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

April 18, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L047 - Mon 18 Apr 1988 / Lun 18 avr 1988

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POVERTY GAME

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

CONSERVATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

WASTE DISPOSAL

LABOUR DISPUTE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATH

NUCLEAR SAFETY

EARL FENTON

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

AUTOMOBLE INSURANCE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

EARL FENTON

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

SUNSET REVIEW

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS POWER

AGRICULTURAL LAND

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

RETAIL SALES TAX

ONTARIO SHARE AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL FUNDING

MOBILE HOME INSURANCE

HEURES OUVRABLES / RETAIL STORE HOURS

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the members that on Thursday last the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) rose on a point of privilege concerning the announcement made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) to his constituents of a proposed site having the potential to be developed for office, commercial, limited ancillary retail or government use.

The member for Oshawa then stated that the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) announced two days later that the site in question was now being made available for housing proposals and that announcements of this kind by the minister should be made in this chamber.

I must remind all honourable members, as my predecessors and I have stated on numerous occasions, such statements made outside the House may constitute a legitimate grievance and question of courtesy or respect for the House, and in my view they cannot form a question of privilege.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POVERTY GAME

Mr. Allen: “My name is Barbara. I’m 31 years old. I’ve got four kids and I live in Toronto. I was 17 when my 14-year-old twins were born. By the time my fourth child was born, my husband up and left. I’ve never seen him since. He obviously couldn’t hack it. We couldn’t afford day care. I couldn’t go out to work. Life was a constant round of unpaid bills. Looking back, I guess I really don’t blame him.”

I am really Richard, of course, and I am playing the MPPs’ Poverty Game, which took place last Friday, a game developed by women who lived on welfare and who tried to turn it into a game. It is set up like Monopoly, the only difference being that you never get ahead and you always lose more than you gain.

I could not believe the emotion that built up in me as I played the game, trying to meet the demands day in and day out, the requirements of my children for food and clothes. I never got past the third week, it seemed, without running out of money and having to resort to the food bank. The dilemmas and the tradeoffs were almost impossible. My worker seemed more like a policeman than a helper. As the four and a half hours wore on, I began more and more to identify with the person I was supposed to be playing.

At the end of the game, the organizers played a tape from the real Barbara telling what she went through and how it worked out in the end. I could not believe how much I had bonded with this person whom I did not know at all. I almost cried.

Everyone ought to play this game. The tragedy is that anyone should ever have to.

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Ministry of Labour. It is my understanding that the Workers’ Compensation Board plans to establish a modern, comprehensive rehabilitation centre, and a network of 50 to 100 community clinics and a number of regional medical centres within five years to help Ontario injured workers. On a number of occasions, I have pointed out to my colleagues here in this Legislature that the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia would be an ideal existing facility that could be used for the care and treatment of Alzheimer’s patients.

I would now like to point out that this same facility would be an ideal location for the WCB rehabilitation centre or a regional medical centre. The facility already exists, so an expensive new building does not need to be constructed.

The Huronia Regional Centre could be used to research work-related injuries and rehabilitation problems and for therapy designed to reintroduce injured workers to the workforce gradually.

I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to using the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia as a rehabilitation centre or regional centre to serve injured workers in Simcoe county and that part of Ontario.

CONSERVATION

Mr. Owen: There has been considerable animosity generated lately concerning access to hunting and fishing on crown lands, particularly in northern Ontario. Much of the hostility has been motivated by financial considerations and suspicion of one group’s having more influence than another.

I believe conservation and fair access for all Ontario citizens must be upheld. Ontario’s parks and other public lands should be a source of recreation and enjoyment for all with restrictions when dictated by concern for conservation. I am assured the Ministry of Natural Resources will take all opinions into consideration when formulating its policy on this issue. I am confident the matter will be resolved in the interest of our best possible future.

Finally, I would like to extend my congratulations to all those conservationists in my riding of Simcoe Centre who expressed their concern for vacancies that had occurred among the ranks of conservation officers in Simcoe county. I am pleased the Ministry of Natural Resources is now filling those positions. We all benefit from the protection of our natural heritage and it is a reassurance that this government is guaranteeing the protection of natural heritage for all people in Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is Education Week in Ontario and a day on which we might expect the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to be here making some major announcements announcing perhaps that he was going to meet the Liberal promise of moving the government towards 60 per cent of the funding of education instead of reducing that percentage as it has been doing.

Perhaps he would have been here to tell us there will be fewer kids next year in portables, instead of more and more as thousands of kids in this province are now being taught in portables around the province. Perhaps he would have been here to tell us that the special-education legislation, Bill 82, was going to be revamped, that he was announcing that today, and that we could all get to work on finally making sure that piece of legislation did what we wanted it to do when we brought it in five years ago.

Perhaps we will be hearing from the government some major statements on these matters today.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: At this moment, grade 13 students across Ontario are preparing to write their final exams for May and June, and many of them are eagerly awaiting word from the universities to which they have applied in this province. One can only guess at their frustration and disappointment -- shared, I might add, by members of this party -- when they read in the Sunday Star that this Liberal government is breaking a commitment made two decades ago by the former Conservative government to ensure that every qualified student will find a place in our university system.

The

article is headed “University No Longer Promised for All.” It reads: “For 25 years Ontario high school students have lived with the promise that all qualified students would find a place in an Ontario university.

“Colleges and Universities minister Lyn McLeod says the promise has changed.” The

article goes on to say, “Students who can’t get into jam-packed universities should go to a community college instead.”

On June 15, 1987, the Liberal Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised, “There has been a substantial guarantee by this government that every qualified student will have a place in a university this fall.”

Where is that commitment? How is this Liberal government going to respond to the thousands of students in grades 12 and 13 who have been betrayed by the Premier and the minister? We have always believed that there should be a place in university for every qualified student. So did the Liberals, it seems, until after the last provincial election.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Tatham: Who Killed Cock Robin?

Remember -- all the birds of the air

Start a-sighin’ and a-sobbin’

When they heard of the death

Of poor Cock Robin.

Where should we bury the garbage?

Oh, put it in the gravel pit,

That is it

Good fit$

And then 20 years later

Or maybe 10,

Leachate bloom meets aquifer

And turns drinking water tan.

Oh, I think I’ll build my house right here

Whoops -- I can’t -- methane gas, my dear,

So have we got an answer

To those questions every day?

Who will take our garbage?

Who is going to pay?

Well, Oxford campus, Fanshawe,

In Woodstock town it seems

Has started protective workshops

To stanch the garbage screams.

Brighton, Norwich, Brantford,

Kincardine, Paris, Kent

Are some who’ve sent their people

To these discussions, friend.

How much, you ask, does this help cost?

$100 and that’s no loss

Because you’ll get your fill of words

Of talk and food and paper.

I know you’ll send your friends along

For a session coming later.

Who killed Cock Robin?

Was it him? Was it her?

Who killed Cock Robin?

Perhaps we should look into the mirror.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is in the House today, I would like to implore him to involve himself in the labour dispute around Lily Cups in Scarborough -- a company, Fort Howard, which has brought Georgia-style labour relations negotiations to this province, a harbinger of things to come if free trade goes through, and which has come to an awful condition this weekend.

They are now saying that they are going to systematically withdraw even more things from the bargaining table than were on it before. This company has asked some of the workers to give up six weeks of vacation after 30-some years of service and go back to two weeks of vacation. They unilaterally shortened the work week, they unilaterally took away floating holidays and they are determined to break this union and to set a standard for labour relations in this province that could only be seen to be a disaster.

I would ask the minister to call them into his office -- both sides if he chooses to -- to discuss this with them in the most serious of fashions, because otherwise this is going to be setting an example for industries in this province which I suggest will be very detrimental to workers in this province.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATH

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very pleased to table two reports that will be of great interest to the members of the House. The reports are the Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on Compensation for Personal Injuries and Death and the report of Mr. Justice Osborne’s Inquiry into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario.

As members of this House know, Ontario has undergone a difficult time with respect to the availability and affordability of insurance, as have most other jurisdictions in the world. Responding to those problems, in May 1986, the report of the Ontario Task Force on Insurance was tabled. In it, Dr. Slater urged, among other things, that the government give further consideration to some measure of tort reform and study the possibility of implementing a no-fault automobile accident compensation scheme.

As a result, on November 6, 1986, Mr. Justice Osborne of the Supreme Court of Ontario was authorized to inquire into and report on the tort system of compensation for injury by automobile accident and the consequences of the implementation of a no-fault automobile accident compensation scheme. In addition, he was asked to consider and report on a number of specific concerns with respect to motor vehicle accident compensation in the province.

