated or broke down on the way to the fire. That is a very serious concern.

Let us put ourselves in that same position. If we are supposed to be the people who are protecting these properties and lives, and if we do not have the tools to do the job, I do not know of many people today who would stay on a job if they did not have the proper tools to do the job that had to be done. It can be very frustrating, and my heart goes out to all these volunteer firefighters who are out there on their own time when there are many other places they would like to be.

The least this government can do is to make the funding available so these volunteer fire departments, especially in small areas, can do the job they want to do, which is to protect lives. That is about the least this government can do. Just to reiterate, I very strongly support the motion of the member for Algoma and urge the rest of the members in this Legislature to do the same. It was a pleasure speaking in support of this resolution.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to speak on ballot item 46 and support the resolution of the member for Algoma. It is a timely debate this morning, looking at the comments of previous speakers. In particular, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) -- and it has been touched on by other members who remarked about the unconditional grants now provided to municipalities -- talked about the grants of 50 per cent going to municipalities in northern Ontario and I think it is about 33 per cent to municipalities in southern Ontario.

Perhaps one of the problems is that they are not earmarked for fire protection. I often look at that and say it is good that we can get the government to move in that direction and say that it is providing some funding for fire protection in unorganized communities, small hamlets, smaller towns and townships across Ontario.

I often have difficulty, though, when I get letters from fire chiefs and firemen, particularly from the Niagara region, saying, "Why does the provincial government not remove the sales tax on fire equipment?" If you are talking about buying a piece of fire equipment today, say a class A pumper, you are looking at about somebody mentioned $100,000 to $125,000. I think the city of Port Colborne is spending around $140,000. Maybe they are going to a Cadillac approach, but they are buying a Mack, one of the best out there, you might say.

I listened to the member for Algoma talk about the difficulties with some of the antique equipment out there; in my area, they are called antiques and are on display in parades and so on. I can recall my first days of involvement in the volunteer fire company in Port Colborne. We used to have a 1926 Godferson fire truck. The volunteers at that time called it the "Godforsaken fire truck" because we had to push it down the main street of Port Colborne. If you wanted to put the pump into gear, you had to have three persons, one on the throttle, one on the clutch and one with a big crowbar to get the pump going.

We used to be criticized by council at that time because it was taking us some 20 or 25 minutes to get to a fire. It was embarrassing for volunteers and it was rather discouraging.

When I talk about the time to get to a fire, I think it is most important that we look at the purpose of fire departments and firefighters in Ontario. They provide the service not only for firefighting purposes, but also for emergency first aid. Those are the two priorities. Often the government of the day, the previous government, seemed to have forgotten what services the firemen provide. Now they are involved in the Jaws of Life. The Solicitor General has provided some funding, but again, it is up to volunteers to raise the rest of it selling raffle tickets and you name it.

I am concerned about the present move in which more municipalities are going to have to be involved in the 911 number, and that is going to be costly. I find, looking at the 911 number, for example, it is really the fire department that is going to back up the ambulance services in Ontario. Many volunteer firemen today are well qualified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and thank God for that. We have someone we can depend upon in the community where we do not have the ambulance service responding in the time that is allowed.

I think the safety margin is about five minutes. If you cannot get there, you might as well forget about it. Even in the case of a building on fire or rescuing a person in a burning building, it is usually about five minutes. When we look at that five-minute response time, many communities cannot build a firehall every 10 or seven miles. It has to be within that range.

I think of the emergency measures organization back in the days when I was a representative on county council, of the money that was spent there putting up all of those alarm systems in almost every community in Ontario. I do not think to this day any of those sirens have gone off. Thank God for that, because the intent of their use was in the case of a nuclear attack. But the money that was spent there was of no value to the municipality.

At that time, the province, with the federal government, came in with a grant to smaller communities that were starting to establish a fire department and paid a 50 per cent subsidy on the purchase of a piece of equipment. Our township happened to be fortunate enough to get one at that time. That started us into modernized firefighting equipment.

Also on top of that, I think of the war years when the government had very little in fire protection in the municipalities. The federal government then came out, for war purposes, and bought these portable pumps. They were all mounted on trailers and provided good protection, even in some of the best municipalities. You could spread these out throughout the community and they were always there for backup. In some cases, they were used right at the start of a fire because you could put them behind any vehicle.

