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

June 6, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L074 - Mon 6 Jun 1988 / Lun 6 jun 1988

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

BUDGET

CANADA FLAG DAY

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

MARKHAM LIBERAL ASSOCIATION MEETING

MORQUIO SYNDROME

VISITOR

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

TABLING OF INFORMATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

1989 ONTARIO WINTER GAMES

RESPONSES

1989 ONTARIO WINTER GAMES

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

BUDGET

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS’ FEES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

WATER QUALITY

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

1996 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

ZOO LICENSING

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

MINIMUM WAGE

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TRITIUM

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would like to introduce to all members the next group of legislative pages to serve in the spring session of the 34th Parliament. They are:

Allyson Campbell, Frontenac-Addington; Attilio Commisso, Oakwood; Lanna Crucefix, Halton North; Keith Davison, Niagara South; Heather Evans, Simcoe Centre; Hope Evans, Leeds-Grenville; Amy Halpenny, Ottawa West; Neil Hennessy, Brampton North; Bradley Hopper, Scarborough Centre; Brett Kilian, Norfolk; Sandra Kroeker, St.

Catharines-Brock; Amédé Lamarche, Welland-Thorold; Louise Lannan, Cochrane North; Carl Lem, Eglinton; Som Mukherjee, Brampton South; Darren Nelson, Lake Nipigon; Joan Post, Port Arthur; Paul Pusey, Scarborough-Agincourt; Robin Spano, Riverdale; Rami Tabello, Etobicoke-Rexdale; Charles Tepperman, Middlesex; Michelle Thorne, Prince Edward-Lennox; Steven Volpini, Sudbury East; Rachel Walters, Kitchener; Jennifer Washburn, Essex South, and Vanessa Wilson, Dufferin-Peel.

Please join me in welcoming the pages.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Swart: The government of this province would like the public to believe that community colleges are independent bodies, that they make their own decisions and that if they have problems, it is their own fault. In general, of course, that image which the government portrays is false.

Take Niagara College, for example. The present executive council of that college proposed three options to a high-level group within the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The ministry ruled out option 1 in total. They said they could not accept option 2 in its entirety. On option 3, they made very specific statements about which program cuts were acceptable and which were not.

The ministry has now sent out a memorandum dated May 18 to the presidents of all colleges and universities stating it is inappropriate to use the revenue and expenditure -- that is, of course, the cost-effectiveness of any particular program -- to determine whether it should be cut. The ministry says that approach could eliminate programs with high student demand and good employment opportunities for graduates.

That is pretty obvious. Yet this is exactly what Niagara College has done and it has done it in consultation with and approval by the ministry. The theatre arts, dental hygiene and library technician programs all fit into this category. Surely the ministry is talking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. The bottom line is that it is responsible for everything that is happening at the colleges with regard to cutbacks and other problems.

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

Mr. Swart: This minister ought to deal with and resolve those problems and quit the game --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Swart: -- she is playing.

BUDGET

Mr. Harris: Canadians are realizing what Ontarians discovered some weeks ago, that the fiscal policies of this government are a millstone around their necks. Like that other millstone the Premier (Mr. Peterson) liked to talk about, this government, through its trade and tax policies, has given the finger to the economic aspirations of every province, to every consumer, exporter and home buyer.

Most recently, the chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and the Premier of Quebec have joined with over 120,000 Ontarians in protesting the Liberal budget. They have noted the inflationary impact of the Ontario budget and the upward pressure it puts on interest rates. For some reason, the rest of the country does not understand that this government in Ontario intends to try to wrestle inflation to the ground by putting taxes and spending through the roof.

For some reason, Canadians find it objectionable that it will cost more to finance a home in Halifax because the government in Toronto cannot give up its tax-and-fiddle approach to economic policy. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of this champagne government defends his policies by pointing out that the province has cheap beer. Thus, all Canadians, who will pay through, higher interest rates for this government’s lack of discipline, will come to know Ontario as the province of cheap brew and cheap shots.

CANADA FLAG DAY

Ms. Collins: I wish to inform the House that this coming Saturday, June 11, the city of Stoney Creek will celebrate the 20th anniversary of Canada Flag Day.

Twenty years ago, the Kinsmen Club of Stoney Creek organized a parade to honour the adoption of the new Canadian flag. These festivities were attended by a number of prominent figures, including the Honourable George F. G. Stanley, the creator and designer of the flag, a distinguished historian and writer, an honorary colonel in the Royal New Brunswick Regiment and, since 1982, the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick.

The Canada Flag Day parade is now an annual event in Stoney Creek, capping a week of activities, including the Fifth Lincoln Militia’s re-enactment of the battle of Stoney Creek from the War of 1812.

To commemorate the 20th anniversary of this uniquely Canadian event, the organizers have invited Colonel Stanley back to participate in this Saturday’s parade. In so doing, they have drawn attention to a truly outstanding Canadian, whose flag design is now an instantly recognizable symbol of our country throughout the world and a priceless addition to our national heritage.

I congratulate the people of Stoney Creek for organizing this important event and for reminding us of our national debt to Colonel Stanley, the man behind the flag.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Today the Ontario Federation of Students brought out the latest indictment of this government’s policies on post-secondary education in a paper called Cut to the Bone, which I would recommend as reading to all members of the Legislature.

We are in need of replenishment of faculty. We need thousands of faculty to get back to the kinds of ratios of students to teachers we had in the past. We have a situation which will be an enormous difficulty by the 1990s.

As I have shown in this House before, we have a problem with our library system deteriorating and crumbling before us without a reinvestment, even though that is the core of university learning. Many professors are actually turning to textbook learning instead of giving reading lists, which are more of anthropological interest these days.

It is ironic that the richest province has bake sales by students, leaseback proposals for libraries, and condos and luxury apartments being built by universities in order to provide the kinds of programs and buildings they need. It is a crying shame.

MARKHAM LIBERAL ASSOCIATION MEETING

Mr. Cousens: The member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) received front-page coverage in the Markham Economist and Sun this last weekend when he backed out of the Markham provincial Liberal meeting last Thursday, after he, the member for York Centre and Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and the member for York North (Mr. Beer) had accepted invitations to attend the Markham Liberal meeting.

This was the Markham Liberal association’s opportunity to meet three MPPs from the region. The Minister of Labour, unfortunately, had to cancel. As the paper says, he had to work out some major changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act. Anyone who monitors his

schedule knows this can easily happen.

I was then invited by the president to attend the Markham provincial Liberal association meeting in place of the Minister of Labour. This was a first for me and I was pleased to accept. I even had my red tie ready to wear.

Then the member for Durham-York heard that I would be attending and he, who had previously agreed to attend, backed out of the meeting and the meeting had to be cancelled. The paper goes on to explain in greater detail.

Where last week the member for Durham-York made accusations of me, the one thing I can say of myself is that I am not a coward.

MORQUIO SYNDROME

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Tomorrow, nine-year-old Brent MacKay of Kitchener will undergo delicate and dangerous spinal surgery of about eight hours’ duration in Towson, Maryland, near Baltimore, to prolong and enhance the quality of his life in an operation that has never been performed in Canada.

Brent suffers from a rare genetic disease called Morquio syndrome, a type of mucopolysaccharide disease, also known as MPS. MPS is a life-threatening disease that attacks children and causes severe, progressive, physical and mental handicaps. Children born with these diseases cannot produce certain enzymes which are necessary for the correct chemical changes to take place in their bodies. Therefore, complex sugars are stored in all types of tissues and cause progressive damage.

This disease is particularly tragic because few of its victims ever reach adulthood. It has left Brent stunted in body but indomitable in spirit. I have had the pleasure of meeting Brent at A. R. Kaufman school and found him to be a delightful and outgoing young man.

This operation is both pressing and urgent in order to save his life. I strongly encourage more medical research to be done to help Brent and other young people in this province who suffer from this disease. I want to send our prayers to this plucky young lad and his family for the difficult and uncertain days ahead and for Brent’s speedy recovery, and to wish him a happy 10th birthday, which he will be celebrating in the hospital next week.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for ministerial statements, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery, from South Australia, the Minister of Housing and Construction, the Honourable Terry Hemmings. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Hemmings.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Sterling: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last week I referred to the fact that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) was delinquent under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I have now received a response from the Minister of Education wherein he or his staff are now calculating what it is going to cost me in order to receive information from his ministry.

I think the privileges of every member of this House are impugned by this move. A point of privilege, and a valid point of privilege, is bringing to your attention a matter which keeps me from doing my tasks as a member of this Legislative Assembly. Surely if the Minister of Education is asking me now for money for public documents to be produced for me, that is a valid point of privilege.

I would ask you to refer this to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly so that it can be clearly put forward as to whether an MPP has to pay for information under the freedom-of-information act, because that is what the Minister of Education wants to do to me.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully to the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling). The request was for me to place it before the committee. I am quite sure the member is aware it is not a privilege of the Speaker to place it before a committee. I will, however, review his comments because in my experience here I have not come across a similar case and I would like to review the comments made by the member and report back to him.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a different but very similar point, Mr. Speaker, once again on standing order 88(d): The problems my colleague is having in getting information, highlighted by the fact that he even has to go the freedom-of-information route and then has to pay, are problems we are having under standing order 88(d). You will recall that it is the same standing order I brought to your attention last Wednesday.

Standing order 88(

d) states: “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that...an interim answer” has been given, “the approximate date that the information will be available, or that he has declined to answer, as the case may be.”

