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

January 31, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L138 - Tue 31 Jan 1989 / Mar 31 jan 1989

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

HEALTH SERVICES

JEAN AUGUSTINE

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

HEALTH SERVICES

TVONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION / PROTECTION DU LOGEMENT LOCATIF

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

RESPONSES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

TAX INCREASES

HEALTH SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERPAYMENTS

DRUG ABUSE

WINTER ICE CONDITIONS

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

PETITIONS

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT

JOHN ZIVANOVIC HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT

SUDBURY HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMMISSION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

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

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

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

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

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

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

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Pollock: Once again we on this side rise to illustrate to the House the crisis that exists in the Ontario health care system. I refer to an

article from the Belleville Intelligencer regarding the Belleville General Hospital where routinely patients are required to spend up to 24 hours on a stretcher in hallways because no rooms are available. Such waits come about in part because 25 per cent of the beds in Belleville hospital are occupied by people in chronic care beds who should be in nursing homes. Waiting lists for virtually every nursing home in the area are already long, and the Ministry of Health has indicated that there appears to be no relief in sight until well into the 1990s.

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

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

JEAN AUGUSTINE

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

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

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

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

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

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

The problem at the heart of this issue is that the ministry workers are able to bargain with respect to arbitrated settlements down the road,

whereas those in the transfer agencies bargain under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The result is that the ministry’s transfers can be relatively ignored in the bargaining process within the ministry but they cannot be in the transfer agencies.

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

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

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

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

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

TVONTARIO

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION / PROTECTION DU LOGEMENT LOCATIF

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

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

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

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

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

En même temps j’avais présenté un document de travail intitulé « La

Loi sur la protection du logement locatif : directions à venir », qui proposait deux plans d’action pour l’avenir : soit d’abroger la loi et de prendre d’autres mesures, soit de modifier la loi et de garder les contrôles avec certaines améliorations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under the new act the same protection will be provided to vacant rental buildings as is provided to buildings with tenants. As well, the

section of the new legislation dealing with vacant buildings will be retroactive to today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In

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

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

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Breaugh: I want to reply briefly to the statement by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). It is interesting, because today’s version of what the government wants to do with this particular bill is quite different from yesterday’s version of what the government wants to do. Yesterday, they were being very creative. They wanted us to amend

an act that had not been passed yet, which would have been parliamentary history of the first order, quite creative. It would have been an interesting exercise just to try to do it. Today’s version, which we were not really privy to until the minister read her statement, is somewhat different from that.

For three years now, people have been waiting for this government to plug some very serious loopholes in this act. The tack the government wants to take with this is interesting. I think the most interesting

part is the three firm principles upon which the minister is standing today. I think they are interesting because she has an expectation that the owner of a property will provide accommodation for current tenants at the same rents in comparable rental housing in the same area. That ought really to be an interesting exercise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

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

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

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

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

The minister makes the statement, “Today, market conditions are such that the removal of the Rental Housing Protection Act would without doubt result in the rapid removal of rental housing across the province;” clearly, a glaring indictment and admission that: “Look, we have made things worse in the last three years. We haven’t been able to address the real problems of supply. We have stated that’s the problem. We have come in with numerous programs.

Clearly, we have failed, so we must come in with a new act.” In this case, one that appears to be saying it will have to be there for ever, which I assume is an admission that this government is incapable of solving this problem, for ever and a day.

The minister says as well, “The current act has proven to be successful in halting activities which reduce our stock of rental housing.” Clearly, that statement is wrong. The current act has not been successful in doing that. We will be interested, in the hearings, to get considerable input from across this province. The evidence is that the act, in combination with the other policies, has completely driven the private sector out of the rental accommodation market.

Whether it be the individual home owner, the investor or the builder who wants to be involved in one, two, three or four units, clearly, the minister’s policies have been a disaster and have driven those people right out of the market.

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

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

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROPERTY SPECULATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TAX INCREASES

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I have to

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

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

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: New question?

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

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

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

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

HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Scott: Three minutes ago.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

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

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

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

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

That quote is from Dr. Michael Rachlis.

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

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

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

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

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked.

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

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

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier concerning the Meech Lake accord. The Premier will be aware that the current logjam, if that is the right word, with respect to the ratification of the Meech Lake accord centres on a number of outstanding issues that are not addressed in the initial document. I understand the Premier has had an opportunity to review these concerns with four or five other provinces. An

article in the Globe and Mail by Thomas Walkom indicates the Premier favours some kind of parallel accord as the mechanism to perhaps deal with some of these outstanding issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERPAYMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The question.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

DRUG ABUSE

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

section by 32 members and four support staff.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Your attention would be appreciated.

WINTER ICE CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

PETITIONS

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

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

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

It is signed by nine petitioners.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Owen: I have a petition addressed:

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

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

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

It is signed by 252 teachers.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Ms. Hošek moved first reading of Bill 211,

An Act to revise the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

JOHN ZIVANOVIC HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr76,

An Act to revive John Zivanovic Holdings Limited.

Motion agreed to.

SUDBURY HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Campbell moved first reading of Bill Pr60,

An Act respecting the Sudbury Hydro-Electric Commission.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report on Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, of the standing committee on administration of justice.

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

Mr. Hampton: I am pleased to be able to take

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

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

I sat through many of those hearings, many of those deliberations, the long clause-by-clause. Therefore, as I said, this is a debate that I am pleased to be able to take

part in. I want to return to the fundamentals of this issue because I think it is really the fundamentals of the issue that people are concerned with out there, and it is really the fundamentals of the issue that I think the government has attempted to cloud over in many ways or attempted to hide behind a smokescreen.

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

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

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

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

It is pretty clear that there is an understanding out there in the public as to exactly what this bill means when you shred it or strip away the boilerplate that the government has attached to it. People understand it to be a return to the marketplace.

People also understand that, if anything, in the last 30, 40 or even 50 years, what we have done in terms of employment standards legislation, overtime legislation, health and safety legislation and labour legislation were all attempts in some way to curtail as much as possible some of the employment abuses of the competitive marketplace; also to leave some room for simple humanity, some room for the family, some room for individuals to do something other than work; in other words, to provide an opportunity so that life was not dominated by the competitive marketplace.

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

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

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

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next thing he went on to point out was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pouliot: Especially the far left.

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It started to happen over and over again in every community we went to, whether it was the local chamber of commerce, the local business improvement association or people from the Catholic Women’s League of Canada. Wherever it was, whatever small city or small town it was, people came forward and said: “Yes, we see the legislation and we do not see it as any viable option. We do not see it as going in the direction we want our society to go in.

We see it, again, as market deregulation, throwing everything open to competitive business pressures, letting competitive business pressures decide, fully and absolutely, when people will have to work, when families will have time together and what will happen to our quality of life.”

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chiarelli: And all the amendments.

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

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

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

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

Mr. Fleet: You haven’t read the act.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

Mr. Faubert: Fluff and nonsense.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

Having said that, I will start on my speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Fleet: We wouldn’t recognize it.

Mr. J.