In some areas in Ontario even buying something like portable pumps is costly. With the large costs of trucks today, it is costly for even the richest of municipalities. Someplace along the line, the government is going to have to move in this area and provide additional assistance.

I talked about the 911 number. We are putting more demand upon firefighters to respond to other calls for emergency first aid treatment. When the government moves in that area saying, "We want better protection here to assist the ambulance drivers and to get paramedics in Ontario," they are not going to be in every community. That is why people depend more upon volunteer firefighters, because they are trained in any emergency. I have great praise for volunteer firefighters, and even the paid firefighters in Ontario, for the job they are doing.

Sometimes when you look at what they have to go through to fight a fire, we do not even have a guarantee they are wearing the proper equipment today. It is questionable whether the equipment they are wearing, their uniforms or working gear are safe. Some of the fire departments today probably still have the old canister of air to go into a building, instead of using the Scott Air-Pak for breathing. One has to think about all these things.

I think the government is going to move in and take another look at the direction it is going in as it puts more emphasis on emergency treatment care in Ontario and the impact that is going to have on smaller communities. Those communities should be entitled to the same rights as larger communities in the area of providing health, safety and welfare for that community through the local fire departments. The government should be taking a good look at that.

I suggest a committee of the Legislature should take a look and see what the problems are in municipalities in regard to firefighters, the services that are provided for medical first aid treatment and for accidents on highways, the Jaws of Life. There is a serious problem out there.

One of the fire stations in Fort Erie was called out to the scene of an accident on Highway 3. It was a serious accident, and they had to use the Jaws of Life. The fireman was splattered with blood in his attempt to get the injured person out of the vehicle. The person said: "Don't touch me. I have AIDS." That was a frightening exposure to that fireman, who said, "What do I do now?" He did not have the proper equipment to handle a case like that. We are going to have to take a serious look at this.

I support the principle of the resolution put forward this morning. There is a problem for smaller municipalities that require good, sound fire equipment to look after the needs of their communities. I wholeheartedly support this resolution.

Mr. Bernier: I rise in support of ballot item 46, a resolution that the member for Algoma has put in Orders and Notices, a resolution urging the provincial government to assist the organized communities of Ontario financially with the purchase of firefighting equipment.

First, I must compliment the member for Algoma for his astuteness in observing that the Ministry of Northern Affairs, of which I was the minister for a number of years, brought in a program for northern Ontario. That was the result of a fire in the small northern Ontario community of Hurkett in which nine lives were lost. It was an unorganized community with no fire protection, no fire department at all. Two adults and seven children lost their lives in that fire, and that stirred a public outcry right across northwestern Ontario for some form of organized firefighting capability.

It did not take us long in the Ministry of Northern Affairs to realize that the need was there. It was obvious to us that a structure had to be brought together that would provide some form of firefighting capability to the small, unorganized areas where the dedication, the ambition and the pride of the people was very strong with respect to a program that we could come forward with.

We had to bring legislation before the Legislature to put in place a service organization called a local services board, not a municipal structure but a structure that would be elected through the democratic process at the local level on an annual basis. It would have the authority to raise money in a number of different ways and to accept government grants and assistance for items of service to the community -- or to the pockets of population, as I have often referred to them -- such items as sewers and water, street lights, garbage collection and, above all, firefighting capability.

That program was very successful. It is being expanded today on a regular basis. I believe I can say without contradiction that it was the model the member for Algoma saw which worked so effectively in northern Ontario. Now he wants, I think very correctly and appropriately, to extend it to the organized communities of Ontario.

I would like to put on the record the success of the Ministry of Northern Affairs package, which came into being about April 1, 1977. I might say the program we brought forward was with the complete and total co-operation of the fire marshal's office. In fact, I often said to the director of the fire marshal's office that the only time we saw somebody from that office was under the call of an investigation or something of that nature. With this program, where they are involved in the actual design of the equipment, the training of the volunteers, we now see members of the fire marshal's office all across northern Ontario on a very regular basis; and it is very comforting indeed, I might say.

Members will be interested to know that from April 1, 1977, to March 30, 1986, some 48 fire pumpers were distributed across northern Ontario to the unorganized areas, to those local services boards. We also delivered about 73 firefighting packages. These firefighting packages were designed by the fire marshal's office to look after the needs of very small pockets of population. They were portable in nature and were designed to look after small areas. They could be pulled behind a half-ton truck and had all the necessary equipment available, even to an ice auger to cut a hole in the nearby lake to put the intake for a portable pump. It was a portable package of extreme success.