Last Wednesday, I brought to your attention a dozen questions which were in violation of the standing order. At that time, I questioned whether the proceedings of this House could proceed while such a gross violation of the standing orders existed. As of six o’clock last Wednesday night, this government has failed to meet the deadline for responses under standing order 88(

d) of a further 124 order paper questions. These questions deal specifically with the financial administration of this government. They deal with the ministry budgets of this government for the past two years. I do not want to read into the record all 124 questions at this time, although I think I would be within my rights to do so. Nevertheless, my concern still remains.

This government has failed to provide adequate opportunity for the opposition parties to scrutinize ministry budgets under the estimates process for the past two years. Now it has failed to respond to what I believe are very responsible and legitimate questions about this government’s financial administration.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the historic rights and responsibilities of parliament is to scrutinize the expenditures of the crown. This government’s disregard for the importance of the estimates process and now its blatant disregard of our legitimate requests under standing order 88 indicate to me that this government is either not interested in being accountable for its expenditures or is deliberately avoiding that accountability.

I ask you again, Mr. Speaker, can this House continue to sit while such a gross violation of the standing orders, under which we presumably are operating in our sitting, continues to exist?

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I may just very briefly speak to the point of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), because I had some inclination that he might be raising this question again today, as a result of the discussions here last week -- I think it was last Wednesday -- I have looked at the order paper questions myself.

As of June 1, 1988, there were some 316 order paper questions before us. On that date, some 107 of those had been responded to with final answers; some 16 interim answers were tabled; 45 answers were still being prepared within the 14-day rule provided by standing order 88(d); 10 were scheduled for a response on that day, June 1; 14 were outstanding.

When one sets aside the 124 questions that are on the order paper, to which the honourable member has made specific reference, I ask any member -- and you included, Mr. Speaker -- to look at Orders and Notices. Some 124 questions are very detailed. They are certainly going to be responded to as quickly as we can. I must say that it seems to me those questions are the kinds of questions that we would ordinarily want to take up in estimates, though I certainly realize the desire of honourable members to have responses.

It is the intention of the government to answer those 124 questions with a response as quickly as it can, though I would ask every honourable member to look at the pattern of those 124 questions and wonder whether or not a more appropriate place for that discussion, once those answers are provided, is in the estimates debate.

Mr. Harris: If I might speak on the same point, I think it is particularly relevant. The government House leader has said the appropriate vehicle is estimates. These questions deal with the last two years. The estimates are gone. He refused to give us the time in the committees for estimates, so that is now past.

The questions are four very simple, direct questions to each ministry. They are all the same. We are asking each ministry, if it is half serious about the estimates process, to give us the information that it would surely have ready and was prepared to go with on the estimates anyway. There should not be any time involved in finding these answers, if in fact the government ever intended to do the estimates in either of the last two years.

Mr. Speaker: I think we are really debating the point of order now. I listened very carefully. The member for Nipissing, I believe, made two points in his opening comments. The one point was, of course, the number of questions that have been unanswered, and the government House leader has responded. I am certain the government House leader has again been served notice and will do his best to make sure those are responded to.

As far as the other point made in the member’s opening point of order is concerned, he asked the Speaker whether the House can sit under such conditions. I see no way that the Speaker would have any authority under any of the standing orders to adjourn the House for such conditions.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

1989 ONTARIO WINTER GAMES

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I am pleased today to announce that the city of North Bay has been selected to host the 1989 Ontario Winter Games. I congratulate his worship, Mayor Stan Lawlor, and the games organizing committee on the excellence of their bid.

Thousands of Ontario athletes have benefited from my ministry’s summer and winter games program. Over the years, these championships have attracted more young people to amateur sport, and some of them have gone on to make their mark in national and international competition.

Hosting the games is indeed an honour and also brings substantial economic benefit to a community. At the 1989 Ontario Winter Games, North Bay will welcome 3,000 competitors, coaches, trainers and officials, as well as thousands of visitors who will come to cheer on the athletes.

These athletes, aged 14 to 20, will compete in over 20 events and each event will be the Ontario championship for that sport. Hosting provincial competitions on this scale demands a high level of civic spirit and the hard work of hundreds of volunteers. I have full confidence in the spirit and energy of the people of North Bay, and I am sure they will make the 1989 Ontario Winter Games a tremendous success.

RESPONSES

1989 ONTARIO WINTER GAMES

Mr. Breaugh: We are pleased to welcome the announcement by the minister this afternoon. I must say that one of the things Ontario does well is quite an outstanding effort at putting together showpieces for athletic competitions such as this one, and they are worth while.

They are opportunities for our young athletes to compete in a setting that is sometimes unfamiliar to them but is precisely the kind of competition they require. It offers many of our municipalities the opportunity to highlight their athletic facilities and their ability to sponsor and co-ordinate events of this nature, which are, as I know as one who has been involved with them in the past, not easily done but certainly worth while doing.

There is just one thing that is missing for an amateur athlete in Ontario and that is the strong support many other nations and many other provinces offer to their athletes between competitions of this nature. I know the minister is aware of this problem and is working on it. I welcome his announcement today of the Ontario Winter Games. I would simply like to remind him and all other honourable members that athletes who participate in showpiece events such as this get one day of glory. The problem is that the rest of the year they have to work and train under very difficult circumstances.

While I welcome the showpiece events, I would simply like to remind the minister that there are young people working out today, very hard, all day, every day, trying to qualify for events of this nature. If he would support them on the other days as he does when these major events are on, they would be much better athletes, much better able to compete on an international level and we would all be very happy.

Mr. Harris: It is difficult for me to get up and slam the minister today. Although I am sure if I put my mind to it I could find hundreds of areas where the ministry, this minister and this government should be criticized, today is not one of those days, obviously.

I want to congratulate the selection committee on recognizing what we in North Bay have known for a good deal of time, and that is the considerable expertise that exists in our community to host an event of this type. I speak of the North Bay parks and recreation department, particularly Alderman Don King who heads up that department and who has been a driving force for recreation in North Bay and area.

Mr. Wildman: Mike, I thought you made this announcement on Friday.

Mr. Harris: We were not going to get into that today. The minister and I have made a deal.

Alderman Don King, really over a great number of years, as the former reeve of Widdifield township and now as chairman of parks and recreation for the city of North Bay, has spearheaded a drive for excellence in staff and facilities and in co-ordinating volunteers throughout our city. I congratulate him for that.

I also want to comment on Murray Shave, David Saad, Jamie Huston and Terry Talentino, staff of the parks and recreation department in the city of North Bay, people we are very proud of in our community.

I want to congratulate the minister and this government for carrying on the tradition of excellence among athletes in Ontario that has been started, to thank them for carrying on the tradition of the summer and winter games throughout the province and to say, of course, that we are delighted to be able to play host, as the minister has said, to some 3,000 athletes, coaches and parents who will be visiting our community next February.

In the seven years I have been a member, I think there is one person who has consistently provided me with information and research and writes a lot of the material I use. He has pointed out to me that at one time or another I have mentioned in Hansard some 50,000 people who live in my riding and I have never mentioned him. That is Bill King, my executive assistant, who was a participant in the 1974 winter games. He tells me what a wonderful program it was and how delighted he was to share in that experience as a young curler from West Ferris Secondary School.

I have now accomplished that. I do not have to get his name in the record before the next election.

There is a gentleman who still remembers very vividly that experience of some 14 years ago. These games do have a significant impact, not only for athletic excellence but also for the friendships with the other people and other athletes they meet across this province, and visiting other cities and other ways of life.

I congratulate the minister, obviously, on the selection. More particularly, I congratulate the host committee. The one person I have not mentioned, to whom the games are going to be turned over to co-ordinate, is a gentleman by the name of Arnie Schmidt, who is well known in our community, a very active Rotarian, head of the boys’ choir in the city of North Bay. I can think of nobody more qualified than Arnie Schmidt. I know his organizational abilities at first hand. I witnessed them in 1981, 1985 and 1987. Nobody is more qualified than he is to organize an event of this magnitude.

I look forward to welcoming all of the members of this Legislature to North Bay next February.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions today for the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod).

The Premier will know that at the end of next week, students, some 55,000 strong, who have applied to our universities will be hearing from various universities as to whether or not they have got into university. Also, we have today a report sponsored by the Ontario Federation of Students entitled Cut to the Bone.

As a result of the cuts which have been instituted by his government in terms of real funding in comparison with real costs, and as a result of the increase in applications from students, the Premier should know that there are many within the Council of Ontario Universities who are estimating that as many as 1,000 students who have applied to university will not be able to get into university or into anything like the university of their choice and, as a result, will not attend.

When he was standing in this place, the Premier had some very hostile things to say about a government which betrayed its promise to women, which betrayed its promise to newer Canadians, which betrayed its promise to many of those who would not be able to get into university. I would like to ask the Premier why he has not made good on the promises that he made to the young people of this province that there would be places for them within our university system.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my friend opposite, I completely disagree with his analysis of the situation. I ask him to look at the facts, at what has happened in the last three years in our three budgets and at the increases in funding. We have made post-secondary funding a priority. I agree with my honourable friend that prior to that there was a real cutback and things were in some trouble. I think if he looks at the trends, we have reversed that very substantially.

Mr. Jackson: You need 85 per cent to get into Queen’s, for God’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) is sort of mumbling in his beard over there, but he must be embarrassed to do that as the Education critic now, because we have made real increases.

Let me say that in the last three budgets the increase has been some 25 per cent for operating funds, which is roughly double the rate of inflation, so I do not think my honourable friend can stand in this House and legitimately use the word “cutbacks.” Those are real increases beyond the rate of inflation.