Within the same time frame, the law reform commission had already commenced its examination of the fairness and consistency of the principles governing the assessment of compensation for personal injuries and death, which, of course, extends beyond automobile accidents.

I would like to take a moment to tell the members briefly about the final recommendations of both reports.

First, with respect to Mr. Justice Osborne’s report on motor vehicle accident compensation, he makes 147 recommendations for changes and improvements to the system by which we compensate the victims of motor vehicle accidents. He makes numerous recommendations with respect to the automobile insurance industry in Ontario, the coverage and delivery of compensation to victims, the standard automobile insurance policy itself, insurance principles, including the classification system and methods of underwriting, loss costs and premiums and, of course, the improvement of court proceedings themselves.

Members will be interested to know that Mr. Justice Osborne recommends that the government of Ontario not introduce public automobile insurance. Similarly, he does not recommend a pure no-fault automobile insurance scheme for Ontario. He does, however, recommend the retention and improvement of the tort system as it relates to motor vehicle accident claims.

Mr. Justice Osborne’s proposals obviously require careful consideration. However, I am favourably disposed to some of his recommendations. By way of example, Mr. Justice Osborne has made a variety of thoughtful suggestions for improving and streamlining the judicial process at and prior to the trial of motor vehicle accident cases.

In addition, one possible change on which there now seems to be some consensus is the abolition of the collateral source rule whereby some plaintiffs received double recovery for their losses.

I know that my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has identified some recommendations to which he too is prepared to give early favourable consideration. These changes will be reflected in amendments to the Insurance Act, which he plans to introduce, I am advised, in the near future.

At this point, on behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Justice Osborne, who undertook a formidable task in November 1986 when he agreed to examine this most complex problem. He conducted his inquiry with great skill in an atmosphere charged with anxiety for consumers and the industry alike. He is to be commended on the detail and depth of his inquiry and the breadth of the recommendations he has made.

Let me now turn to the second document, the Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on Compensation for Personal Injuries and Death. The commission, which of course extends beyond automobile accidents, makes several recommendations, including ones concerning loss of working capacity, damages for nonpecuniary loss, calculations with respect to the cost of future care and prejudgement interest.

The report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission provides a valuable analysis of many of the issues recommended for further study by Dr. Slater in his report in May 1986. The research of the commission and its recommendations provide a useful contribution to our understanding of compensation issues.

Again, I am favourably disposed to recommend to my colleagues a number of the recommendations. For example, the commission recommends a means that will require the co-operation of the federal government for elimination of the gross-up rule, a rule whereby awards are increased to take account of future taxes payable on interest income.

The commission, its chairman and staff are to be commended for a job well done. Now we begin the difficult task of digesting the contents of these two most detailed reports.

I know that members of this House, the public and various groups with a direct interest in reform will be anxious to see the recommendations of both reports and to provide the government with comments. Matters which we will be anxious to discuss include Mr. Justice Osborne’s recommendations with respect to no-fault auto insurance, threshold tort schemes and other compensation models discussed in his report. Both I and my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions look forward to comment on these reports.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wong: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the final report on the safety of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear power reactors. The report was submitted to me by the commissioner of the Ontario nuclear safety review, Professor Kenneth Hare.

The review was set up in response to a recommendation by the select committee on energy in July 1986.

The full report, as tabled, consists of five volumes and is a substantial document. What I have distributed to members today is the commissioner’s report to the minister, which consists of conclusions, recommendations and a

summary of the full technical report. I have made arrangements for the full report to be sent to the Energy critics and the chairman of the select committee on energy. I would be pleased to meet members’ requests for the other documents.

I can also announce that Professor Hare will be present at a news conference in the Amethyst Room this afternoon at 3:30.

The report was reviewed by a panel appointed by the Royal Society of Canada. In the panel’s opinion, high scholarly standards have been achieved and all the relevant information has been assembled and reviewed with critical disinterest. I believe this report warrants careful study and action by all those who have responsibilities for the safety of nuclear power in this province.

While it would be premature for me to make any comment on the report at this time, members should know that I have sent the report to the chairman of Ontario Hydro and have asked him to inform me of the actions Ontario Hydro will take.

I have also sent the report to the appropriate Ontario government ministries, and the Minister of Energy will co-ordinate a response to the report. I have requested that initial responses be available in four months.

This report represents a great deal of work, involving many people. I believe members would wish to join me in thanking all of those who contributed to the work of the Ontario Nuclear Safety Review. The Royal Society of Canada played an invaluable role in providing guidance and peer review, and I would specifically like to acknowledge their contribution. In particular, I would like to extend my personal thanks to Professor Hare and his staff for their hard work and dedication to the task they undertook.

EARL FENTON

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am pleased to be able to introduce today, in the Speaker’s gallery, Earl Fenton of Oakville, who has been chosen the minister’s 1987 Volunteer of the Year for community and social services.

Mr. Fenton was nominated from the Ontario Association of Volunteer Bureaux and Centres and by my ministry, which chose 43 individuals to receive our community service awards.

Fifteen years ago, Mr. Fenton helped establish Halton Helping Hands, an organization that provides home support services to frail elderly persons and people who are physically disabled.

He was also instrumental in the formation of the community Wheel-Trans service called Care-A-Van.

Three times a week, Mr. Fenton uses Care-A-Van to take him to Halton Helping Hands where he spends his afternoons on the telephone, talking to clients, ensuring that they are well and arranging appointments. When he is not on the telephone, Mr. Fenton is supervising the assignments of other volunteers and helping with administrative details in the office.

Because of his own physical disability, Mr. Fenton took early retirement from the Oakville post office and then immersed himself in a heavy

schedule of volunteer activities. He sits on the Oakville handicapped advisory committee, the advisory committee for Care-A-Van, and he has been invited to be part of a group called Pegasus, which is Halton Region’s handicapped transit implementation committee.

Mr. Fenton and the recipients of the community service awards were nominated by their own peers. They see themselves not as winners, but rather representatives of thousands of volunteers who are directly or indirectly involved with programs supported by this ministry.

We could not provide the selection, nor would we have the quality of our community human services, without the superb contribution of all our volunteers.

To demonstrate our deep appreciation, we are again holding regional assemblies to recognize the contribution of these citizens. This evening in Sault Ste. Marie, my parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), will be honouring northern recipients. I will be convening awards banquets in Toronto, Kingston and London between now and May 11.

I am sure all members will join me in saying thank you to Mr. Fenton and the thousands of individuals who modestly and without fanfare have committed themselves to improving the quality of life in our province. Thank you, Earl, on behalf of the citizens of Ontario.

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I, of course, have to respond to the report given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), and first complain about the paucity of information. We learned more from the press over the weekend than we did from the minister about what was in the report. The Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is not even in the House at this time. After the great fanfare when they announced this a year ago last fall, he is not even in the House reporting himself on this report.

Well, I want to say that with the little knowledge that we have, we are witnessing the ultimate in Liberal progressivity and their defence of the public against the corporations and corporate exploitation in this province.

We have had this exploitation for three years now on the insurance rates and the injustices that have gone with it. There was the Slater report. It was put on the shelf. A few months before the election they promised to do certain things which have amounted to nothing in the end. Now we have a report from Mr. Osborne which, in fact recommends the status quo of three years ago Some progress for the Liberals.

But this report also reveals something even worse about the way that the Liberals function. That report was to be released in November, in December and January and February and March. Today, I accuse the minister of deliberately stalling the release of this report which condemns his rate review board until he had that rate review bill passed in February. That is why we did not get this until now. He could not take two reports that, along with the Slater report, said that he had bombed in putting in the rate review board. I tell him, that bomb is going to blow up in his face.

Apart from that, the minister got what he wanted: a self-serving document that maintains the status quo. The insurance companies got what they want, and particularly the lawyers got what they want. The only ones getting shafted now are the motorists of this province, as has always been the case. Nobody in this party expected this report to recommend driver-owned insurance. He would not appoint someone who would cross him up like that. Otherwise he would have appointed somebody like the firm of Woods Gordon who did it before. And even if he did happen to, they would know the limits on what they could bring in to his people.

If the report does not recommend a driver-owned public system, it does not matter an awful lot what else is in the report because they will be tiny Band-Aids on the gaping wounds of a system that is bleeding the public to death. We did not need this report, and I want to say finally that this report deserves to go where most of the other government reports have gone, on the shelf.

The ultimate test on what is good in auto insurance is where the public finds satisfaction and endorsation, and that is in the public plans in the west, and the Liberals, the Conservative and the Social Credit members have served the public out there by continuing those plans and saying they are good, but the Liberal government in this province goes on serving the corporate interest, the insurance companies of this province, and to hell with the motorists.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mrs. Grier: This seems to be the day for the release of weighty reports. I await with interest the five volumes of the Professor Hare report and can assure the minister that we will study them with interest and have a lot more to say about them than we can say in the time available today.