It was always an experience and a pride to deliver one of those fire trucks; sometimes with my colleagues with me, sometimes not, but they were always pressing. I know the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) was always anxious, and I think he finally had the opportunity to deliver four of those trucks to little communities in his riding. It was a very popular program.

In addition, we developed 52 firehalls across northern Ontario, which saw the development of one-, two- and sometimes three-stall firehalls, for a total expenditure of $4.7 million. I understand that four more fire trucks will be delivered this year, 10 more portable fire trucks will be added to the services in northern Ontario and eight new firehalls will be built, for a cost of $1.1 million.

Mr. McLean: I am glad to see they are keeping that program.

Mr. Bernier: Yes, it is an excellent program; there is no question about it. The total cost of that program to date is about $5.8 million. That is just about twice the cost that it has taken the taxpayers -- what, six months to pay for the travel of the ministers of this government? They spent over $3 million in six months travelling outside the province of Ontario.

Mr. Martel: They were delivering the trucks by air.

Mr. Bernier: I hope they take those funds

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has now expired.

Mr. Bernier: Oh, no. I was just getting started.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma has six remaining minutes.

Mr. Wildman: I want to thank all the members who participated in the debate for their contributions and for their support. I particularly want to mention the member for Simcoe East, who, I think, as my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) mentioned, expressed the needs of the small rural municipalities with regard to fire protection very eloquently and pointed out the tremendous cost that faces small municipalities without a very great tax base.

The member for Essex North indicated the difficulties that he as a reeve had in obtaining very expensive equipment for his municipality, and the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) indicated the new demands that are being made on municipalities by provincial regulation to meet the emergency needs without adequate financial assistance, whether it is an emergency plan, the 911 number or the use of new turnout gear -- helmets and so on -- meeting the needs not only of fire protection but also of responding to emergencies on the highway and the costs that are related to those activities.

The member for Kenora outlined the success of the unorganized communities assistance fund and the provision of assistance to small pockets of population across the north to provide fire protection. It is a very successful program. He is quite right when he says that it prompted me, as a northern member, to suggest that similar assistance should be provided to small municipalities.

I was particularly interested in the comments of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. I appreciate his support, but I am a little concerned about his characterization of this debate as a question of motherhood. I do not think any of us in this House should consider the protection of the lives of volunteer firemen in this province as a question of motherhood. I am concerned that the government should not see the passage of this resolution, if it is successful, as a motherhood question, but would see this as a need to expand its assistance to fire protection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Some of you guys are not even in favour of motherhood.

Mr. Wildman: Of course we are all interested in motherhood, but in the question --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I said in favour of.

Mr. Wildman: -- we are all protected in motherhood; but the problem with this, with the characterization of this debate in that manner, is to indicate, "Oh, yes, it is something we all favour," which we all do, and therefore, it does not mean a lot in terms of the finances. That is what this debate is about: the cost and the finances.

He mentioned the unconditional grants and the additional assistance provided to the north and he talked about fiscal responsibility. We are all interested in fiscal responsibility, but I want to emphasize that the unconditional grants, even with the extra assistance given in the north, are just insufficient to meet the tremendous costs involved, whether it is $1,100 per man per turnout year; or $125,000, $150,000 or even more for a fire truck.

I would like to conclude by referring to a letter I have just received from the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, dated February 10 and signed by W. J. Brown, the secretary.

I will read a couple of portions from it:

"We wish to notify you that the board of directors were polled, and they unanimously supported your resolution. The huge property loss" -- from fires, that is -- "has given Canada a very dubious distinction of being a leader in per capita loss in the whole world. When you couple this with the loss of productivity and jobs to the industrial and commercial centres and the resource loss of our lumber areas, you realize that our province is especially vulnerable in the Canadian equation.

"If looking at the monetary issues were not enough, we have not even mentioned the untold agony and heartache that the human factor brings, or the ecological impact or the impact on our wildlife.

"We look at this resolution as a start in the right direction, as there is a need in all areas and municipalities for government support with respect to the fire service. We congratulate you on your courageous resolution and support you 100 per cent in your effort to have this legislation passed."