Mr. B. Rae: The bottom line for how well the government has done is whether students in the next two weeks are going to hear and are going to be able to get into the university of their choice. That is the bottom line and that is the message from this government, that in fact that is not going to happen.

When the Premier looks at the report from the Ontario Federation of Students, he will perhaps be able to answer this question. If he has funded the universities so well, and if in fact there have been the kinds of increases that he has indicated, can he explain why the share of spending by this government is 22 per cent less than it was by the Tory government back in 1977-78 when it comes to all of the provincial budget?

Can he explain why the University of Toronto library is having to cut 1,500 journals a year from its purchase program; why there are examples contained in this report of labs having equipment that is 20 years out of date; of students attending classes sitting in the corridor having to listen to lectures --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked three questions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is aware that the universities are autonomous and make their own spending decisions --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- but let me say, just look at the facts. The facts are there. As I said, the operating funding has gone up at roughly double the rate of inflation. You have seen for the first time a long-term capital program in place; some $400 million over the next little while. You have seen enormous infusions of capital and operating funds into the centres-of-excellence programs. You have seen the Ontario student assistance program increase, I think by some 34.2 per cent in the last three years.

I say to my honourable friend that I just do not think his characterization is quite correct and I think in fact we are seeing some major progress being made in restoring quality to our post-secondary system. You can always make the argument, and he always will, in this and anything else, that it is not enough. That is fair enough; that is one of the joys of standing in the position that my honourable friend does; he can always argue that whatever it is, it is not enough.

I say to him that we are making real progress in that regard. We have started to pull the system out of the trough. I was at the opening of the Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science and I can tell him that there is enormous enthusiasm in the academic community about the major progress that is being made by this government.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me then ask the Premier another question. If he is unable to answer the earlier two, let me ask him this one. Can he stand in his place today and make a guarantee on behalf of the government of this province that as of September there will be a place in our universities for every single student who is qualified to attend? Can he make that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The universities, obviously, make their determinations on who is qualified and that kind of thing. I think and we believe that our post-secondary system will accommodate all the students who are qualified and wish to go. I cannot argue that everyone will have his first choice of university and/or faculty, but we believe the system will accommodate them.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health concerning her bill on the commercialization of health care and the funding by the government of Ontario of that commercialization and of private profit medicine.

What good is her preference, so-called, going to be for nonprofit care when, since 1971, funding for private profit nursing homes has increased from some $30 million to some $367.4 million; when in fact 93 per cent of the money that is going on extended care for nursing homes goes to private profit operators?

I wonder if the minister can tell us how seriously we should take the so-called preference stated in the legislation for nonprofit care when we consider the gross commercialization of care for the elderly that has taken place under both Tory and Liberal governments, at taxpayers’ expense -- commercial care, in many cases poor care, which is being offered, subsidized by the state? Why should we believe the minister is going to do any better when it comes to so-called community care?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the Leader of the Opposition has missed the point of the legislation. Compared to the situation that exists right now, where there is absolutely nothing in place which prevents an American for-profit company from establishing in Ontario, this legislation clearly states a not-for-profit Canadian clause.

Mr. B. Rae: It does not state it. If the minister will read the legislation, what she will find is that instead of saying no to commercial care, instead of saying no to American-based care, all she says is that either Canadian commercial companies or nonprofit companies will be given something called a preference.

Well, that was her policy on nursing homes. Fully half the licences which the ministry has awarded since the Liberals became government in the nonhospital sector have gone to for-profit care when it comes to nursing homes in this province. That is the government’s so-called preference.

When it comes to labs, the share of government money going to private for-profit labs has increased from 30 per cent in 1974 to 40 per cent in 1985. We have seen that kind of increase in labs. We have seen that kind of increase in nursing homes. Why should anybody take the minister seriously when it comes to care in the community? We know perfectly well that this is a foil not for less commercial care but in fact for more.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, this legislation is not at all comparable to the Conservative government’s nursing home legislation. This has a clear preference for nonprofit Canadian proposals.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What about your record?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As far as our record goes, I am very proud of the fact that we are making progress and that 66 per cent of all the beds that have been awarded under nursing home proposals have gone to nonprofit: 66 per cent of all of the beds awarded have gone to not-for-profit organizations. I am proud of that record. Previous to that, we know that some 96 per cent of nursing homes were in the private sector. We are making progress and we have clearly stated a not-for-profit Canadian preference.

Mr. B. Rae: Can the minister tell us why her legislation, which she has said provides so much protection for people, establishes under

section 33 the following weasel-word and sucker clause? Wait for this one. Do the members want to know a loophole? The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) outdid himself. When he looked up the book in his library under “loopholes,” he pulled out a whopper. It says: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations, (1) exempting any health facility or class of health facility from the application of this act or the regulation or any provision thereof...” What it says is, “This is the law unless we decide that this isn’t the law.” That is what this says. You could drive a truck --

Miss Martel: Without brakes.

Mr. B. Rae: -- without brakes, through this loophole which the government has established here.

What is the point of asking us to pass legislation when the government is giving itself, the Attorney General, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the minister in the cabinet, the power to exempt any facility it decides? If the government wants to exempt Extendicare, Para-Med or anybody else, it can exempt them.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. B. Rae: Does the minister not think it is disgraceful to come to this House and pass legislation and give the government the power through executive fiat to exempt the whole law? Does she not think that is a bit of a joke?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said a number of times in this House that I think the reasonable comparison for the Ontario health care system both in per capita funding and in our general regionalized system of a national health system is Sweden. I have come across a quote that I think might be of real interest to the Leader of the Opposition, whose philosophy might be said to be similar to the Swedes’. This is from The Swedish Health Services in the 1990s, by the National Board of Health and Welfare Sweden:

“Privately run medical services supplied mainly by full-time doctors and physiotherapists are a valuable complement to public health services. This segment should continue to receive public funding via the public health insurance scheme. However, the prime requirement still remains to achieve a fair allocation of health resources to ensure that the entire population receives an equal share of the services available.”

That is from Sweden.

BUDGET

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier and it relates to the position that is being taken by many economists and many business people in Ontario relative to the high dollar value of Canadian currency which we have at the moment and also the high level of interest rates. Some of these spokesmen have indicated that Ontario stands to lose many millions of dollars in export sales as a result of that two-pronged attack on the competitiveness of Ontario’s position, namely, a high Canadian dollar and high interest rates.

Would the Premier concur that that position is one he shares relative to the viability of our continued export sales to not only the United States but also to other countries in the world?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response to my honourable friend’s question, which I am sure is a setup for a supplementary, let me say that I agree with the honourable member in that regard and I have spoken out on this on several occasions, as he may well know.

The Bank of Canada is running a high-interest-rate policy now, some 275 basis points higher than that of the United States. One of the concomitant effects of that is to drive up the price of the Canadian dollar and that is worrisome obviously to anyone who cares about the trading position of this country.

The member and I have talked about this in the context of the so-called trade agreement. People tell me that far more important than the trade agreement -- even its supporters tell me -- is the fact that our currency is reasonably well priced vis-à-vis the United States; the dollar has gone up from 70 cents to 80 cents or 81 cents in the last year and a half. The Bank of Canada seems intent on driving that up, and I believe that is worrisome.

The member has heard the western premiers speak on that subject; he has heard Premier Bourassa and he has heard me speak on that subject. Now the Bank of Canada is arguing that there is some, shall we say, overheating in the economy of southwestern Ontario. But I would argue that is not the case across the country and that the bank should be more sensitive in that regard.

I also do not believe that a government should be running a high-interest-rate policy that will prevent capital investment and, on the other hand, trying to promote trade. If the federal government is going to turn over the economy of this country to US market forces, it has to have reasonable interest rate policies in order to invest now, to be productive in terms of plant and capital. That is why we brought in a capital cost allowance and a research and development super-allowance in the last budget, to make sure that our companies are in a position to invest, to be competitive internationally.

Mr. Brandt: It was not in fact a setup question, as the Premier suggested, but there is a linkage between what I intended to ask by way of a supplementary and my lead question. That is to simply remind the Premier that his government plays a major role in the determination of what happens both with respect to the value of the dollar and, perhaps even more directly, with respect to the level of interest rates.

It is interesting to note in an

article in today’s Toronto Star, if read carefully, that it talks about what we admit is currently a boom in Ontario but it also suggests that Quebec is concerned about Ontario’s present affluence driving up the interest rate level that is affecting the rest of the country.

The

article goes on to say that Quebec did its share by bringing in a budget that was in fact less than the budget brought in the previous year. So the Quebec government has lowered its expectations as a government, rather than increase its expectations, which is the case on the part of the province of Ontario.

By way of question to the Premier, I would just like to remind him that Raymond Pinard, the chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, has stated that, Ontario’s “inflationary budget in an overheated economy” is forcing up interest rates. Since that is one of the factors that is causing high interest rates, would the Premier not agree that a more modest budget with smaller increases would have helped to keep interest rates down in this country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, one has to understand, and I am sure my honourable friend does, that it is not the government of this province that determines interest rates; it is the Bank of Canada. I say with great respect to Mr. Pinard that he is talking through his hat.

I invite the honourable member to look at what we did in the last budget in fiscal terms. We have substantially reduced the deficit and the net cash requirements to the lowest level in some 19 years. This is, by any standards one wants to use, anti-inflationary. I say to my honourable friend that compared to the other provinces, the total revenue taken as a percentage of gross domestic product is the lowest in the country at 15 per cent here in this province.

I ask the member to look at inflation last year in this province, about 5.2 per cent. Our projections are it will be about 4.6 per cent next year; in fact, in April it was 4.2 per cent. So inflation is coming down in this province.