I would like to point out to the government that the appointment of the Hare commission was one of the recommendations of the select committee on energy. Many of the other recommendations of that committee remain ignored by this government and deal with the accountability of Ontario Hydro. If those recommendations to make Ontario Hydro more accountable had been put in place then we would have been much more reassured about the kind of review this report is going to undertake.

It is shocking that in looking at emergency plans, which was one of the things that Professor Hare was asked to look at, he has to point out that despite a discussion paper being released in 1986, little has been done to give effect to this plan for emergency planning for Ontario Hydro. The professional staff involved still numbers only two. A sense of urgency is lacking. If a severe accident occurs, the province is unready.

That is what this report is all about. It points out shocking dereliction by Ontario Hydro, and we intend to address that.

AUTOMOBLE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: At the outset, we want to extend our compliments to Mr. Justice Osborne for what appears to be a thoughtful and well-reasoned report, a report that, somewhat surprisingly, echos virtually everything this party has been saying for many months. Common sense seems to be the main ingredient of the report, and common sense is not something that has been featured in this government’s words and actions in respect to auto insurance.

Justice Osborne is not supportive of comprehensive no-fault, and with that we heartily concur. Our party does not accept the concept that no individual should have to be liable for his own actions and that the cost of any risk should be distributed among all members of society. We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe in the ethic of responsibility, that individuals must face the consequences of their own actions.

Justice Osborne also finds the new rate-setting board inappropriate, and to this we say, amen. The board is an extremely cumbersome, costly and unnecessary intervention into the private sector, which can only result in the slow but sure reduction of competitive choice for consumers in the auto insurance field. No doubt that result will fit in nicely with the long-term planning of social engineers like the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), a former NDP fund-raiser, but for the majority --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: I know; the truth hurts.

For the majority of Ontarians, who we believe do not share those interventionist, government-knows-best aspirations, the establishment of this board bodes ill indeed.

We hold out little hope that the government will heed the wisdom of Justice Osborne’s report, but we feel obligated to urge it to step back and reconsider the path upon which it has embarked. It is not too late to reconsider. It is not too late to inject common sense and fairness into its approach. It is not too late to do what is right for the private sector and for the consumers of this province.

Again, we applaud Justice Osborne for telling it like it is.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I will make a brief comment in respect to the tabling of the report by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). We welcome this report. We agree with the minister that it warrants careful study. We are somewhat relieved to see some of the major conclusions, obviously, especially the major conclusion regarding overall safety. I also concur with the recommendation regarding the human element being the major concern.

I would urge the minister and the various bodies that will be considering this report also to take into consideration a concern that has been raised in the United States recently and which was detected in a number of tests, and that is the alarmingly high usage of drugs by employees of nuclear generating facilities in the United States. I know this raises some questions in regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I urge the minister to take a careful look at this. This is something that we must indeed monitor in the Ontario situation.

Again, we look forward to working with the minister on this report.

EARL FENTON

Mrs. Marland: It is indeed a very real privilege and a pleasure to rise, on behalf of our caucus, to share in the recognition of Mr. Fenton. He certainly is an example to all of us. I think those of us who are able-bodied have to be very inspired and motivated by the example of Earl Fenton. When someone like Mr. Fenton becomes a force with so much success and so much good on behalf of other people, I think we are all indeed humbled by his example.

It is certainly a great week in Ontario as we recognize volunteerism. It has often been said that governments could never replace or pay for in any way the work of volunteers in Ontario. As we recognize their work and the rewards of their work without monetary compensation, we are again expressing our gratitude and our indebtedness to the people who volunteer their services for the betterment of their fellow persons in Ontario today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: Naturally, I had hoped to be able to ask some questions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today, but in his absence, turning again to the question of the government’s proposals with respect to Sunday working and Sunday opening, I have some questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose job will no doubt be made much more complicated by virtue of the impositions placed on him by his colleagues.

In the briefing which the press received on Thursday, the government states, “A bylaw may apply to any part or parts of the region; limit openings to specific times or certain number of hours; open or close on certain holidays; restrict opening or require closing to specific periods of the year; classify stores by size, number of people employed, character of business, geographic location, or any other criteria.” The law also gives the municipality the ability to substitute its own fine for the $50,000 fine which is provided for in the legislation.

I wonder if the minister can explain to the other simple souls in the Legislature, such as myself, who listened to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on Thursday with some amazement as he said this would make the law more enforceable, why having 800 municipalities and regions passing laws with respect to a total patchwork quilt will somehow make the law more enforceable in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to emphasize again that municipalities already have the option whether to be open or closed. We have met from time to time with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I met last Thursday, and we will be meeting again to discuss this subject further.

I want to say to the member that under the municipal option some five million people already live in communities that have opted for some form of Sunday shopping. Let me tell the member this: the municipalities are asking for the opportunity to run their communities, to run them in the way the people wish.

Mr. Brandt: They didn’t ask for this, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: No, what we are saying here is that the municipalities should have that option to tell us the type of community in which they would like to live, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure the minister would not want to imply for a moment that this legislation is something which the municipalities or the regions in this province have ever asked the government for; in fact, quite the contrary.

Again, the minister is saying something which is quite contradictory to what his colleagues were saying last week. What they were saying was that the current situation, and this has been the view the Attorney General himself expressed so many times, is such a mess, particularly in our large urban centres that, in the phrase being used by the Attorney General and by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), the law cannot be enforced.

You have people challenging the law. You have stores opening when they should not be opening. The law cannot be enforced. Those are the words used by the Attorney General and the Premier.

My question, again to the minister, is a very simple one. Can the minister explain to us how giving to the municipalities the power to pass a law which will classify stores by size, number of people employed, character of business, geographic location or any other criteria could conceivably make the law more enforceable? Would he not admit that common sense would tell him that if he thinks the law is a mess now, he ain’t seen nothing yet in Ontario?

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

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The present law was passed in 1977 by the previous government and was reaffirmed in 1981 by that government. In fact, there are three members sitting across from me who were a part of that government. I say to them that the people have lived under this since 1977. Why did they not raise objections previously in the Legislature? Where were they when that was passed? Why did they not speak up on behalf of that legislation?

Mr. B. Rae: I must say that, having been all my life in opposition, I really do marvel when government blames us for the legislation it has passed over the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. It is the government’s baby and it is the government’s problem, and the one it has produced is going to be even worse than anything that was produced by previous governments. That is perfectly obvious.

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr. B. Rae: The minister will no doubt be aware of the Nova Scotia experience, and if he is not I will remind him of it. In 1985, the Nova Scotia government did precisely what is being engineered by the genius of the Attorney General. A short year and a half later, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia had to change the law entirely and take it back into provincial jurisdiction precisely because it was such a mess, because there were so many challenges and because there was so much unfairness.

What he said was, “We believe that” by passing the change, bringing it back into the province, “we will have effectively cut off the possibility of developing a patchwork quilt of activity, municipal unit by municipal unit, and we will have a much more readable and understandable, and with respect I would suggest defensible, piece of legislation than perhaps was the case before.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister would not agree that perhaps it might be wise to look to the experience elsewhere where this has been tried and recognize that what he is doing is simply bound to fail.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It has been the experience in this province that municipalities speak on behalf of the people they represent, and I feel that the municipalities should speak from time to time on behalf of the people they represent. They are asking for the right to maintain this local option, this autonomy.

Mr. Harris: No, they are not.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Yes, they have.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are saying to them that since 1977 they have lived with this option. I am simply saying that in my experience the municipalities have never come to me and said that this is wrong. They are asking for that option. We are maintaining and carrying on with the option they now have. The honourable member knows that under this option the community of Point Edward, for instance, is open on Sundays, I understand. Where was his voice then and what did he say in 1981? That is it.

Mr. B. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier, I would like to ask some questions to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister has seen the factum, the legal document presented by his colleague the Attorney General to the court on behalf of the government of Ontario, indeed on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, the Provincial Offences Act appeal which is the most recent case on which the government of Ontario has expressed a view with respect to the current situation?