I hope all members of the House will take the words of the fire chiefs of this province to heart in determining whether or not they will support this resolution. We must support the volunteers who risk their lives to protect us and other members of the general public and property in this province. They must have the equipment that is required.

The small municipalities must have assistance over and above the unconditional grants to enable them to purchase equipment, so that they are not dependent on 1943 fire trucks that might fail when they meet an emergency.

I hope the government will act on this resolution, if it passes the House; that it will see it not only as a motherhood question but also as an issue that is of tremendous import today in this province, and one that will affect the budgetary approach of this government in that it will provide assistance to the small municipalities to implement this resolution. Do not just vote for it but make that as a step towards actually providing financial assistance to the small municipalities, so they can get the fire protection that they need and that we all need.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ashe has moved second reading of Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Motion agreed to.

FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wildman has move resolution 10.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Mr. Jackson: Seven people nearly died last weekend on Burlington Bay and, as the Burlington Spectator wondered in its editorial Tuesday, "Why did the rescue effort seem to hinge more on the personal courage of the rescuers and good luck than adequate preparation and standby equipment?"

Why did that happen, I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes)? Why, after he took office, did he cancel the purchase of a proper air-sea rescue helicopter for the Ontario Provincial Police authorized by the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) when he was Solicitor General in the Conservative government? Why did he do nothing when Management Board decided it was better to sacrifice safety and proper equipment than spend the necessary dollars?

Why now, when he has his $1-billion war chest, does he continue to put lives in jeopardy by not adequately equipping our rescue services? What is the Solicitor General's response to Alderman Jim Grieve, a member of the Halton Regional Police Commission, who said, "The Solicitor General must either assume responsibility for rescues or tell us we're responsible and provide the funding"?

Firefighters from Burlington and policemen from Hamilton risked their lives to save ice-boaters who went through the ice. But they did not have the equipment to do the job. That came from a stroke of luck. A man demonstrating his hovercraft was close at hand when the incident occurred.

A man died last month and seven nearly died on the weekend. What will it take for this government to recognize its responsibilities and restore the rescue equipment our people need? We would have that equipment today if the Solicitor General's government had not cancelled it. How many more lives will he risk before he acts?

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Laughren: For the last two years, there has been no chemical spraying of our forests in this province. This year, the minister announced there would be no chemical spraying this year either. There was much applause from the environmentalists, this party and one half of the Tory caucus. There were boos from the forest industry and the other half of the Tory caucus.

The minister then announced he was considering a request from the federal government to permit chemical spraying in selected areas in northern Ontario. There was applause from the industry, the federal government and one half of the Tory caucus. There were boos from environmentalists, the New Democratic Party and one half of the Tory caucus.

The minister should stop his chemical striptease and, as Maine and Quebec have done, ban the spraying of chemicals once and for all. For 17 years, Pennsylvania sprayed chemicals to combat the gypsy moth budworm. In 1982, they switched to bacillus thuringiensis, the biological spray. Since then, the costs have dropped by $1 per acre, less than it cost them for the chemical spraying, and the results have been just as good as with the chemical sprays. It is time we followed that lead in Ontario.

FARMING

Mr. McGuigan: I was so impressed by the remarkable photography and choice of photographs in John Deere's 150th anniversary publication of The Furrow, the November-December 1986 issue, that I asked the company for copies to be sent to each member. These were put in the mail yesterday.

The company chairman, Robert A. Hanson, points out that despite the remarkable transformation of the industry, certain basic and universal aspects of farming and farm life have remained essentially constant throughout the century and a half John Deere has been in business.

Some of the photos remind us that farming continues to revolve around nature's endless cycles of regeneration and growth, climaxed by the ultimate satisfaction of harvest. Others emphasize age-old problems of coping with nature. Additional scenes include the long hours and hard work that remain very much a part of farming, the fundamental importance of the family in rural culture and the lasting appeal of farm life.

The illustrations point out that the inherent nature of life on a farm draws family members close to each other as well as to the land. Few callings offer a richer variety of triumphs and sorrow to share or as many opportunities for building dreams together. Each farm family fashions its own unique heritage and sacred tradition as generation succeeds generation in wresting a living from the land.