I say to my honourable friend that he would want to look at all of the facts attendant thereto and he would find that we are, I think, meeting the needs of the people of this province of Ontario in a financially responsible way, with reduced net cash requirements, reduced deficit. Our net cash requirements and our deficit are much, much lower as a percentage of our gross domestic product than those of Quebec or the federal government or most other governments, for that matter.

So I say to my honourable friend that I think we face the future with far more financial flexibility than we have in a very long period of time and we are meeting the legitimate needs of the people of this province in a fair taxation environment.

Mr. Brandt: I think the Premier is well aware that the only way in which he reduced the deficit -- and he still has $500 million to get out of his current budget in order to bring the deficit down to the announced figure -- but in order to do that, he had to increase taxes at a historically high rate.

Could the Premier perhaps share with this Legislature and the people of Ontario why it was in 1972 that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who brought in this past budget, indicated that the last increase in sales tax, which went to seven per cent at that time, was in fact an inflationary measure on the part of the government,

whereas his increase in sales tax from seven to eight per cent in 1988 is not inflationary? How can he bring those two positions together and hope the people of Ontario are going to believe him?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot speak for what my honourable friend the Treasurer said in 1972; I was not here. But I know that he has for a long period of time pronounced very wisely on the events of the day. The member will recall that in that year Mr. White brought in a two-point increase in the sales tax on that particular occasion.

My honourable friend is upset with sales taxes and the kind of taxation we do to meet what we consider to be the legitimate needs of the people of this province. On one hand, he says our taxes are too high and, on the other hand, he is saying we should be spending more for hospitals, universities and anything else that hits his fancy. What he may want to do, because I know how close my honourable friend is to the federal government, is to address his mind to some of the problems they have presented, as well.

The federal government, with sales taxes, has taken more out of Ontario with its last budget than our entire budget. Its telecommunications service tax of 10 per cent will take $348 million, a flat tax. The federal sales tax rate of 15 to 18 per cent on liquor and tobacco is taking $70 million. The paint increase from eight to 12 per cent will take $24 million. The federal sales tax rate increase from 10 to 11 per cent and to 12 per cent on April 1, 1986, will take another $890 million, and its gasoline tax, another $120 million. Through the sales tax mechanism, it has taken $1,452,000,000.

If my honourable friend is concerned, he will want to share that with his close friend Michael Wilson, who, I assume he would believe, is creating inflation in Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: Michael Wilson would want me to share with the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: New question. To whom?

Mr. Brandt: -- the fact that his expenditures went up five per cent last year while the government’s went up over 10 per cent. He would want me --

Mr. Speaker: The question is to -- Order.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My second question is in fact for the Premier, as well. He indicated some time ago that the Retail Business Holidays Act was too complicated and too unworkable to continue for this province and that he had to bring in new legislation. Can the Premier explain the relationship between the legislation he proposes to have passed by this House relative to the Sunday shopping question and the impact of that on counties, regions, local councils and unorganized northern municipalities?

I ask that question because there seems to be some confusion as to who in fact has the responsibility for making a decision relative to Sunday openings. Could he share that with us?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no confusion at all. I am sure if my honourable friend attends the debate to be introduced this afternoon, the honourable minister will explain all that to him. I know he has been too busy to read the bill, but I think he will find it brings a real new simplicity and a fairness, and supports the concept of local option where individual municipalities can make their own determinations. I am sure my honourable friend, on reflection, will find it fair, understandable and enforceable.

Mr. Brandt: I am sorry the Premier has not had an opportunity to read the bill, because he could not give me an answer. I only have to say that it was about a week ago that my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) asked a question of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with respect to this very same matter. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) had some confusion in his mind relative to the same question.

Mr. Eves: That is not unusual.

Mr. Brandt: Some of my colleagues are suggesting it is not unusual for the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to be confused about a vast array of issues. I would not take that position. However, I say to the Premier, if there is that much confusion among his ministers and back-bench members relative to who has the authority and responsibility in connection with this very important question, could he perhaps share with us how he expects the rest of the people of Ontario to understand it when the minister sitting right behind him and a member within two rows of him do not understand it? How does he expect Ontario citizens to understand it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the whole matter is quite clear, and I guess my honourable friend opposite is speaking to his own confusion on the matter. I do not think there is any confusion on this side of the House or that end of his side of the House. I think that this government and this caucus is quite clear on the matter.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member can hear that anybody who claps understands the bill, so I do not think there is any particular confusion. He will have an opportunity to go into this in some detail and depth this afternoon, and it is going to be in committee. If my honourable friend has worries, he can express them then or bring forward any amendments that he has.

Mr. Brandt: I have raised this question with the Premier before.

Recognizing that we have religious leaders in this province, organized labour, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the retail business community and a high percentage of the people of this province who have indicated very clearly to the Premier that they do not like his legislation, they think it is wrong and they feel that he is threatening a day of rest, a day of pause, in this province -- in light of the tremendous opposition and the thousands of petitions which he has received and which we have placed before this House relative to this very important question -- why does he not simply back off of legislation that he knows to be wrong for this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s advice, and I understand that there are certain people who disagree with the approach this government has taken, but one of the things we have found is that there was an enormous emotional reaction at the beginning, perhaps fuelled by misunderstanding.

I know some politicians who felt it was their responsibility to create some misunderstanding about this bill, but when people fully understand the implications of local option, when they realize that communities are different, when they realize that each community is now empowered to make its own decision -- if Sault Ste. Marie, for example, wants to be open, why should it not be? If Niagara Falls has special consideration, or Point Edward, people are very comfortable with that concept.

They are understanding now that it was not the bill as originally characterized by some. Then they are seeing some of the other provinces adopting the same kind of status, for example, Saskatchewan. My honourable friend, I know, is a great admirer of the politics of Grant Devine of Saskatchewan. There are a lot of similarities between the two of them, I have noticed on many occasions, and he has introduced a bill very similar to ours in that regard. Again, I think it shows that Ontario respects democracy, it respects the local communities and, again, Ontario is in the forefront of policy leadership across this country.

Mr. Philip: Since the Premier obviously cannot answer the last three questions, I will see if the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) knows the bill a little bit better.

The minister will be aware that, in 1987, the Nova Scotia government found it necessary to introduce legislation repealing the municipal regulation of Sunday shopping. In repealing the legislation, the Attorney General, the Honourable Thomas Donahoe, complained that the municipal-option route created a patchwork quilt of what would be open. Can the minister tell the House why residents of Ontario should expect anything different in Ontario in introducing this kind of legislation, the very same type of legislation, to Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale will be very aware of more than one aspect of this. In the first place, it is quite demonstrable that, in this province, we already have quite a patchwork of legislation, basically opened under the onus of the tourist exemption clause. He would know, as well, that any municipality in this province can, indeed, call upon that one clause and open as it pleases and add to the patchwork as it pleases. But I would point out to the member that there is some value in the patchwork as well because, in this province, we have very different neighbour-hoods and very different communities, which indeed have different needs.

Tourist areas may very well need to be open during the tourist season and to have Sunday shopping available if they are to survive as communities. On the other hand, that same situation may not apply at all to an area such as my own, London et al., that may prefer to see it closed Sunday, as they have said. We therefore think that because of this variety within the province, the local municipalities can best address the problem for their own area.

Mr. Philip: It may come as news to the Solicitor General that there are different areas in Nova Scotia. They are quite different from one another. There are actually tourist areas in Nova Scotia also. Why would the minister introduce legislation which was such an abominable failure in another province that it had to be repealed only two years later? Why is she trying to impose on Ontario the same kind of legislation that failed so obviously elsewhere?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Nova Scotia is a province that rules itself according to its own needs. We have looked very closely at the needs of our province. We have spoken to people everywhere. We have looked at what is fair for the people of this province and we have made a decision based on the needs of this province, which is way larger, has much more variety and has much more diversity. Many of our communities border on American cities and this is not the case in Nova Scotia.

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS’ FEES

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Two years ago, on May 22, 1986, her predecessor promised the Ontario physiotherapists fair and equal treatment with respect to Ontario health insurance plan fees. Physiotherapists, the vast majority of whom are women, are being paid considerably less for physiotherapy treatment than is being paid to the medical profession, to doctors. The ministry has not closed the gap after more than two years, and negotiations, which started last fall, have now broken down. When is she going to live up to this commitment and close the gap?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: My primary concern is for fair compensation to be paid to the physiotherapists working in private clinics. The clinic owners have been asked to allow the ministry access to their financial records to ensure that any increases would be directly passed on to their clinic workers. They have not agreed, and negotiations have broken off.

Mr. Eves: The ministry has offered to close the gap only if the physiotherapists are willing to submit to two unprecedented, and in their minds, unreasonable requests for confidential information that her ministry does not demand of any other health care professional.

Why is the minister picking on the physiotherapists? Would it not seem reasonable to her to treat them the same way she treats other health care professionals? When is she going to step into the picture and live up to the commitment that was made more than two years ago and reiterated by her in this House on December 16, 1987, to close the gap and treat physiotherapists in the same manner she treats other health care professionals in the province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, it is not my position to negotiate in public. I want to make that very clear. We are willing to meet at any time with the Ontario Physiotherapy Association, but it is important to note that 80 per cent of the physiotherapists in this province work in hospitals and on other than fee-for-service methods of payment. The member is now at this point in time talking about negotiations between the ministry and clinic owners whose clinics, I might mention to the member opposite, would fall into the category of privately run facilities, if you will, as opposed to nonprofit facilities.