I wonder if he is aware of the fact that the government’s brief, submitted by the Attorney General or by the Ministry of the Attorney General on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, stated, under the heading “Vulnerability of the Retail Employee:”

“Employees in the retail sector were viewed as being in need of a statutorily mandated day of rest. Without such a regulation prohibiting Sunday openings, the vigorous competition for market share would force many retailers to open. Retail employees are generally nonunionized, have low job mobility and few if any mechanisms for the redress of grievances. As a group, retail workers are ‘not in an economic position to negotiate a satisfactory financial arrangement for Sunday work’ and are ‘subject to subtle economic pressure to work.’”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that his own government, in the presentation of a document to the courts of this province, has stated categorically that the best protection that retail workers can get is to make sure that stores are closed so they are not subject to the kind of intimidation that goes on.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In answer to the first part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition: no, I have not read the factum. I think he has read some of it to me. I think the end of his question incorporated a great deal of paraphrasing, but if I recall the part that he did read --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the Leader of the Opposition obviously does not want to hear the answer.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If he wants to hear the answer he just has to listen for a moment. I think what he read at one point was a phrase which said, “In the absence of statutory protection.” The bill that I hope we can get to introducing later on this afternoon provides the very kind of statutory protection that the factum the Leader of the Opposition was referring to said the workers of the province needed. That is what we are doing.

Mr. B. Rae: Again, the government really has been speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this question. The Attorney General has presented a case to the courts of this province in which he has stated categorically everything which we on this side have been saying in this House, and the government is now changing the law, which completely undermines every case it has taken with respect to the current situation.

Is the minister aware of the fact, for example, that the arguments presented by the Attorney General’s department stated: “The evidence ‘overwhelmingly’ indicated that there was a need for a legislated pause day due to a reluctance on the part of many industries to regulate themselves in accordance with this objective. There is an ever-increasing trend in retail business and its ancillary services to open on ... Sundays. There is an accompanying erosion of the opportunity for retail workers to participate in leisure activities with family, friends and others. A uniform pause day was needed”?

That is what it stated. That is what was stated in this factum. This government’s own legal arguments have been based on that --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, there are some 160,000 retail workers who, under the current law, are subject to working on Sundays. The fact is that for the first time this parliament has the opportunity to consider a piece of legislation which will make Sunday work in the retail sector voluntary, rather than compulsory. There is a protection that retail workers have not had. Under this bill, even the 160,000 who are currently subject to Sunday work have the opportunity to do that. So I invite the Leader of the Opposition and his party and the Progressive Conservative Party to consider this legislation.

Let us move it forward, because I think he will admit it is a protection --

Mr. Harris: None.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: -- the workers of this province simply have never had before, I tell my friend the member for Nipissing.

Mr. B. Rae: The entire premise of this government’s and this province’s case in the Supreme Court of Canada and in every other argument about the Retail Business Holidays Act, has been that it is labour legislation, that it is legislation intended to protect employees, that is why it is constitutional and that is why it falls within provincial jurisdiction. That has been the entire premise of every government case.

If the minister thinks that handing over the rights of retail workers to municipalities is fair game, why would he stop at that? Why would he not have a regional minimum wage? Why would he not have different labour laws for the protection of women? Why would he not have different hours of work in different parts of Ontario? Why would he not say that is next? Why would he, as Minister of Labour, abandon retail workers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems to be quite a number of questions.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The suggestion has been made that the current Retail Business Holidays Act is, in the view of the Leader of the Opposition, justifiable on the basis that it is labour legislation. Be that as it may, the fact is that for the first time in this province this parliament is going to be able to consider a bill which is direct labour protection.

He may want it to go further. I invite him to make those submissions during committee. He may say that it does not do everything, that we should be addressing the minimum wage as well and that there are other problems with retail workers; but for goodness sake, here we have an opportunity not only to address issues of the working world through amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, but also to create a provincial framework and one provincial law for all the retail workers of this province, and it provides opportunity, fairly and reasonably, to deal with the issue of Sunday work.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition does not want to pay attention but he quotes a Massachusetts law that he said is far more favourable than the one that we are proposing here in Ontario. I tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Massachusetts bill deals with a tiny segment of retail workers; indeed, those who were working on the day that bill was passed.

He shakes his head. If he looks at the legislation, he will find out that is the way the courts have interpreted it.

What we are proposing --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: In view of the absence of the Premier, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Premier -- that is the Honourable Mr. Nixon, just in case he was wondering -- and the question relates to the issue of Sunday shopping.

As the Deputy Premier will know, a very substantial and large percentage of his colleagues, particularly those on the back benches, did not campaign in favour of Sunday shopping in the last election. In fact, many of them indicated that they were unalterably opposed to the issue of opening up Sundays in this province as a seventh day of commercial activity.

The Deputy Premier may also be aware that our party has indicated that we will proceed in the normal way with the legislation that he intends to bring forth in connection with this issue if, in fact, the Deputy Premier will use his considerable influence to discuss with the Premier the whole question of having a free vote in this House to allow all of these members to vote according to their conscience with respect to what we feel is a very important and fundamental issue to the people of Ontario. My question to the Deputy Premier is, will he use his influence to allow a free vote in this House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report to you, sir, that my colleagues are very much and strongly in support of the legislation that is proposed to be put forward and we are looking forward to the leader of the third party making good on his commitment that the legislation will be properly before the House and available for the kind of debate that is going to be useful and, of course, democratically based.

But for my part, like for the honourable member himself, at least one community in my area has already taken advantage of its individual municipal right to declare itself a tourist area and the stores in that community -- it happens to be the township in which I live -- have been open now for a number of years. This has been a substantial convenience to the community and no one’s rights have been infringed in any way that is discernible and, as a matter of fact, I think the people in the community would be very upset indeed if the honourable member and his colleagues had their way and their right to self-determination was removed.

Mr. Brandt: What is interesting with respect to what the Deputy Premier has just indicated is that the Liberal back-benchers in his government are saying one thing here at Queen’s Park and still another to both the media and their constituents back in their own ridings. The government cannot have this issue both ways.

Let me quote, if I might, from a newsletter of one of the government members in which the member says, “Let me stress to you, I will continue to pressure my government in caucus meetings to pass legislation ensuring that stores remain closed on Sundays.” That is what that member says, but the Deputy Premier indicates they are free to do whatever they want. I am quoting from the newsletter of the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) --

An hon. member: Not him again.

Mr. Brandt: The member for Guelph again. I quoted him last week. I quote him again.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: My question to the Deputy Premier is, in light of the fact that there are a number of back-benchers who wish to express some dissatisfaction with the legislation the minister is attempting to browbeat them into supporting, will he use his influence to allow a free, democratic, parliamentary vote in this House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I know that the honourable member has returned to this issue on more than one occasion. He has singled out my colleague the member for Guelph, who is one of the finest and most capable members in the whole House.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Very much.

In this regard, I refer to the fact that the leader of the third party has singled out the honourable member on more than one occasion to justify the fact. I would bring his attention to at least one of his own colleagues who has said back home in the good, old protected hills and valleys of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry that in fact he felt it was an appropriate approach.

I think the honourable member will know that the people who are elected to this House, whether in the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, naturally have their own views as to how it would affect their own communities.

I think he will be aware that if the Premier were here to answer the question, as I wish he were, he would point out that these differences are exactly what this bill intends to take into consideration. It is my view that once the leader of the third party and his sensitive colleagues look at the actual legislation that is presented to them, they will look forward not only to speaking in favour of it but also to voting in favour of it. Give us a chance to examine this legislation.

Mr. Brandt: On more than one occasion the members of the government, including the Deputy Premier and his Premier, have indicated that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) has made certain comments with respect to Sunday shopping. Let me just say to him, as I have said to my colleague from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, that that member is free to vote as he chooses in this House.

Is the minister prepared to allow the member for Guelph to vote freely on this issue? That is the question I am raising with him.

Mr. Speaker: The Deputy Premier.

Mr. Brandt: That is not my question; that was a statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In other words, you are saying you want to place another supplementary. Go ahead.

Mr. Brandt: I do want to place a supplementary. It has to do with more than just the member for Guelph. I might want to add to the Deputy Premier that I have nothing but the greatest of respect for the member for Guelph, who speaks out on his individual rights with respect to what his constituents want and has frequently indicated he is opposed to Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

Mr. Brandt: I had my offices canvass some of the Liberal constituency offices asking this question, “Does your member support Sunday shopping?” The Deputy Premier would be pleased to know that of the calls we were able to make, 13 said yes; 28 said no, they do not support Sunday shopping; 11 were unsure; and for reasons that are best known to those constituency offices, fully 31 said they did not wish to comment.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Brandt: My question to the --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I will get to my question.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I just want to remind the member that you have been warming up for two minutes. Please place your question.

Mr. Brandt: I apologize for taking the time of the House, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the Deputy Premier is this: in light of the fact that an overwhelming percentage of those who gave their opinion in this survey indicated they were adamantly opposed to Sunday shopping, will he free up his members and allow a free vote in this House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: If the honourable member were to examine the legislation, he would be aware that the strength of the legislation and its thrust is to give the responsibility to the municipalities to decide. It seems to me that the honourable members and their staffs or whatever are well within their rights to express that view, because with the passage of this legislation -- and the sooner we get to it the better -- then the municipalities will be able to decide this and the honourable members, as taxpayers in their local municipalities, will be able to express their views as they see fit.