I hope the members will take a few moments to reflect on these beautiful photographs at a time when farmers are preparing for a planting season to be followed by a marketing season made difficult by the government's inability to adopt sensible food production policies.

MULTICULTURALISM

Ms. Fish: At a time when the pluralistic nature of Ontario society becomes an ever more dynamic part of our way of life, my party and I cannot but regret the cumulative but frankly escalating disrespect for minorities displayed by the present government.

The early anti-Semitic slur of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Kidded), the remarks of the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith) in support of Mr. Keegstra, the inappropriate racist humour of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), the unfeeling use of the term "retard" by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the superficial and patronizing 15-minute presence by the Premier at the dinner honouring Bishop Desmond Tutu, only to have the Premier whisked away by helicopter to another black-tie event he was attending that evening, all speak to a pattern that is disappointing at best and disturbing at worst.

Multiculturalism and tolerance are more than just dressing up in folk costumes; they are displaying sincere and honest belief in the reality of a pluralist and caring society. This government has displayed quite the opposite.

STEEL SHIPMENTS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a matter of some importance to raise with the members of this House and with this government. At meetings in Washington over the past few days, representatives of the United Steelworkers of America, including Ray Silenzi, president of Local 1005 in Hamilton, met with various American officials including Congressman Jack Murta, chairman of the steel caucus, who indicated that trans-shipment of steel was a real problem; that steel from outside Canada, from Romania and a number of other countries, shipped through Canada was hurting our cause with the US and was nothing short of fraud in the opinion of the Americans.

Considering the strength of protectionist feelings, elected US congressmen and senators cannot understand why there has not been a stronger position from our federal government aimed at ending these under-the-counter shipments.

Inasmuch as the federal government appears to be incapable of dealing with any issue, particularly where fraud is involved or jobs are at stake, it is important that the government of Ontario speak out to fill this void and force the federal government to end the deceitful trade practices in steel that will, if unchecked, lead to a cutback in the market share held by Canada under existing voluntary restraints from 3.2 per cent to 2.4 per cent in legitimate finished steel shipments to the US. This, I am told, would mean 4,000 jobs in the Canadian steel industry.

HOCKEY GAME

Mr. Sargent: I have good news. This morning at the game at Maple Leaf Gardens, the three stars were the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith) -- and the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) nearly had a shutout.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: I know, but they are that good we have four this time. We demolished the press gallery.

COURT RULING

Mr. Allen: On January 27, 1987, the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario issued a unanimous decision declaring that full-time teachers, regular part-time teachers and continuing education teachers are teachers within the terms of Bill 100, the Education Amendment Act, and regulation 277 under the act.

The panel of three judges reviewed these three cases that have been before the courts and/or the Ontario Labour Relations Board for several years: in the first case, the teachers at a special-purpose school, Humewood House in Toronto, administered by the East York board; in the second case, a Windsor case as to whether summer or night school teaching was implicated in a strike under Bill 100; and in the third case, an Ottawa case, as to whether continuing education teachers are teachers under provincial legislation and a proper part of the bargaining unit.

This definitive judgement is crystal-clear that in all these cases the teachers are in fact properly teachers under the acts and regulations in question and part of the teacher bargaining units. Since one or more of the parties appear to be preparing renewed litigation, and so there may be no further doubt, I appeal to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to bring this outstanding dispute to an end by presenting amendments to the acts and regulation in question clearly identifying such teachers as teachers in accord with this judgement of the court.

TAX REVENUES

Mr. Callahan: Very quickly, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) keeps talking about this war chest of $1 billion. I can tell the House that the people of Brampton are very happy about the things the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is doing and proposing in my riding. The member's government left us without proper court facilities and without proper medical facilities. One had to wait for five hours in emergency services. The Treasurer of this government is doing something about it; so the member should stop talking about the procedures his government pulled on the BILD program just prior to the 1981 election.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In the 1986 budget, I introduced a detailed proposal for the support of employee share ownership plans in Ontario. I plan to introduce legislation today entitled

An Act to provide an Incentive to Ontario Employees of Small and Medium Sized Corporations to Purchase Newly Issued Shares of their Employer Corporations.

As members will recall, in announcing the budget proposal, I called for the advice and counsel of concerned organizations, members of the public and members of the House. A working group of staff from the ministries of Treasury and Economics and Revenue was established to review submissions.