We are open to coming back to the table at any time. Let me state again that my concern is to make sure that any increase goes directly to the physiotherapists who work in those facilities, so that there is fair compensation. I am very concerned that we portray this issue accurately for what it is.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Premier. It concerns the recommendations of a report about United States legislation implementing the Canada-US trade agreement. The joint recommendation of the US Senate finance committee and the House of Representatives ways and means committee calls into question Canadian federal and provincial rights to have a homegrown trade strategy.

The two committees have commissioned from the Office of the United States Trade Representative an audit of all Canadian federal and provincial trade practices and the legal authority for those practices to enable Congress to retaliate quickly where it feels American companies have been disadvantaged.

The recent Premier’s Council report, Competing in the New Global Economy, emphasizes the need to foster Ontario high-technology companies, particularly by tax incentives for their research and development efforts --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Ms. Hart: Yes, Mr. Speaker -- and for their encouragement by means of government procurement. Does the Premier see any unresolvable conflict between Ontario’s aspirations for globally competitive Canadian companies and the attitude of Congress towards the Canada-US trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me thank the member for the very thoughtful question. I think the question draws attention to one of the unfortunate offshoots of this particular trade discussion that has gone on with the United States, and that is that we have now invited more scrutiny of a number of the things that are going on presently.

The honourable member refers to a report commissioned by Congress to go into detail on all the things that we are doing now to assist our industries to be competitive, presumably with the sense that the Americans are going to come after us if we do not comply with their particular hopes for us or if they do not feel we could come under the trade agreement.

We believe, as a government, that there are a number of things we can do and we should be assisting government with, be it research and development or technology questions and, as in the last budget, helping small and fledgling companies with engineering support and assisting from a tax point of view. We think all of those things are very helpful.

Those now may be seen as subsidies under the trade agreement and we could invite attack by the United States. I find that an unfortunate offshoot of this particular discussion and, in a sense, it was unnecessary. The entire pressure is going to be to try to harmonize with the United States and play by the same rules it does, even though it subsidizes its companies in other ways. But we always seem to be the demandeurs, and not they.

I think the honourable member points to one of the pressures that we have willingly subjected ourselves to. It is most unfortunate because we will lose our capacity to assist our own industries and engage in regional development, something that is important to our Canadian economy.

Ms. Hart: As if it is not enough to neutralize our own companies’ efforts at research and development, the two committees also take aim at Canada’s ability to impose any performance requirements on US subsidiaries in Canada, including technology transfer and research and development. They want it eliminated. Can the Premier comment on what effect this elimination would have on our Ontario companies?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One of my concerns with the trade agreement is that I think it will tend to reinforce this country as hewers of wood and drawers of water. We are already running a very large, high-technology deficit with the United States at the present time. We believe that the future of our country and its material wellbeing are going to be a function of its ability to handle the intellectual-value-added information revolution that comes along.

I think that this will hurt us, as we try to help those companies. Who knows? They may come after our centres of excellence. Who knows? The discussions on regional development will go on over the next five to seven years. Under the terms of this agreement, they may say there are certain things we cannot do in New Brunswick or Newfoundland or certain other provinces that do need help regionally.

This government has always supported the principle of regional development right across this great country. We want to help other provinces to build their industrial infrastructure. We are assisting in buying coal in western Canada. We have assisted in lending money to Newfoundland and will continue to do so because we believe in equalizing opportunity for all Canadians. But this may well prevent that kind of action from taking place, and I think it would be regrettable for our entire country.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last week we heard that the toxics in the Niagara River were increasing. The week before, there was a toxic spill from Polysar into the St. Clair River.

Mr. Brandt: No, that is not right.

Mrs. Grier: An alleged toxic spill, says the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: No, no, come on now. The spill never reached the river.

Mrs. Grier: Both of these have made the people in the province apprehensive about the quality of their drinking water. Is the minister satisfied that existing guidelines are sufficient to ensure the protection of the drinking water in the province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would know, the Ministry of the Environment conducts, under its drinking-water surveillance program, a survey of a large number of municipalities in Ontario, to look at the treated drinking water to determine whether it meets the health guidelines of Ontario, and we have found indeed that is the case.

We have, in addition to that, undertaken a program which we call the plant optimization program, which ensures that those plants that are in existence in Ontario to treat water for the purposes of drinking have people there who have taken any of the specialized courses which are necessary. In other words, we are trying to assist them to upgrade in that regard, but the equipment itself is in the best of working order, and if there are any capital works that are required, those capital works are undertaken.

Certainly we do very extensive testing. The member would know we test for over 100 chemicals, for instance, to determine whether there is a presence of those. My thrust, as the member knows -- and I think she agrees with this, although she will certainly speak for herself -- is to get at the sources. We are at the present time getting at the sources of contamination across Ontario. We cannot control the international sources but we certainly make an attempt to persuade our neighbours that they should do so.

Mrs. Grier: What I asked about was the existing guidelines. When I introduced the safe-drinking-water bill in 1985, the minister told the House that he was working on a drinking-water strategy. When the question was raised again in December 1987 and he was asked about the drinking-water strategy, he said, “It certainly is well along the way.”

Can the minister tell us today why, in June 1988, we have in this province no legislated standards for drinking water but guidelines which were established in 1978, which are unenforceable and which cover only 42 of the substances found in the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would know, for instance, her favourite program, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, is in the process of developing a regulation in terms of monitoring and then of abatement which will have the result of cutting off the sources of contamination to major waterways in this province.

She would know as well that if we compare the quality of our water to others, it is generally better than others. It is not perfect in Ontario -- I do not want to suggest that is the case -- but we find in our comparisons and with all the testing that we do that we have a high quality of water. I was listening to a program as I was coming in today on the radio where an independent person -- independent of us, that is -- was making exactly that point.

This does not mean we are not always striving to do better. We are always striving to perfect the equipment that we have in place. We are always striving to bring about the kinds of measurements which are necessary to ensure that we have a good quality of drinking water for people in this province, but I do not want to take off the emphasis on getting at the sources of contamination.

We can build up all the defences we want -- and yes, they are important and we have done it over the years -- but the key is getting at the sources, and that is what our very tough regulations in this province are doing at the present time.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. Harris: I have an

article I would like to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources about, from the Daily Miner and News of April 15.

“Kenora MPP Frank Miclash recently completed a tour of northern communities in his riding. The focus of the tour was to meet with community leaders to discuss their views and concerns.

“During the three-day tour, which began March 15, Mr. Miclash visited constituents at Weagamow Lake, Sandy Lake, Sachigo Lake, Muskrat Dam Lake, Bearskin Lake” -- a few others, Red Lake and Sioux Lookout.

“‘The northern tour provided me with an excellent opportunity to meet with native leaders to discuss a variety of issues and government programs.’...‘Tours such as this will enable me to better understand and, therefore, better represent all of my constituents.’”

I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources: in view of the fact that northern members have a $2,500 northern travel allowance to pay for this kind of travel, can he tell this House when the government decided that back-bench members of the Liberal Party could requisition Ministry of Natural Resources government aircraft for constituency and political business such as this?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would have to get back to the honourable member when I am able to examine the question that he raises. Of course, I do not have the material with me here.

Mr. Harris: I guess what the minister is saying is that he has not changed the policy or he did not approve the trip.

Let me say that I do not think anybody objects to a member meeting constituents, but I would like to ask the minister, while he is waiting to check into it, whether he thinks it is appropriate that back-bench members can requisition Ministry of Natural Resources aircraft.

The news report goes on to state, “Mr. Miclash was accompanied by two representatives from the Sioux Lookout district of the Ministry of Natural Resources.” They accompanied him on this three-day tour of the riding.

I think it is bad enough that his travel agency flies a Liberal MPP around in a government plane for three days, but how can the minister justify sending along two MNR civil servants as tour guides, and will this travel service for airplanes and staff be extended to all members of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I certainly took the question as notice and I am very much prepared to get back to the honourable member. But just to make a couple of comments that come to mind, one answer that comes to mind right now is that it is about time northern members began to go across northern Ontario to see what is in the best interests of the people of northern Ontario.

That has never been done before, except for maybe one of the people the previous government had up there who was supposed to act like the governor in northern Ontario and not really do the kind of job that is being done by the northern members right now. I am proud of the way they are examining the problems of northern Ontarians and reporting back to this government, which is going to do something about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: The applause was a little weak on that one.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What a ridiculous question from the member for Nipissing, and he knows it.

Mr. Brandt: You even embarrassed the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître) when you answered that one.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister has completed the answer. The member for Sarnia has already asked questions.

1996 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In the light of the minister’s statement in the House today that North Bay was receiving the Ontario Winter Games, it brought to mind a concern I had meant to ask him about on an earlier occasion.

Recognizing the fact that Toronto is bidding for the 1996 Olympic Games, I would like to inquire of the minister whether or not he is following this in co-ordination with Toronto and whether or not it would be the intention, should Toronto be successful, that it would use satellite facilities.

The reason for my asking that is that Brampton, the city I represent, has very excellent facilities that would be of assistance and I would like to inquire of the minister whether or not satellite game sites will be employed, should Toronto be successful in getting the 1996 Olympics.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I can tell the member that it is the intention of this government, and I believe also of the Toronto Ontario Olympic Council, that should we be successful in obtaining those games, we will certainly be hoping to spread the facilities where the games and the different events will be held throughout parts of the province. I can certainly tell the member that Brampton will be considered in those discussions.