I see nothing in any way inappropriate in the responses the honourable member got. I simply ask him again to use whatever influence he has with his colleagues, who seem to be moving towards a freer and freer approach to these issues as the days go by, and persuade them to allow the legislation to come before the House for the sort of debate and decision that is the basis of our democratic process.

Mr. Harris: My question is to the honourable government House leader. The government House leader will know that our party, as a social experiment, has proposed that the Ontario Legislature sit on Sundays during the month of May. The reason is that this government seems ready enough to force Sunday working on the people of Ontario, so we believe that, as elected leaders in our community, we should try at first hand what the government wants our constituents to do.

My question to the House leader is quite simple: is his government willing to sit on Sundays, working Sunday to Wednesday of every week in May, so that we can see for ourselves at first hand what the effect of Sunday working will be?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my good friend the member for Nipissing that, after seven months, I really appreciate his giving me the opportunity to engage in this question period -- and a more apt and helpful question I could not imagine, because this very day, a few hours ago, the leader of the third party and I were chatting downstairs about our Sunday, yesterday, April 17. It seems that the leader of the third party and I spent a very busy, hectic day, as members of the Legislature, working almost nonstop on Sunday.

If the member is asking me whether I know anything about working on Sunday, I will answer accordingly. I suspect, like almost all members of this assembly, I work most Sundays and I am sure that members from Nipissing to Cornwall and from Kenora to Kensington would say to me, “Yes, we work all of the time on Sundays.” If the member for Nipissing does not, many of us might want to talk to him about how he spends his Sundays.

Mr. Harris: Then presumably the minister would agree with our suggestion since he works on Sunday as it is. There is a slight difference, as he knows, between working in one’s riding -- not for the members in Toronto, I understand, but for those of us who do not live in Toronto.

Over the last few months, the Premier has said that Sunday working would not affect the quality of life for the family unit in Ontario. I do not think anybody in this room -- we do work a lot on Sundays. I am surprised that the House leader accepts that. On February 9 in the Legislature, the Premier quoted jurisdictions that already have Sunday working. He said: “There is no evidence ... that this is destroying the family unit. I do not think my friend can present that evidence here at all.” My wife, for one, would disagree.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Harris: If that is the case and if it does not affect the family unit at all, why will the House leader not agree to our suggestion of a full working day for MPPs in Ontario on Sunday and let us see for ourselves the implications?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to say to my friend the member for Nipissing that I took the principle of his point in question to be simply this: does the government House leader recognize that members might work on Sunday?

My answer to that is, on behalf of myself and many members, including my good friend the distinguished member from Sarnia city and Point Edward village, we work on Sunday. We work on Sunday most of the time. Listening to the leader of the third party -- and we had a very friendly chat earlier this afternoon -- he sounds as if he worked all day yesterday.

I do not know of what the honourable Tory House leader speaks, because certainly members of this Legislature, over all the years I have been a member, have often -- in many cases, they would argue too often -- but on many, many occasions, they work on Sunday. The point of the honourable member’s question is, it seems to me, after the fact. The fact is, in our business, we work on Sunday, if not in and around the Legislature, certainly we work very actively in our constituency on many Sundays.

Mr. Harris: By way of final supplementary, I would remind the government House leader that he is fast blowing his one chance to answer a question. One can see why over the past seven months nobody bothers asking him anything.

I know the government House leader is aware of statements that were made by members of the interfaith committee last Friday. They said, contrary to what the Premier said, that Sunday shopping would affect the quality of life in Ontario.

He will also be aware of what we have been talking about, the domino effect, not just of jurisdictions but of a retail worker having to work and what that may do to many, many other employees; maybe he has not accepted that for transit workers, day care workers, city workers, I rhymed off about 20 groups last week. The implication, of course, is that there are a few other people who will have to work on Sunday -- our staffs, the people who make this chamber work, the media -- and we will get a real firsthand experience of what happens.

I would ask the government House leader one more time not to blow his chance to answer a question. Why would he not agree to what I think is a very logical, straightforward social experiment so that he and I and every Liberal back-bencher can experience exactly what the government is trying to force on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the member for Nipissing that the current legislative timetable and

schedule we have is one that was carefully worked out by all members of the assembly through their representatives on a number of committees. I want the member for Nipissing to know that I feel that the current

schedule we have is a good consensus.

You know, I heard over the weekend, and I would repeat in final response to the honourable member’s question, that surely the fair and reasonable thing to do within the work

schedule we now have is to move forward in a positive and a productive sense to deal with the business of this House. Surely as a good democrat, the member for Nipissing would want the government to have the right to put before the chamber the government’s position in the form of legislation so that a substantive debate on the issue can begin.

Surely my good friend from Nipissing, who, if nothing else -- and he is a lot of other things -- is a fairminded, reasonable democrat, would concede this much: that the government ought to have the right to introduce this legislation so that the substantive debate can begin. Then we might hear from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) what he thought here last year --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- when the bookstore amendment was brought forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Reville: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could just clarify if that was a yes or no.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I wish all members would take note of the clock and note how long it took for four questions.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it is not about Sunday shopping; it is about the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

I had occasion recently to write to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) expressing my concern about the Niagara Escarpment, and I received from him assurances that his government was still committed to the Niagara Escarpment plan. I would like to ask the minister, does he support the Niagara Escarpment plan as enunciated in the act of 1985?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are committed to the Niagara Escarpment plan. It is a plan that is very unique in this province and in the world, I suppose. It is one that we want to maintain, but also one that we want to be able to live with and to make work.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad the minister wants to make it work, because that is precisely what I was going to ask him about.

Since 1985, the Niagara Escarpment Commission has made 38 recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to amendments to the plan. The minister has made no decision on 19 of those recommendations; some have been before the minister for almost three years. This kind of delay undermines the credibility of the plan and undermines the credibility of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. How does the minister justify his unwillingness and his stalling of these recommendations for the plan and what answer has he got to that question?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: A number of the amendments to which the honourable member refers have already been dealt with, are before a committee and will be before cabinet. There are a number of others which are in the process of approval or otherwise. I want to stress one thing, that we are not simply rubber-stamping many of the amendments which come in.

What I am doing, and I am inviting others to do also, is to go out and look at the areas which are affected by those amendments. That is something I have been doing. I have been going out to look at them personally, so I am better acquainted with the work of the commission and also with the amendments which are being presented. I can assure the member that those amendments will not be held up.

SUNSET REVIEW

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer will be aware that there may be a budget coming up on Wednesday. The Treasurer, I think, will also be aware of my special interest in spending wisely to prevent tax increases, deficits and shortfalls in priority spending areas. The Treasurer surely knows that one of the ways we could help achieve this is with mandatory sunset provisions for all expenditure programs, of the type I proposed in resolution and of the type that our party proposed in the prebudget minority report. Will the Treasurer support some form of automatic review of government expenditures through sunset provisions?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The government spending program is reviewed on a regular basis, certainly year by year at budget time. I, personally, think that is sufficient. I do believe that with some pieces of legislation, where an experimental board or some special expenditure comes in, there is nothing wrong with a

section calling for a sunset review. Frankly, my own experience dealing with legislation in which the member himself may very well have had a hand in the previous government, is that where sunset reviews have come forward, they have been found to be very limited in their usefulness. I simply return to what I said to begin with, and that is that the Treasurer, in conjunction with his colleagues, reviews spending programs on a regular basis. In my view, I think that works reasonably well and is sufficient.

Mr. Harris: There are many people who think the Treasurer’s spending is totally out of control.

The sunsetting provisions we are talking about force or insist that a committee of the Legislature examine -- not some administrative committee, not some ministry committee with a vested interest in carrying on a program -- whether it makes sense or not.

When Bill 20 came in, and the employee share ownership plan, I moved an amendment which the minister accepted at that time, for a mandatory sunset review of that program. I say to the Treasurer, surely it cannot hurt to examine an existing program to see if maybe we should be putting more money into it, whether it is doing the job it was intended to do or is out of date. I would ask the Treasurer, in view of past statements he has made on controlling expenditures -- statements, not examples -- why he would not accept that and reflect it in his budget on Wednesday?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have already indicated that I do not feel it is necessary, although I have nothing in principle against a formal review. My own responsibility as Treasurer is to review these matters on a regular basis. The honourable member who was asking the question was part of a committee that reviewed the expenditure program of the government and gave its report to the House and to me just a few weeks ago. As I recall, the committee recommended an increase in expenditure of about $4.5 billion and did not refer to any specific area where revenue might be improved or significant costs controlled.