In order to inform fully all members of this House, I am also taking this opportunity today to table copies of the written submissions received by the working group, together with a copy of its final report. Both appear in the background compendium to the legislation. A list of the written submissions received is included as an appendix to this statement.

Members will note that a number of significant changes to the original proposal have been incorporated into the final design of the program. Most of these changes are a direct result of the consultation process and are detailed in an appendix to this statement. I am confident that the ESOP program as now designed can attain its principal objective of fostering a spirit of co-operation between employees and employers by providing an innovative opportunity for employees to participate in the ownership of their firms.

My introduction of the bill today and my intention to introduce a similar bill in the new session will provide additional time for discussion.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Today I wish to propose for discussion a draft bill that sets out the first comprehensive revision of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in close to a decade. The draft bill is far-reaching and destined to play a central

part in the government's effort to ensure that Ontario has the best occupational health and safety record in all of North America.

The first worker health and safety legislation in our province was enacted in 1884. The Occupational Health and Safety Act came into force in 1979. These draft amendments represent the first comprehensive revision of the act since then. They are designed to ensure that the obligations for work place health and safety are clear to both management and labour and that both work place parties have the capacity to meet these obligations. If the parties fail, these proposals strengthen the government's hand to enforce the act.

The draft bill provides for enhancements in four major areas: rights and responsibilities, training and information, enforcement and administration. It greatly increases the number of joint labour-management health and safety committees in the province by eliminating exemptions that have been granted to work places in the past. It also enhances significantly the role of the committee in the work place. These committees are designed to serve as instruments for the prevention of work place illness and injury and for the resolution of occupational health and safety issues.

In addition, the draft bill proposes greater protection for individual workers. As honourable members know, the current act gives workers the right to refuse work they believe is unsafe. It also requires an investigation of the work refusal. Employers, however, currently have the latitude to assign the refused work to a second worker. This puts the second worker at risk and is unacceptable. We would prohibit such substitution until the investigation of the refusal has been completed and the matter has been resolved.

The right of refusal, however, without the right to be paid for the lost time is an empty right; so we propose to enshrine in law the right for workers to be paid at least 75 per cent of their wages for any time lost because of a work refusal or a stop-work order.

If Ontario workers are to exercise their rights under this act freely and fully, they must be free from the fear of harassment, intimidation and reprisal. Therefore, the government intends to establish a new office of investigations to help workers exercise this freedom.

The draft bill also proposes a number of measures to underscore the fundamental responsibility that the employer has for occupational health and safety. It is the government's belief that an effective health and safety program requires the commitment and active involvement of senior management. The act therefore must state clearly that every director and officer of a corporation has a duty to take all reasonable care for worker health and safety.

We propose that employers be obligated to set out and formally undertake work place health and safety programs. In that context, it is basic that employers mount effective health and safety training for their employees. We also propose that employers be required to respond in writing to the recommendations of the joint health and safety committee and to provide to the committee the results of all tests.

Finally, we propose a number of measures to strengthen enforcement of the act. As honourable members know, I have been of the view for some time that the maximum fine for corporations under this act is far too low. It understates the critical importance of living by the occupational health and safety law. The time has come to demonstrate the seriousness with which the government and society view work place health and safety. We therefore propose to increase 10-fold the maximum fine, from the current $25,000 to $250,000.

Ontario workers have the right to report to the job every day free from the fear that they will return home sick, hurt or not at all. The realization of this right is essential to a caring society. It is a basic measure of society's respect for and recognition of people as human beings and not as mere components in a production process.

The proposals that I have put forward today will give greater meaning to that right. I look forward to discussing them with labour, management and the general public in the coming weeks.

RESPONSES

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

Mr. Harris: Rarely have we seen so false-hearted a use of this Legislature as the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) today. Ten months ago, the Treasurer stood in his place and promised the workers of Ontario the employee share ownership plan. Ten months have gone by. Now, knowing full well that this sitting has four hours to run, the Treasurer announces his intention to introduce legislation.

Why would he make such an announcement? Not to keep his promise to the workers of Ontario, and certainly not to prove his ability to set a coherent legislative agenda; no. He made this announcement for one reason and one reason alone: to get headlines, to get a few column inches in the newspapers and a couple of seconds on the evening news. It is just like his cynical announcement of yesterday concerning the capital tax reduction program for farmers. We see a Treasurer whose word carries little weight unless he can get press coverage out of it.