Mr. Callahan: My supplementary may not be as good as my first question, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to inquire of the minister whether or not, recognizing that existing communities around the Toronto area will be used as satellite locations, there will be consideration of any additional funds to assist those communities in upgrading or establishing additional facilities to be used, with reference to the uses suggested, as satellite communities.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: As the member and the members of the House should be aware, I think last year we put approximately $28 million into our capital conservation and new capital program, but I can tell the member also that in the studies that we are preparing for the Toronto Olympics, we are consulting within our ministry and with other people within the government and people outside the government as to what type of facilities would be required. I can certainly tell him that we are also looking at the funding aspect.

ZOO LICENSING

Mr. Philip: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister indicated on May 18 that he was studying the possibility of bringing in some regulations to regulate private zoos. On Friday I visited a zoo north of Barrie with zoologist Dr. Ron Orenstein, at which time we identified at least three different situations which are potentially dangerous to the public, particularly children.

Since the minister is not prepared to introduce any legislation at this time, what does he intend to do to protect the public from situations that are potentially dangerous to them in these zoos?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course I did not say that I was not prepared to introduce legislation. We are very much willing to do that. The legislation that I am going to introduce is certainly in keeping with looking after the wildlife in the province of Ontario, not only that native to Ontario but also the other wildlife that is imported from offshore. I told the honourable member that. I am very pleased that he would be supportive of such a bill; he has taken an initiative that is quite important.

The other thing I might mention now, while we are talking about that aspect of it, is that we are also examining a wildlife bill that will properly look after some of the areas that have not been taken care of in the past. Those two are in the works. I am going to share, and I will share particularly with the member because of his interest, what the initiatives will be.

Mr. Philip: The minister refused to share his ideas with the zoologists, veterinarians and others who invited him to meet with them on Saturday.

Pending the legislation, which hopefully the minister may introduce in the fall or at some time after that, would the minister be willing to visit each of the nine private zoos in Ontario accompanied by a qualified zoologist, identify the situations that are potentially dangerous to children and other visitors and meet with the zookeepers to see, at least until the legislation is introduced, if they can correct the situations that are dangerous to the public and to the visitors who are coming there?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In response to that aspect to the question, I certainly would be willing to meet with those interested parties. That would be in keeping with introducing the kind of bill that would reflect the kind of situations the member has described.

I would not suggest that I visit them all, but I would be prepared to visit some, and of course staff people make certain we visit them all. We have been looking, in drafting this legislation right now, and have met with many people in that field, and certainly we would be prepared to continue in the whole format. Yes, I would be willing to do that.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Unfortunately, on the subject of the Red Squirrel Road extension, the Ministry of the Environment actually bungled the entire issue because a full environmental assessment hearing was not held. It should have been held two years ago, and now that it is too late they have decided it is going to go ahead.

My concern with the Ministry of Natural Resources, however, is that we understand from the press release that was given on the day of the joint press conference between the two ministries that the Ministry of Natural Resources studied all the aspects of the road’s impact for 22 months.

My question to the minister today is, since the public has not had a fair or full hearing on both sides of this issue, could he tell me if there is a cutting plan for the Red Squirrel Road extension and the area south of the park such that all the merchantable lumber will be able to be harvested by 1994, which is the end of the period that is being granted as we understand it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly I would not be prepared to agree with the honourable member who has described one of my fellow ministers as handling something in less than a responsible manner.

If she were properly apprised of the whole circumstance in the area of Temagami, the member would know there was a management plan quite a while back when the logging was removed from Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park and that we were very much prepared, because of some misunderstanding, to do things that had not been done before. Not only did we have a voluntary environmental assessment there, but also we put in place Dr. Daniel with people from the north who are very familiar with all aspects of the use of the particular area.

We are also going to put in place on July 1 a committee that will make that into a model forest management unit, and certainly there has been adequate ability for people at those various forums to be heard as to their interest in that particular matter. I think in fact that it was not only handled well, but extremely well.

The jobs that are to be protected there, the northern environment for people who enjoy the parks, all the things that need to be done in this model management area are being done, and they are being done in co-operation with the Ministry of the Environment as well as my ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources, I think in the best interests of the people of all of Ontario to make certain that we have a wood supply.

In fact, a very interesting comment I might make right now is that the Saturday edition of the Toronto Star consumed 42,000 trees. We are not here to look at the lumbering interests. We are looking at providing newsprint and we are looking at providing wood for building homes, and we are looking at the things that people enjoy and somehow we have to make certain that happens in a controlled --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: I hope I have equal time to the response of the minister because, unfortunately, he has not answered the question.

The point is that when timber is harvested it is done through the process of cutting plans, and the reason there are cutting plans in the province is that in this way the forest values are protected. In fact, it looks after all the areas that are of concern to everybody, the lumber companies and the environmentalists. Forest values include nesting areas, deer parks, recreational sites, cottages, campsites, regionally significant vegetation areas; that is why this question is so important.

The minister has now agreed to grant this extension to this road. My question, and I repeat it, is: is there a cutting plan for the Red Squirrel Road extension and the area south of the park, and will the minister table those cutting plans in this House in order to protect the environment while the work is being done?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have to tell members that there is kind of a question to a question here. We would not even be contemplating the Red Squirrel Road if we did not have a plan to go in and take the timber. I thought that was a given which the member would understand. The reason for the road in the first place is to harvest the timber; not only to harvest the timber, but to do things which are being done which were not done to the degree that satisfied me by her former government.

That is, then, that the roads will be used for replanting those trees, tending those trees and tending them until they are free to grow, so we can count them in the inventory and not just put two in the ground and forget them, as was the practice of the former government.

Those things, of course, are being done now. It is going to take a while for some of the people to be aware that those things have been changed so radically and are being done, but I guess that is the job of my ministry, to convince people that we are doing the management plans in an extremely good way, which will augur well for all of the users in that particular part of Ontario.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding his announcement last week that the minimum wage in Ontario is going up by 20 cents an hour, the smallest percentage increase we have seen in the last three years. The minister must be aware of some of the consequences of low-income and poverty levels on families in this province, particularly when one looks at some of the data on children, who have twice the infant mortality rate, are twice as likely to get leukaemia, three times as likely to commit suicide and five times more likely to die in an accident.

Does the minister agree that the minimum wage in Ontario today falls far short of providing an income above the poverty line for the working poor? If he does, why has he not done anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think I made rather clear when I made the announcement about the increase in the minimum wage that it was not an initiative designed to eliminate poverty, particularly among the working poor, nor was it the basis for restructuring our whole social service safety net within the province. I think my counterpart the Minister of Labour in Quebec, in making the similar announcement, was not then attempting to do that either in Quebec.

We had undertaken some two years ago to ensure that there was an annual review of the minimum wage and that that review would lead to some initiative by the government. I know the member for Sault Ste. Marie is as concerned as I am about issues relating to poverty, issues relating to illness, issues relating to the instance of illness and particular social problems among the working poor, and I share his concern in that regard.

I simply tell the member that the minimum-wage provision governed by the Employment Standards Act is something that this government is committed to look at on an annual basis and to revise as the government thinks appropriate. In this case, we felt it was appropriate to raise it by the percentage point.

Mr. Allen: It is obvious the minister apparently does not believe in a living wage. What he is proposing is that the solution has to be some kind of add-on that obviously will be social assistance of some kind or welfare.

The minister must know that he would be solving a great problem for the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), with his employability programs, if in fact he had a minimum wage at an adequate level, because all we know about the employability programs is that women and men cycle back on to welfare as a result of the minimum-wage situation.

We also know from studies of children on welfare, for example, that the rates of psychiatric disorders for six- to 11-year-olds are 40 per cent among boys and that poor school performance on welfare is at a rate of 27.8 per cent. That is the result of being in a welfare-type situation. The psychology is inescapable.

When is the minister going to do something about the minimum-wage rate that will give working-poor families a reason to be in the workforce and not on some form of social assistance?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I simply tell my friend the member for Hamilton West that the initiative we took was not designed to address those very large problems. I also tell him that neither his party nor any particular member in this House has a premium on concern for the working poor.

The member will know that my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has undertaken a very large scale review of those very problems. For this member to suggest that we simply solve those problems today by a major readjustment of the whole approach to the minimum-wage issue is facile. Perhaps it is politically advantageous for a question in question period, but on a realistic base it does not make any sense at all.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in Ontario, which 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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McCague: 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:

“We wish to support the battle against wide-open Sunday shopping.”

This is signed by 60 retail members of the Collingwood business improvement area. I should sign that.

Mr. Morin-Strom: 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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and” -- etc., etc. We will get to the final line: “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.”

This petition has been signed by 14 residents of the province.

Mr. Brandt: I have a series of petitions.

The first, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, is signed by 35 persons from the Delta United Church in Hamilton, Ontario, and reads in part as follows:

“This declaration of intention by the government of Ontario represents a major threat to what is still, in the main, a commerce-free Sunday in Ontario.”

I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 66 persons from Morningside-High Park Presbyterian Church in Toronto, which reads in part as follows:

“We wish to express our objection to any expansion of Sunday shopping within our community and province.”

I have another petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 16 persons from the city of Kingston and area, which reads in part as follows:

“Such a move would destroy Sunday as the common pause day for family and friends to share together. This should not be a matter for municipal governments to decide. It must be the responsibility of the provincial government of Ontario.”

I have another petition, again to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 173 persons from the town of Alymer, which reads in part as follows:

“That the council of the corporation of the town of Alymer register its strong opposition to Sunday shopping in this municipality and so advise the provincial government of council’s opposition.”

I have a further petition, again to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 140 persons, members of the Redeemer Christian Reform Church in Clearwater, Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

“The Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province.”