PURCHASE OF SURPLUS POWER

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Relatively cheap and abundant energy has contributed to Ontario’s economic development, but we may soon have to compete in the American market without the benefit of this important position. We know that Quebec has plans to sell power generated by the James Bay hydro project to American utilities. We know that our federal government is leaning towards a continentalist energy policy. There will be nothing to guarantee access to this Canadian power before it is committed for export. We may even end up paying more for that source of electricity than our American competitors.

My question to the minister is, if there is any chance that electricity from Quebec is a possible option to help satisfy Ontario’s future energy needs, can the problems associated with the federal government’s continentalist policies be dealt with in any way unilaterally by our own province?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Buying electricity from Quebec is one of Ontario’s options in planning to meet its future electricity needs. This option, however, is undermined by the federal government’s moves towards a continental energy policy because it encourages utilities with surplus power potential to sell to export markets rather than, first, to Canadians.

These problems cannot be dealt with unilaterally by Ontario. The federal government has its responsibility under the National Energy Board Act to ensure that power to be exported is surplus to reasonably foreseeable Canadian needs, and the federal government is considering new policies for electricity exports.

In addition, the free trade agreement may call into question the existing mechanisms by which electricity planned for export must first be offered to neighbouring Canadian provinces.

Last, may I say I am very concerned about the possible loss of this first-offer mechanism and have expressed these concerns to my associate, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Mr. Owen: Should the proposed trade deal go through between Canada and the United States, and since our climate dictates the use of greater energy consumption, are we not giving the United States an unfair advantage with our own energy resources? Are we not putting ourselves into an untenable situation if this goes ahead?

Hon. Mr. Wong: As I indicated in my initial answer, we feel that the present uncertainties are weakening our position in negotiating for possible electricity purchases from neighbouring provinces.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Wildman: Along the lines of the question asked by my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), I would like to place a question to the minister for concrete or for agriculture, whichever he prefers to be referred to as, with regard to the protection of one of our most valuable resources.

Ontario food land is disappearing under urban concrete at an alarming rate, and this jeopardizes both the viability of agriculture in this province and the possibility of Ontario being self-sufficient in food commodities. Can the minister tell the House when the government will be releasing the food land preservation policy statement under the Planning Act, which was first circulated for public review over two years ago?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yes, we have a food land preservation policy ready to go. We will be meeting with various groups. We will be meeting with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; we will be meeting with the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, we will be meeting with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture; we will be meeting with the rural caucus; we will meet with anyone who wants to have some input into this policy, at which time it will then move through the system and go through the committees. I am hoping that within a month or two I will be able to stand in the House and introduce the policy.

Mr. Wildman: I take it from the minister’s response that he is prepared to consult with all groups that are interested in this policy and that he hopes that process will be completed this spring.

I remind him that thousands of acres of prime farm land have been lost in the 10 years since the previous government introduced its Food Land Guidelines, and now we have waited two years for this government’s policy statement. Can the minister assure the House that when the policy statement is released it will contain deadlines for municipalities to make their official plans adhere to the policy statement?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We think it is going to be a policy that will be acceptable to the municipalities, the farm organizations and anyone who has any interest whatsoever in food land preservation. It will have a certain element of flexibility in it, because the member knows as well as I do that you cannot stop growth from taking place.

Mr. Wildman: You can direct it, though.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is right, and that is what this policy will do. We will attempt to direct planning. We will attempt to assist in the planning done by municipalities so that we can preserve agricultural land wherever possible.

Mr. Runciman: That is window-dressing.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: You cannot simply put a freeze on agricultural land. The member knows and I know that that would be naive to even think of.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. He may want to refer this, but it deals with the Osborne report. I share with my New Democratic Party colleague the suspicion that release of this report was delayed during deliberations on Bill 2. Will the minister confirm that this report was in the hands of his government during the period of deliberations on Bill 2?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I can assure the member that it was not. I appreciate the fact that at least the honourable member has couched the situation in more reasonable terms than those expressed earlier in the day. I am glad to have the chance to give all members of the House who might be interested the assurance that the recommendations from Mr. Justice Osborne were definitely not available when the bill was introduced and when it was carried forward in the House.

Mr. Runciman: I will accept that. Changing direction a little bit, as a supplementary, I am wondering if the minister would indicate whether he and his officials and his government share Mr. Justice Osborne’s views regarding no-fault auto insurance.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) really ought to answer that one and I do not think it is appropriate to refer it on the basis of a supplementary.

I do want to say that in the instance that really refers to the original question, the member’s objections to the concept of Bill 2 as he then understood it, I think the honourable member, who was sitting on the committee reviewing Bill 2, would know that there were significant changes which took place at the committee stage.

I believe there is room for competition in the rate ranges that are envisaged. If the honourable member does not agree with that, he might agree with at least one change which we would agree, both of us, is significant; that is, that the rate review board will have the decisive position having to do with the rate structure itself.

That was one of the areas of concern that Mr. Justice Osborne referred to. I really cannot comment on the timing of the writing of the report, but certainly that had been settled by the committee itself long before the House was reintroduced to the amended bill. Some of the objections which were inherent in his comments about Bill 2, or what became Bill 2, have been modified, I hope, in his own thinking, by events.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. As we are aware, immigration plays a very significant role in our economic, social and cultural life in Ontario. Many representatives of our multicultural communities in Ontario have said that nothing makes them more proud than the satisfaction received from participating in the democratic electoral process.

Can the minister advise this House of what initiatives his ministry will undertake to reach out to the multicultural community of our province, to inform them of the newest changes to the enumeration process which the government passed last week?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I thank the member for his question. As I think most of us in the House know, the government is committed to ensuring that in all our programs and policies we reflect the multicultural reality of this province.

When the bill was passed last week, the first thing we did was to meet with the multilingual media -- the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaitre), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and the parliamentary assistant for Education -- to explain the changes. The second thing we are doing is a communications plan, in 40 different languages, to explain the enumeration process and to ensure to the best of our ability that they are aware of it.

The last thing is that if, as a result of the mailing -- which, incidentally, goes out at the end of this month to almost six million households -- there still is the requirement for enumeration, we will assist in ensuring that enumerators are available to deal with the language of choice. I am hopeful that those activities will be helpful to ensure a strong enumeration.

Mr. Faubert: By way of supplementary, as the minister is aware, Scarborough is a city rich in multicultural diversity and participation, but can the minister advise the House where an immigrant can turn if he or she is having difficulty understanding our electoral process or if he or she has not been reached by those very initiatives the minister has just outlined?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I guess there are two final things that I have not mentioned. If they still are having difficulty, there is a toll-free number, a 1-800 number, and those phones will be staffed by people who can deal in virtually any language -- l will not guarantee every language. If, in the final analysis, they are still having difficulty, I might suggest that they phone the members’ offices, and I think each of us will do our very best to respond to those needs.

ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. On March 8, I wrote to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation concerning the concept of converting abandoned railway lines into recreational corridors and linear parkways.

Given that rail companies are abandoning lines in dozens of small communities across the province and given the opportunity these abandoned lines have for recreational uses, will the minister endorse the idea of using abandoned lines for trails, and will the minister today give an assurance to this House that he will take immediate action to protect such corridors for recreational uses?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: As the member may know, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) asked a similar question concerning lines in our area. I guess I would have to tell the member that we have provided assistance to the county of Hastings and the township of Collingwood so that they can study the feasibility of acquiring abandoned lines in their area, but I might also tell the member that, traditionally, this ministry is not involved in owning and operating recreational facilities.

Mr. Farnan: This is a very important area. Many of these corridors often pass through several municipalities -- the minister himself has referred to one already in his own area -- and this makes the co-ordination of extended corridors difficult. In my own area, for example, the rail line runs through Cambridge, North Dumfries, Branchton, South Dumfries and part of the village of Harrisburg and ends up at the village of Lynden, thus passing through several communities.

Will the minister acknowledge the need for leadership and not just studies on the part of the provincial government, not only to protect the lines but also to implement a co-ordinated program of conversion for recreational purposes?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I can tell the member that this matter is of concern to us. My ministry staff within both the ministry head office and the regional offices are looking very closely at the problem that exists. I agree with the member that it is, or could be, a very important recreational use.

Again, as I say, it is our preference that in some ways the different municipalities would co-ordinate this effort, since they are usually the owners of recreational facilities. I believe we would be there to assist them in grants and such things as equipment to help groom trails and look after other maintenance. But again, it is still under review by the ministry and I will get back to the member and other members when a decision is made.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the minister who was disappearing under the desk over there -- see he has now taken his own seat -- the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons.