If the Treasurer were serious and sincere about helping employees buy shares in their employers' firms, we would have heard this announcement much earlier than 10 months after the budget. The tax increases in the Treasurer's budget took effect immediately, but his commitments to the people of Ontario are left until much later, if remembered at all.

It is the Treasurer who tells the media he has so much money for high technology he does not know what to do with it all. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) knows what to do with it all. He gives $17.5 million to his friend Abe Schwartz; $5.1 million to Abe's partner, Terry Graham; and $3 million to Wyda Systems when the spouse of a cabinet minister is an officer. The loans-for-Liberals program operates full blast; the disabled are ignored.

The Treasurer forgets his government's throne speech promise to retrain older workers, to set up a modern lab to ensure the purity of the food we eat or to create a nonprofit centre on new information technologies. Where is the commitment? Why are the promises not kept? Is this government so lacking in courage it will say anything to get headlines, but lacks the will to put its promises into action?

When this Legislature meets again, the spring tourism season will be in full swing. By that time, it will be a full year since the government promised to implement a long-term tourism strategy, one of 20 throne speech promises not kept. Part of the strategy includes roadside rest stops along the highways, made in April. This government is so incompetent it needs more than a year to build an outhouse.

The employee share ownership plan deserves more respect from the Treasurer than this. He has let down the workers of Ontario. Let me assure him, they will remember.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Gillies: What a cynical gesture for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) to come in here on the last day of this session, not with legislation to improve the tragic circumstances in occupational health and safety in this province, but with a discussion paper. How appropriate that this government's sole response to any serious issue affecting working people is study, study, study; discussion, discussion, discussion.

This minister knows that 248 people died in the work place in this province last year, a dramatic increase from 1985. Work place accidents are up. Work place deaths are up.

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) brings a bill into this House and the minister says: "There is no need to vote for that because we are going to bring in a bill. Wait and see what the government does." We have the McKenzie-Laskin whitewash, which this minister in a most embarrassing fashion embraces; blaming workers, blaming the opposition, blaming the media for the failings in occupational health and safety in this province. When he has an opportunity to bring in something concrete for the working people of this province, he brings in a discussion paper.

I wonder how much discussion it took for this government to decide to give Abe Schwartz $17.5 million. I wonder how much discussion it took for this government to let Wilf Caplan negotiate $3 million for Wyda. How much discussion did it take for Mr. Graham to walk away with $5 million? All the working people of this province get from this Minister of Labour is discussion on the last day of the session.

We know where this is going to end up -- absolutely nowhere. Maybe after the election, if the minister is still there and if he feels like it, he will do something. All we get now is discussion.

Mr. Laughren: I would like to respond to the Treasurer's employee share ownership plan. We regard it --

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can you call order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the members for their assistance. I am sure all members wish to hear what the member for Nickel Belt has to say.

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN

Mr. Laughren: I assume I have five minutes, Mr. Speaker.

We regard the Treasurer's plan for employee share ownership as second-class ownership and a first-class ripoff. We share the government's goal of fostering a stronger partnership between employers and employees and of providing new and welcome sources of equity capital for small and medium-sized businesses; however, we do not believe that the employee share ownership plan advanced by the Treasurer will accomplish these goals.

ESOPs offer working men and women a risky way to share in profits in an already too risky economy without a share of control over the circumstances that determine those profits. By making workers beneficial owners and leaving all the control in the hands of top management and owners, instead of democratizing the work place this plan will serve only to perpetuate a society divided into two classes: those who control and those who are controlled. The only difference will be that workers will have to risk their savings in return for the right to be controlled.

ESOPs were first advanced in the United States by investment bankers like Louis Kelso and anti-union politicians like Senator Russell Long. They have been implemented there by managers and owners interested in cheap capital and tax benefits rather than partnership and worker control.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: It is a hunk of junk that my friend the minister, as poor as it is, could not get by the cabinet to bring it in here as recommendations. It is more of the same despite the Law Reform Commission of Canada saying the internal responsibility system does not work. It is more of the same.

The Harvey study indicated that internal responsibility for the system does not work. It does not shift the balance of power one tittle. It all remains with management. Management still has all the power and the committees still have only a consultative role.