Here is another petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 52 persons from Tillsonburg and area, which reads in part as follows:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

I have a petition from seven persons from the School Sisters of Notre Dame in Hamilton, Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

“We the undersigned do not support the extension of Sunday shopping and we also consider that the legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should remain the responsibility of the provincial government of Ontario.”

That concludes the petitions I have, but there are many more coming in every day.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition:

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

“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” -- I apologize for the split infinitive – “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. McCague: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 150 families of the town of Collingwood.

“The people of Collingwood want their right to a common pause day protected.”

I am pleased to present their petition, which I fully support.

TRITIUM

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas one billionth of a gram of tritium can cause cancer; and

“Whereas the transport of heavy water containing tritium could be eliminated by building additional removal facilities at the Pickering and Bruce nuclear plants; and

“Whereas tritium can contribute to nuclear weapons if exported;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, oppose the transport of heavy water containing tritium and the export of pure tritium.”

There are 631 signatures on this petition, and they come from Guelph, Kitchener, Fergus, Elora, Alliston, Orangeville, Hamilton, Brantford, Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton, Toronto, Peterborough, Ajax, Oshawa and Bowmanville.

TAX INCREASES

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a number of petitions signed by some 2,000 irate taxpayers. They live all over Ontario. The petitions read 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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I have signed the petition, and I will turn it over to the House for the record.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Pollock: 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:

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

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by teachers from the greater Peterborough area.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Mackenzie: 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 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’;

“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 agree with this petition signed by one resident of the city of Burlington.

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by residents of my home town of Capreol, and the petition reads as follows:

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

“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.’”

The petition is signed by 30 residents. I have added my signature, and I agree with them.

Mr. Swart: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“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

“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.”

It is signed by Eugene Ellman and M. R. Holder, both of the city of Toronto, and I have endorsed this.

Mr. Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to once again remind members regarding the standing orders and the presenting of petitions. It is certainly within order to present to the House the material allegations made by the petitioners. However, it is not necessary to read in all the reasons for that. In other words, what I am saying is that it is within order to read the “therefore” but not necessarily all the “whereases.”

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure the Speaker knows that some of these people feel so strongly about this that they want their reasons known to the Speaker, but I have a short one here this time; it is a petition:

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

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

“Let’s not leave this issue up to the municipalities. This is the responsibility of the provincial government. We say no to Sunday shopping.”

It is signed by 80 people in the Hamilton, Caledonia and Oakville areas. I agree with it and I have signed the petition.

Mr. Charlton: I have two petitions on the issue of Sunday shopping. The first:

“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:

“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.”

This is signed by one resident of the city of Hamilton. I have added my signature to it.

The second petition:

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

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

“Let’s not leave this issue up to the municipalities. This is the responsibility of the provincial government. I say no to Sunday openings.”

It is signed by 98 residents of Hamilton-Wentworth and surrounding areas.

Mr. Allen: I beg leave to present a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which is signed by 125 signatures. It reads:

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

“Let’s not leave this issue up to the municipalities. This is the responsibility of the provincial government. I say no to Sunday openings.”

I have endorsed this petition and, of course, I support it.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Mahoney from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 106,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Smith moved second reading of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Ontario is a province of growth, of opportunity and of diversity. Our province is constantly changing, constantly adapting and constantly accepting new challenges. The diversity of our economic development and our cultural makeup is constantly expanding. Our strength is in this diversity and in this ability to change. Our viability is in our ability to adapt and to take advantage of the wide range of opportunity that this vast province offers.

Over the last several years, we have seen communities grow and prosper because of their local character and attractions. Communities like Niagara-on-the-Lake and Stratford have prospered around their theatres. Many communities around our Great Lakes have expanded their economies because of their attractive beaches. Recreational attractions like Canada’s Wonderland, Georgian Bay’s ski hills and the lakes and forests of the north have also generated prosperity for communities.

In some cases, this development has gone hand in hand with the local decision to maintain a quiet and traditional Sunday, from a commercial point of view. Indeed, Meaford, in the midst of ski country, has so far chosen largely to retain its closed Sunday.

Other communities, such as Bayfield and Port Stanley, towns along the edge of our Great Lakes, have developed streets of small boutiques which open on Sunday quite legally because their local governments chose to allow this under the present tourist option. In eastern Ontario, Gananoque has declared itself a tourist area. Temagami, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay have all developed local bylaw solutions to their own tourist situations.

This orderly development represents the intention of the old Retail Business Holidays Act. It also demonstrates that in actual fact, as we have repeated time and again, the local option, which the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has so strongly resisted, already exists and has existed all along. There are at least 24 municipalities that have taken advantage of the tourist option to open. Once again, any municipality having tourism needs can do so.

However, some of these local bylaws clearly do not reflect the intentions of the present law and are, in fact, abuses of it. For example, we have a fruit stand in the regional municipality of Peel declared a tourist attraction by that municipality. We have a hand-made furniture store in Scarborough allowed to open while another furniture store just down the street must close. We have a community like St. George, which is not really tourist-oriented, declaring itself a tourist area.

There is no way that this province can prevent this abuse by defining tourism. There is no definition broad enough to cover all the legitimate tourism needs of this diverse province that could, at the same time, be part of a meaningful, enforceable law that will stand up in the courts.

There is another important element about this existing law that must be emphasized. As history has clearly demonstrated, this law is unenforceable. You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why this law is under the umbrella of the Solicitor General. It is because, in fact, this law is primarily concerned with enforcement. It is essential to this ministry, to the police forces and to the citizens and retailers of this province that whatever law is on the books, whatever law we expect our police forces to enforce, is indeed both fair and enforceable.

Unfortunately, as I stated, this is not the case under the existing law. We have grocery stores larger than the allowable convenience stores roping off areas, putting up artificial partitions on Sundays and competing unfairly with grocery stores that are obeying the intent of the law and staying closed. We have drugstores open and we now have mini-department stores calling themselves drugstores and providing unfair competition to neighbouring stores, such as hardware stores. We have stores openly defying the law because fines are inadequate and can be considered a nuisance cost of doing business. We have roping off, which gives unreasonable and unfair advantage to one merchant over another.

Along with enforceability, fairness must be instilled into the law, and it must be a fairness that is apparent and legally defensible or the courts will force us to do what we should have done for ourselves. This is why we are introducing this newer, fairer, more enforceable bill. Let me tell members what specific steps we have taken in this bill to make it both fair and enforceable.

First and most important, we have recognized that many communities will want to maintain the status quo but under a law that provides for stricter enforcement. We have therefore left in place a provincial framework law that will be in effect unless and until the local government enacts bylaws to take advantage of its right to adjust that law to local conditions. This provincial framework will do away with the oversized drug stores, with roping off and similar abuses.

Second, we have recognized that the present tourist option provided a local option through the back door. For those communities that wish to alter or not to adhere to the provincial framework, we have made fair and upfront provisions so that people can understand that it is through their local or regional governments, and these governments only, that laws can be written which either keep closed or open up their community according to the needs of that particular community.

In Thunder Bay, the people of that community can decide what Thunder Bay needs, and these needs may be far different from the needs of the people of London. In border cities like Windsor, residents can decide what Windsor needs, and their needs may be far different from those of the people of Peterborough.

We recognize the variety of needs and situations in this huge province. Many areas depend on holiday tourism and special tourist attractions for their economic survival. We recognize that any municipality must be able to pass its own bylaws with regard to Sunday and holiday shopping, as indeed they presently can and do to set hours of retail business for other days.

These new municipal bylaws may define size restrictions, time restrictions, seasonal restrictions or any other legally defensible restrictions that differ from the provincial framework. So indeed a local government may pass bylaws declaring Sunday completely open -- as some have already done -- or they may allow specific hours, staffing and sizing that adjust the provincial framework to their particular needs. At the same time, the bill ensures that religious rights of retailers will not be overridden by a municipal bylaw.

Third, as under the existing law, we have given regional government the power to control the law within a region.

To further improve upon the present law, we have increased possible fines and required the courts to examine any evidence of total sales in setting these fines; and very important, we have introduced injunctive power for the courts to order that a store close on a holiday to ensure compliance. As well, we have provided that advertisements may be used as admissible evidence that the law is being broken. We have done all these things in order to make it more possible for those communities that wish to maintain a common pause day to do so without abuses abounding.

Ontario is not the only province now moving to provide municipalities with discretion in the regulation of Sunday and holiday shopping. Saskatchewan also plans to institute very similar legislation. Its urban affairs minister, Jack Klein, explained his government’s decision as follows:

“Any legislation will have to recognize local market conditions, which vary enormously from community to community. The municipalities are in a better position to deal with the question.”

Three other important freedoms are recognized here today.

First, the rights of religious groups are recognized. Any retail business may open on Sunday if it closes year-round on any other one day of the week because of the owner’s religion.

Second, it is clearly set out that a mall owner cannot require a tenant to open on Sundays or holidays, even if the mall itself is allowed to open under local bylaw. This is a new protection that extends to all tenants, including those in existing open malls.

Third, this bill gives rise to an accompanying bill that protects, for the first time, all retail employees, including those in currently open businesses. The proposed changes will protect all retail employees against unreasonable requirements to work on Sunday. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will enlarge on this, but I wish to emphasize now that thousands of employees presently working for businesses legitimately open on Sunday will have new protection.

Tourism is the number two industry of Ontario. It provides $9 billion each year in volume and provides over 400,000 jobs. Tourism also generates an estimated $1.3 billion in government revenues each year.