About 190 Metro drivers of Wheel-Trans buses for the disabled have launched a work slowdown effective this morning. Work slowdowns will have a serious effect on disabled persons’ ability to get to work on time, to get home in the evenings or to get medical attention.

What does this minister intend to do to ensure that our disabled people will continue to receive regular service, service that they depend on for their livelihood and their health?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: As do all persons working in our society, disabled people to a great extent depend on public transportation, and I am hoping that through negotiations between the employees and the employer we can have an equitable settlement which will prevent to any great extent any disruption to the disabled community.

I have been in touch with the office of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the office of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). This issue is being monitored and we hope that the disruption the honourable member talks about does not take place.

Mrs. Marland: Any slowdown in fact is a disruption to these people. Wheel-Trans is the only mode of transportation for many disabled people in Metro. Given the legitimate request by Wheel-Trans drivers for wage parity with the Toronto Transit Commission and other drivers, can the minister guarantee to the thousands of people who rely on Wheel-Trans that this dispute will be resolved without strike action and without any further disruption in their lives?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: As the honourable member knows, it is not possible for me, as minister responsible for disabled persons, to resolve the contract dispute between the employees and the employer. We, as a government, as I said earlier, are monitoring the situation. The Minister of Labour has a number of staff people at his disposal within the ministry who can help the employees and the employer negotiate a settlement. We hope that is exactly what takes place.

The member opposite knows that it is not possible for any of the ministers to issue a contract to both sides and say: “Here it is. Sign it. “ We are hoping that reason prevails and we are hoping that there is not the disruption to the disabled community that the member is very concerned about.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Treasurer. A short time ago, a constituent of mine brought to my attention a concern. He had gone to purchase a particular commodity at a retail store with one of these coupons that you clip out of the newspaper, whereby you receive a 60-cent or $1 reduction from the price. He was charged the sales tax on the full price; in other words, the coupon plus what he had paid in cash.

I would like to ask the Treasurer whether that is the appropriate way that retail sales tax is to be applied or whether it is to be applied only on the cash portion of the purchase.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The tax is applicable to the selling price. I really ought to have asked my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) to answer this because he is knowledgeable in all these important matters, but since the question is put to me, it is on the selling price.

Mr. Callahan: The same constituent brought to my attention the fact that in going to two other stores and employing the same technique, the tax was in fact charged only on the cash portion. In the light of the Treasurer’s answer, I wonder whether there is not some confusion out there in the marketplace, and perhaps we are losing significant revenue. I wonder if his office would look into that matter.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Revenue and I have been in consultation on this matter, and he has indicated to me that a new bulletin has been issued to clarify once and for all that, as usual, you pay the tax on the larger amount.

ONTARIO SHARE AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Can the minister explain why he and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) have rejected the suggestions of Ontario’s caisses populaires regarding the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp.?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is unfortunate that the question comes at a time when question period is just completed because it is an extremely important one. Perhaps I might suggest that the honourable member place the question again because --

Mr. Runciman: You’ll have an answer tomorrow.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have an answer now, if the member wants to hear it. I have been somewhat surprised that the honourable members and their colleagues have not brought this matter to my attention because I think it is quite important.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from over 600 people concerning the proposed transfer of Peterborough’s oldest high school to the separate board. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, are concerned with the possible transfer of Peterborough collegiate and vocational school from the Peterborough county public board of education to the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

“The transfer of our school will take place only if the provincial government promises funding for a new separate school by 1994.

“Our separate school board states that they need a school for 1,400 students -- our school has a ministry-rated capacity of only 1,020.

“The regulations of Bill 30 state that no funding will be given where there is sufficient space in the public school system to absorb the excessive students from the separate school system.

“Therefore, we feel that building a new separate school in the Peterborough area is a waste of taxpayers’ money and we want the Minister of Education to turn down our separate school board’s request for funding for a new school.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition that is signed by 16 people from Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district and it reads as follows:

“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:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. Harris: I have a petition 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:

“Whereas Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of these persons from North Bay who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened and that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature, rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.’”

This is signed by a goodly number of citizens of my riding, the great riding of Nipissing.

Mr. Laughren: This is a petition 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:

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario” -- NATO -- ”families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize any other members, I might inform the House, as I have on previous occasions, and now having listened to two petitioners today, I believe the petitions were exactly the same. I would like to remind all members of 31 (

a) and 31 (b), that, “A petition to the House may be presented at any time during the session by a member filing it with the Clerk of the House or in the manner set out in clause (b).”

I would just like to again remind all members of clause (b): “A member may present” -- l hope they will take note of that word “present” -- ”a petition from his place in the House during the routine proceedings under the proceeding ‘Petitions.’ He shall endorse his name thereon and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, the number of signatures and the material allegations.”

Many members may recall that there have been a number of occasions in the last year or two years when I have reminded members that it is not necessary to read the “whereases.” The “therefore” really contains what we call the “material allegation.” I would appreciate it if all members could adhere to the rules.

SCHOOL FUNDING

“The Dufferin-Peel separate school board is in drastic need of capital funding for the year 1988-89. Present school buildings are bursting at the seams. Projected growth indicates that the system will expand by 4,000 additional students next year. The provincial government must show their commitment to quality education by providing the capital funds required. These funds are a realistic need, not a luxury.

“Quality education deserves an adequate physical environment. The students, parents and teachers of Dufferin-Peel are entitled to no less. “

It is signed by over 100 people, including teachers and students.

MOBILE HOME INSURANCE

Mr. Kozyra: I would like to introduce a petition from constituents of the riding of Cochrane North regarding concerns about mobile home insurance policies. Thank you.

HEURES OUVRABLES / RETAIL STORE HOURS

M. Villeneuve: J’ai une pétition qui se lit comme suit:

À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de la province de l’Ontario:

« Nous, les soussignés, soumettons la pétition ci-jointe au parlement de l’Assemblée législative de la province de l’Ontario », laquelle provient des évêques catholiques de l’Ontario:

« Le dimanche est, pour les chrétiens, la célébration hebdomadaire de la résurrection du Seigneur, du triomphe de la vie sur la mort, une célébration de paix et de réconciliation.

« Beaucoup de nos concitoyens et concitoyennes de l’Ontario ne partagent pas cette vision du dimanche, mais tous tiennent à sauvegarder un rythme de vie ordonné qui consacre le dimanche au repos et aux joies familiales.

« Nous demandons instamment que soit respectée cette tradition établie chez nous depuis longtemps, mais qui tend malheureusement un peu partout à disparaître. Octroyer aux juridictions locales le pouvoir d’opter pour l’ouverture illimitée des magasins le dimanche signifierait l’abandon de cette tradition historique de l’Ontario au jeu de la compétition commerciale et de l’opportunisme économique.

« Nous insistons donc auprès du gouvernement de l’Ontario pour qu’il tienne compte des appels lancés par les familles, les travailleurs et travailleuses, les hommes et les femmes d’affaires, et renverse sa politique de “l’option locale”. Nous pensons que seule une ligne d’action commune à toute la province pourra protéger les valeurs familiales qu’avec un grand nombre de nos concitoyens inquiets nous considérons comme étant ici indubitablement en jeu. »

Elle est signée par les évêques catholiques de la province de l’Ontario ainsi que moi-même.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a petition signed by residents of Toronto of which I would like to read all the material allegations because they are slightly different from those just brought in by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

“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:

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and”

Mr. Black: Heard that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Parts of it are similar and there are parts that are different.

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that, on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and”

You will notice that part was different from what was in the last one.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening carefully.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: “Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regarding Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I will duly sign it.

Mr. Speaker: This again might be the appropriate time for me to remind the honourable members of

section 31(

b) which states that the member may present a petition and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, including the material allegations, not the reasons for the material allegations. I hope that is helpful to the member.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps you can be clearer in what you are suggesting to us. You are much more expert at the rules than I would claim to be.

It is my understanding, in the way these petitions are worded and the way the petitions are worded that are presented to parliament, that the “whereases” are the material allegations and the urging of the government is, in fact, the action statement that the petitioners are asking the government. So we are reading strictly material allegations and the conclusions that arise out of those material allegations.

I do not think there has been any precedent set in this Legislature, since I have been a member, when a Speaker has ruled that we cannot read the entire petitions. Unless you are prepared to rule in some way, I suggest that the best way proceed this afternoon is to allow the petitions to be heard in parliament.

Mr Speaker: I am not here to debate the matter. I am here to assist the members to understand the rules as they have been set out and passed by the members of the House. I think it is probably a matter of opinion as to which are the material allegations. As I have said, I have stated on a number of other occasions that I felt that when you came to the “therefore,” that would be the material allegation.