The minister should be ashamed of himself for even bringing this discussion paper forward. There is no requirement under the act. The internal responsibility system in the committees can make recommendations, but if management chooses to ignore the recommendations there is not a thing they can do. They can do what they do at present now, which is to call an inspector in. Whoop-de-do. They have that power now. When management does not comply, one calls in an inspector. Nothing changes.

Do not try kidding the troops about all of these significant changes. It does not give the workers the right to protect themselves. Talk about the right to information. We have Bill 101. What is the minister kidding us for? In three places he has mentioned information in this silly little bill of his, which does nothing. They already have the right to some information. Bill 101 will give them more rights. They do not have the right to conduct tests and monitor. They have the right to be consulted. That is what it is.

The minister increases the fines. Is that not wonderful? He mentioned to the press that the last couple of fines have been $40,000. The average fine has been $2,000. Multiply that by 10, the figure he uses, and he is looking at $20,000. It is the right to commit murder; that is what it is. That is what he perpetuates. The right to commit murder of working people in the work place.

I will tell members how bad it is. In

section 20, he is going to remove the right of people to choose their own doctor.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes, he is. He is going to implement a thing that says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations respecting the appointment of physicians...." Whoop-de-do. We take the position that people have the right to choose their own physician and not somebody the company or the minister would like to deign to do the work. The whole thing is a disgrace. I think he should take it and dump it into receptacle 13 where it belongs.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Harris: We are in the last day of the session. This is the last time for over two months that we will be sitting here. I just received word that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is going to be late. I wonder if we could stand down our leader's questions anticipating that he will be here.

Mr. Speaker: There has been a request to stand down the first two questions. Agreed?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have no objection to that. I understand the Premier will be attending. He is in meetings at present and has sent word to me to convey that he will be here as soon as he can.

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to a problem that adult protective service workers in the province have, those workers who advocate for adult mentally retarded people in our society. The minister received a letter on December 10 from the Metropolitan Toronto group of adult protective service workers, in which they indicated that they now have a waiting list of 178 adults needing their assistance. Some of the references go back as far as 1984.

The minister will note that, just prior to that, the verdict on the Dimun case, that unfortunate death, recommended that he put more money into APSWs to make sure people like Mr. Dimun would be protected in future.

What is he going to do to make sure there is adequate money to pay for the six extra workers we require in Metro?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member is aware that we have approximately 150 adult protective service workers and that there is a review going on right now with respect to the roles of guardianship, advocacy and case management. Part of that review is the examination of the combined case management and advocacy role of the APSWs. While there will continue to be growth in the number of people performing that service, the member would agree that until we have clearly defined who is going to carry out what role we would not want to expand the existing procedures.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I really find this incredible. The minister is suggesting that until Mr. O'Sullivan reports and until the government then takes action on his report and decides where it wants to go, because it has turned down the Attorney General's (Mr. Scott) approach on advocacy up to this point, these people who are already on waiting lists, one of whom has died in Metropolitan Toronto in the last year, have to wait until all of that happens before his ministry will put any extra resources in here.

This is a government that has $900 million in extra resources. There have been a number of coroners' inquests in the last number of years. Ms. Joubert and Mr. Dimun are probably the two most prominent cases. What action is the minister going to take to respond to coroners' inquests, or do those recommendations not mean anything any more?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of the inquest into the death of Mr. Dimun certainly did not indicate that his chief problem was the lack of an advocate to speak for him. There were a number of other issues involved in that, and I will not go into any detail. I have already indicated that the Attorney General has a committee looking into the whole role of guardianship.

Springing from that was the clear statement by that advisory committee, involving members from a number of advocacy associations across Ontario, that there should be an independent advocacy role and, as part of that, there was a clear statement of concern about the joint advocacy and case management role of our existing adult protective service workers.

As I indicated, we are certainly moving forward on that front, but it seems reasonable that we identify what the roles are going to be and who is going to perform them before we expand an existing service that is under question. That seems like a logical way to go.

Mr. Reville: The minister's memory of the Dimun inquest recommendations is faulty. The inquest says that APSWs are massively overworked and massively underpaid. He has the cases on the waiting list: a 40-year-old man, waiting eight months, desperately needs housing, and an APSW is a precondition to his getting housing; a 40-year-old man, waiting nine months, with a physically handicapped father, needs