Any bill introduced in this House must recognize these facts and must recognize that those areas with the highest unemployment rates -- eastern and northern Ontario -- also have great tourism potential. So we have brought forward a fair and enforceable bill that allows for the development of that tourism potential as well as for other unique community needs and values of individual communities.

As past government whip and as a past member of several committees, I am convinced that committees, by travelling and listening closely to people across the province, can come up with useful improvements to any bill. It has always been my intention to encourage such interaction in the consideration of this bill. I welcome and encourage the committee members who address this bill. I will listen closely to their recommendations. I also welcome and encourage the participation of all community groups and individuals so that the diverse nature of this province will be properly addressed in the final bill.

I would ask that such groups and individuals consider my remarks today, because the only inflexibility this government has is its determination that our bill will indeed be fair and enforceable and will address the economic and cultural needs of all Ontario.

Mr. McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the opening statement by the minister. As the minister is probably aware, in the past week we have been dealing with Bill 106 in committee. It is a municipal bill, a government bill that has had 30 amendments brought in by the government to amend its own bill. She is now indicating that she wants to travel the province and have input from the people in the province.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario sent in all kinds of resolutions relating to the previous bill I am speaking about. The government did not accept any of those recommendations. There are other people who wrote in, legal people, with regard to recounts. The government did not listen to them. Here today the minister is telling us that she wants to travel the province with this bill and listen to what the people of the province have to say.

I have to tell the minister that I do not believe one word that this is what she wants to do. She has that bill laid out and that is what she intends to do. She will travel for as many months as she wants and I do not think it is really, truly the information she is looking for.

Mr. Philip: The minister says she encourages input by the committee’s travelling throughout the province. I ask the minister, what assurance can she give that any kind of listening will be done to people who will make presentations to the committee when in fact she was a member of a committee set up by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that travelled the province, that had input, that made specific recommendations that she personally signed, and she is now introducing legislation that is diametrically opposed to those very recommendations? If she did not accept the recommendations that she signed herself, why would she accept the recommendations made by a committee of which she is not a member?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I think this afternoon the question was asked about a comparison to Nova Scotia and the minister said that it was a hodgepodge affair. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), who is also the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation, said to the rural

section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that the current situation is a hodgepodge. “The tourist operation is open and important because of the emphasis on tourism in Ontario. If you do not want to be open you do not have to be.”

Would it not be more of a hodgepodge affair after she allows hundreds of municipalities to individually choose whether they want to remain open or not? If it is a problem now, will it not be much worse after? I would think if each municipality exercised its option and determined whether it wished to stay open or not, we would indeed have a very serious problem across the province.

I fully support the idea of local autonomy, but if she is going to give local autonomy, why does she not give it where it is meaningful, in land use and in some controls of planning and in some of the things municipalities have asked for? Since municipalities have voted nearly unanimously to oppose this, why then say: “That is your local option. That is what you are going to have for this year. Next year we may give you some other token recognition factor”?

I think the message should have been loud and clear to all the members. I certainly know the House leader is aware of the concerns in rural parts of this province. They are saying quite clearly that they do not want that option to make the decision pertaining to the Sunday shopping issue. They are satisfied with the present legislation with slight changes that are needed to bring it into accord with law.

Mr. Swart: I would just like to pursue a little further the comments and questions of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) and just ask the minister a few questions and hope she will reply in her comments.

When she says she would like to have the input and welcomes the input of people across this province, of course we all recognize that she did not want to have unlimited input into this bill. There were certain pressures brought to bear which caused her finally to capitulate, but it was not her wish.

The question I want to put to her, and hope she will answer, is: is she prepared to consider, if the committee recommends -- or even if the committee does not recommend, if she has overwhelming representation -- to change the fundamental principle of this bill, that of transferring it to municipalities on having open Sundays, making any changes to those fundamental principles?

Mrs. Marland: In light of the promise to hold public meetings, I want to formalize and put on the record for the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), since, as the representative for Mississauga South, I have personally tabled in this House over 10,000 names of people who are not only concerned but concerned to the extent that they are totally opposed to Sunday shopping, that I would request on their behalf that some of these public meetings which are being promised to be held around the province would indeed be held in Mississauga.

Mississauga is not a suburb of Metropolitan Toronto. It is no longer convenient for the residents of Mississauga to commute for hearings in Toronto. We are a city of 400,000 people, and I think the current Liberal provincial government might show those people in Mississauga some respect by agreeing to hold some of the public hearings in that city.

In fact, it would be a very good catchment location for some communities to the north and to the west because it would not drag those people to otherwise drive into downtown Toronto where it is $5 an hour to park, among other things -- that is if they can find the parking. I would hope the Solicitor General would heed the request for hearings in the great city of Mississauga. Thank you.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I wish to respond to the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) more or less in one on the bulk of what they said by reminding them that the select committee on which I sat based its whole recommendation on a definition of tourism for the whole province into which all the various areas would opt. This indeed became a legal stumbling block, as I said in my speech, if the members had taken the time to listen.

A definition of tourism for the province which would have met the various needs of all the localities of this province would indeed have turned out to be so general as to be not enforceable in the courts or useful to the municipalities. At the same time, we could not rule out tourism as a very vital and important industry to many of the communities. It is, therefore, for this reason that we have to recognize both the need of those communities which are partly or wholly dependent on tourism and also the needs and wishes of those communities which wish to stay as closed as possible.

It is for the legal reason and a variety of reasons that we have to allow a variety of municipal rulings. In fact, this is so now because the tourist exemption in the present law allows municipalities to opt out as tourist options, which is what they are doing and which is the same as a municipal option.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) is on the committee and he will take note of the request of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) about the location of one of the hearings. I am sure he will convey that message. To the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), I made no mention of “hodgepodge.” The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale referred to patchwork and I pointed out, indeed, the use of having some degree of patchwork within the province.

Mr. Philip: I find the minister’s last comments in responding to her opening comments to be somewhat humorous. The Canadian National Exhibition can define what a tourist is but the government of Ontario cannot define what a tourist is. I find that so preposterous that it boggles the imagination.

I do take pleasure in being the first speaker for the official opposition in a debate which has been raging for some time now. In my 13 years as a member of the Legislature, I know of no issue which has generated more mail or indeed more concern in the way of telephone calls or in the way of people stopping me as I walk through my riding and talk to my constituents.

It is because of this public concern on this issue that we in the New Democratic Party fought hard to have full public hearings so that the public might have an opportunity to express its views. This government with its large majority thinks it does not have to listen to the people of Ontario. It wanted two weeks of hearings and then back into the House for quick passage before the summer recess.

My colleagues and I believe that when a government makes a major change of direction, the public has a right to present its views and that is why for more than a week we continued to introduce petition after petition and eventually were able to force this government to hold hearings this summer.

I would urge all of those watching and indeed reading the debate who have concern on any side of the issue to call or write the clerk of the standing committee on administration of justice. They have a right to appear to present their views before the committee and to have their concerns heard.

In the view of New Democrats, these two laws are bad laws. They are both based on broken promises on the part of the majority Liberal government. Neither makes Sunday working any fairer for the many thousands of working families which are affected.

During the last election and after, the Liberals said that the current law was basically OK and did not need changing. Now they say that Ontario needs a new law, a law that passes the buck to the local governments; a law that allows different rules for Sunday working in every town and city; a law that allows different rules in different communities with regional municipalities or in different parts of any community; a law that lets local councils allow Sunday working hours according to specific holidays, specific times of day, retail store size, number of employees, type of business, location or any other criteria they decide might suit their whim or their notion.

The Liberals say we need new legislation because the law we have now is unenforceable. We say that if you have a law which is unenforceable, you do not cop out, you cop in, you correct the law. If you do not, you do not deserve to be the government.

On the examples of problems the Solicitor General has been speaking about in her leadoff address, she was a member of the committee which studied and indeed came up with concrete proposals on how to deal with those problems. To suggest that passing these problems to the municipalities will somehow correct them is simply absurd. It is simply not a way of correcting them; it is simply a way of multiplying them, of having, instead of one or two concrete solutions to a problem, multiple attempts at solutions, in fact, of creating anarchy.

It is the same Premier who established the select committee on store hours, a committee that toured the province and held hearings, a committee that made 17 specific recommendations which the Premier, before the election, said were acceptable to him.

The Solicitor General, who was responsible for this Sunday working legislation, was a member of that committee at that time. She signed the report. She helped draft the proposals which she thought were good proposals at that time. Now she has the audacity to bring in legislation that is in direct contravention of the essential principle of that legislation, which is that there is a need within people for a common pause day.

On that committee, I had an opportunity to travel with the member who is now the Solicitor General and we discussed how it seems interesting that no matter what religion you go to, there is written within it some law that says one out of every seven days is needed for a pause. Whether you are a theist, as I am, or an agnostic or an atheist, you have to at least recognize that there seems to be within all religions an innate kind of sensitivity to nature that says one out of seven days requires a pause, that there is a need to recycle, to rejuvenate.

I believed the Premier when, during the election, he stated that he believed in the principle of a common pause day. I believed the Premier when he stated that the select committee had a report that was acceptable to him, that we had offered concrete, positive, reasonable solutions. I believed the Premier so much that I telephoned the clerk of the committee and I said: “It seems fairly evident that this will not be another issue for at least the next decade, maybe decade and a half. Nobody will dare raise the issue of opening up the large grocery stores and supermarkets for another decade.

Do you have a copy of all the presentations in the archives so that they are easily retrievable by any member of the House?”

When I was told they did, I said, “It will not be necessary for me to keep all the copies.” Indeed, my assistant and I discarded much of the information rather