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by a number of electors of Ontario and I have appended my own signature. It reads as follows:

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

“Whereas the Honourable Joan Smith, Solicitor General, the Honourable Ian Scott, Attorney General, and the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, Minister of Labour, have made statements to the Legislature announcing the introduction of legislation dealing with the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act and companion amendments to the Employment Standards Act to protect all retail workers in Ontario; and

“Whereas these aforementioned legislative initiatives will address the present inequities and unfairness of the existing Retail Business Holidays Act by amending this act to create a new act which is fair, because it allows freedom of choice to Ontario communities, is workable and enforceable, provides effective protection for all retail workers, provides for an orderly transition of exemptions over a flve-year period, protects religious beliefs and treats retailers across the province more equitably, and

“Whereas the opposition parties by way of exploiting the standing orders of this Legislature by presenting a series of petitions to the Legislature in a manner which is delaying the traditional proceedings and business of this House are doing a disservice to the people of Ontario; and

“Whereas this repetitious presentation of petitions is thereby delaying unnecessarily the introduction, debate and referral of this legislation to committee, thereby further delaying said legislation which will provide the people of Ontario with fair, coherent, enforceable law which allows them freedom of choice based on needs and values of their communities; corrects the previous legislation which was widely abused; gives all retail workers the right of refusal of Sunday work, a new right for every worker in the retail sector in Ontario; gives retail lessees the freedom to choose whether to open or close on Sunday without threat of reprisal; reflects the Supreme Court of Canada’s

interpretation of freedom of religion under the charter by recognizing a new Sabbatarian exemption which protects retailers who observe a Sabbath other than Sunday; and

“Whereas delaying of the introduction and debate of this legislation further delays the proceedings and legitimate business of this Legislature and further contributes to the dissemination of the opposition myth that this legislation proposes a ‘wide-open’ Sunday

whereas the opposite is the objective of the legislation;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislature of Ontario to cease this abuse of the traditions of this House and Parliament in general and allow debate on the Sunday closing legislation to proceed.”

Mr. Speaker: It would certainly appear to me that the members do not agree with the Speaker’s

interpretation of the standing order. The member for Mississauga South.

Mr. Faubert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do concur with your ruling and that was a ruling I sought last Thursday, when I raised the matter in the House.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is from St. Stephen’s-on-the-Hill United Church, Indian Road, Mississauga and it states:

“We, the undersigned members and adherents of St. Stephen’s-on-the-Hill United Church, wish to express our opposition to the provincial government transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to the municipalities and to our opposition to open Sundays in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by 42 persons.

I also have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Clarkson Road Presbyterian Church, Clarkson Road, Mississauga, which states:

“We are wishing to express our opposition to expanding Sunday shopping. We believe the availability of Sunday retail shopping has gone far enough. To further extend Sunday shopping would make Sundays no different from the rest of the week. It would further disrupt the family unit and weaken our social structure. Not only would regular shopping take place on Sunday, but some family members would also be required to man these stores on a day that should be more centred around the family unit.

“We provided the opportunity for families in our congregation to record their opposition to Sunday shopping during two Sundays in March and this petition has also included that the laws regarding Sunday opening should remain in the hands of the provincial government.”

Attached is this petition which includes 134 names opposed to Sunday shopping.

I have another petition.

Mr. Speaker: I believe there was an agreement to rotate.

Mrs. Marland: We missed a couple of turns, but I will adhere to your direction.

Mr. Pouliot: With the highest respect, the point is well taken. However, I have a petition signed by two concerned residents, one from Guelph and the other concerned citizen from the city of Toronto. They are of the opinion that the message can never be repeated too often. As always, it is 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:

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 31 people addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition opposes Sunday shopping and supports keeping Sunday as a day of rest.

“Whereas this sensitive issue, as you are aware, has been debated for now approximately two years, the government has chosen not to consult with the working people of this province during its deliberations. In this instance, I am referring to the people who are going to have to give up their family time on Sunday in order to work or, in some instances, going to work will interfere with their religious beliefs;

“Whereas it is incredible to me that the government acted in such an irresponsible manner as to push this issue off on to the municipalities without any consultation or thought as to the chaos this would create;

“In accordance with, and in support of, the joint declaration of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Toronto, the United Church, the Greek Orthodox church and the Anglican diocese of Toronto, I enclose a list of names and addresses of members of the congregation of St. Luke’s Anglican church, Price’s Corners, who support keeping Sunday as a day of rest and therefore are opposed to open Sundays.”

I also have another petition, signed by 120 people, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition also opposes Sunday shopping and supports keeping Sunday as a day of rest. It reads as follows:

“Whereas this sensitive issue, as you are aware, has been debated now for approximately two years, the government chose not to consult with the working people of this province during its deliberations. In this instance, I am referring to the people who are going to have to give up their family time on Sunday in order to work or, in some instances, going to work will interfere with their religious beliefs;

“Whereas it is incredible to me that the government acted in such an irresponsible manner as to push this issue off on to the municipalities without any consultation or thought as to the chaos it would create;

“The question of Sunday openings across the province of Ontario presents a difficult problem for many of us. We do not limit our reservations to religious grounds. We are deeply concerned, on humanitarian grounds, about the effect a wide-open Sunday would have on family life and employment practices. To keep Sunday as a day of rest and family contact will be virtually impossible for many, due to the business pressures which will be exerted even on those who wish to close.

“We, the undersigned, wish our member of the provincial Legislature and our municipal representatives to know our position on this matter. We make this statement and appeal, in conjunction with the Anglican Church of the diocese of Toronto, the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Toronto and the United Church and the Greek Orthodox church.”

I also have another petition, signed by --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: No.

The Deputy Speaker: No?

Mrs. Marland: Yes, OK.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member can’t just rush in here and petition.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes or no?

Mrs. Marland: Yes; thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not left here. The Speaker should know I have not left the chamber yet this afternoon.

I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

“I am becoming increasingly uneasy about the apparent collapse of Liberal morality. In this instance, I am referring to the party’s efforts to permit Sunday shopping in Ontario. I presume you have been made aware of the arguments against wide-open Sunday shopping, and for that reason I will not repeat them. I assume that you know as well as I the effect Sunday shopping will have on family life, on workers and on the community.

“Perhaps you should recognize the validity of these arguments. The Premier has been elected to represent the citizens of Ontario. Listen to us. Please have the foresight to prevent the demise of our society. Please ensure that Sunday shopping is not permitted anywhere in Ontario. This province does not want Sunday shopping. Listen to us, the people of Ontario, and heed our advice.”

This is signed by Alison Williams of 1495 Clarkson Road North, Mississauga, and she is 20 years of age.

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition on the subject of Sunday shopping to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is from four constituents, and I know that they will definitely want to see it in Hansard, so that the government may be aware of their opinions on this subject. It reads as follows:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I support the petition.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition 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:

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of 52 persons from London --

Mr. Villeneuve: London?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: -- the Premier’s home town -- ”who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.’”

This is signed by myself.

I have another petition and it also is 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:

“Whereas the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong), the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), all Liberal members of this Legislature, have endorsed petitions opposed to Sunday shopping; and

“Whereas the Premier has chosen to push on with legislation contrary to the personal wishes of his own caucus” -- imagine that -- ”we request that consideration be given to the views of 53 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

I have signed that as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition signed by a number of people going through one of the shopping malls in my riding --

Mr. Ballinger: A bowling alley?

Mr. Mackenzie: We have some more coming from there later today.

Mr. Callahan: Have you got someone out here doing it now?

Mr. Mackenzie: How is the Don Jail these days?

Mr. Callahan: I don’t know. Why don’t you go down there and get a few signatures?

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s where they all end up, anyway.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his petition through the chair.

Mr. Mackenzie: The petition reads:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already clearly indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature” -- including the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) -- ”reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Signed by seven people on a fast run through the Centre Mall plaza in my riding.

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition that reads as follows:

“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:

“Whereas the real issue is working on Sundays, not shopping on Sundays;

“Whereas Sunday shopping won’t improve family life;

“Whereas Sunday shopping is unfair to certain retail employees;

“Whereas customers are not demanding more shopping time;

“Whereas no retailer can afford to lose the competitive edge;

“Whereas we would like to add our voices to the growing concern over Sunday shopping;

“We strongly oppose Sunday openings. We are not concerned about Sunday shopping. We are concerned about having to work on Sunday.”

The petition has been signed by 13 persons from across Ontario, and they state that they believe the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day, and the decision to remain closed and to enforce closing must be made at the provincial level.

I have signed this petition and I will turn it over at this time to the House.

Mr. Reville: I should like to present a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the rep