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

February 1, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L139 - Wed 1 Feb 1989 / Mer 1er fév 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CANADIAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES

YOUNG OFFENDER

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

PASSENGER TRAINS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NURSING SERVICES

FUNDING FOR POLICE WORK

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

TEACHERS

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

YOUNG OFFENDER

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

FRANCO-ONTARIAN STUDENTS / ÉTUDIANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

MUNICIPAL HIRING PRACTICES

LABOUR DISPUTE

PETITION

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CANADIAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr. Mackenzie: Some 66 employees of the Canadian Medical Laboratories in Hamilton and Simcoe were locked out illegally on June 3, 1988. The owners, Dr. John Mull and K. Starr, have treated these dedicated and highly skilled employees with nothing but contempt.

This lockout is clearly a continuation of the first-contract fight these employees had to go through just a couple of years ago, a long dispute where the owners were clearly trying to get rid of the workers’ union and where the owners even refused an Inflation Restraint Board order to pay and had to be taken to court. Having failed the first time to get rid of the employees’ legal bargaining agent, they are trying to make sure the second time around.

The ministry should impose a contract, and if changes to first-contract legislation are needed to cover the loophole that is obviously being used here, it should bring them in.

As well, it is health care funding from this government that is paying for the strike-breaking activities and the testing that is still going on in other labs owned by this company. Therefore, if the government had any concern at all for these women employees, any concern that justice can be theirs, it would cut off these contracts and payments to this despicable employer at its Mississauga, Toronto and other operations.

Does this government condone bad employers and only give lipservice to female workers, or is it willing to do what is right on behalf of the women employees so competent in these two lab operations?

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Jackson: I read with interest this morning’s paper, which indicates the position of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that the Trudeau government’s Young Offenders Act should be amended to allow judges to impose longer sentences on youths who commit serious crimes.

The imminent release of an 18-year-old triple murderer into the Hamilton-Halton area has created understandable apprehension in the community I represent. Suggesting that the real threat which this criminal poses to my community would be averted by amendments to the Young Offenders Act is like suggesting that toothpaste could be put back in the tube by designing a better tube.

This youth was tried, convicted and will be released under the current law, and even if amendments were made to the Young Offenders Act, the principle of double jeopardy prevents the Irwin killer from being tried again for the same crime. Therefore, the Liberals’ well-rehearsed refrain of “blame the feds” will not wash in this case and will not help the Hamilton-Halton area prepare for the presence of this individual in our midst.

Section 44.1(1)(

h) of the Young Offenders Act specifically allows the provincial cabinet to release information about this triple murderer to anyone it chooses -- the police, school principals, employers and any other category of persons the government designates by order in council.

The case surrounding the killing of the Irwin family is a clear example of how victims’ rights legislation is needed in this province. When the province dumps a triple murderer, who the prosecuting and crown attorneys agreed should have been found guilty by reason of insanity, into a community, and when this murderer has received not one dose of psychiatric therapy while incarcerated, it is plain to me that the police in my community have a right to know and the victims’ family has a right to know.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Miss Roberts: I rise today to acknowledge that the month of February is designated Black History Month all across North America. Here in Ontario, it is time to recognize the contributions that have been made by the members of our black community in building this province.

Most of us are aware of the underground railroad that brought many refugees from slavery in the United States into the freedom of Canada. Amherstburg was considered the principal Canadian terminus for the underground railroad, but there were significant communities in London, Dawn, Wilberforce, Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. One of the most famous refugees to settle in Ontario was Josiah Henson. He founded a self-sufficient black community at Dawn in the 1840s. Mary Ann Shadd became the first black newspaperwoman in the 1850s, publishing the Provincial Freeman.

The members of the black community have always been active in all facets of society in Ontario: in journalism, law, the military and politics. I am pleased today to acknowledge the first black man to be elected to the Legislature of Ontario, in 1963. Len Braithwaite is in the gallery today, and seated with Mr. Braithwaite is the mentor of the black community, Harry Gairy.

I urge all members, and indeed all people in Ontario, to participate in Black History Month, to take

part in the activities that have been planned. The history of our black community is a long and distinguished one. It is one of which we all can be proud.

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

Miss Roberts: I would like all members to acknowledge Mr. Braithwaite and also Harry Gairy.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Allen: Families with mentally handicapped children at home face a cruel dilemma. The government is slowly closing down institutional care, so it is discouraging placing children in institutions. At the same time, it is flat-lining its support for programs like special services at home, which is designed to aid families with mentally and physically disabled children at home.

Ministry of Community and Social Services offices across the province have been ordered to get along on current budgets, plus inflation, for special services at home, even though the logic of their policies is that such programs should be expanding. Families are having services cut by 10 per cent to 25 per cent, and parents who get $27 a day for caring for their youngsters at home are threatening to put them into institutions at anywhere from $120 to $250 a day. Summer support is being wiped out for some, so there is no respite from continual care.

Families with developmentally handicapped children over the age of 21 are dealt an equally cruel blow by deinstitutionalization. School- and community-based programs fully available up to that age suddenly become scarce for the over-21s. Deinstitutionalization has backed up waiting lists, and graduation from a school like Vincent Massey in Hamilton becomes a ticket to inactivity, depression and lost skills, waiting for group homes and vocational services.

If the government wants deinstitutionalization to work in our communities, in Hamilton, for example, why has it cut the local budget for developmentally handicapped children and adults from its regional offices from $1.5 million to $1.1 million?

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

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr. McCague: I would like to bring to the attention of the House yet another instance where the government has lost credibility. Over three months ago, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) said that he and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) would be releasing a policy statement on wetlands management. We were told it would be ready in four to six weeks and that the holdup was printing, translation and the preparation of a companion document.

We understand the policy statement has been ready for at least two weeks. The implementation guidelines are also ready. After making such a fuss at the fall wetlands conference about this statement, it seems almost incredible that the minister would not take yet another opportunity to announce its final release in this House. It appears he just wanted to get in the good books of the interested parties while the conference was on. Now that the issue has settled down, the minister has no time to do his job and communicate with these groups and let them know the statement is ready for public comment.

This is yet another example of the minister’s and this government’s crisis management mentality. When an issue is hot, there is an announcement. When no one is breaking down the doors, it releases important reports and documents quietly. The minister is quickly losing credibility on all fronts.

PASSENGER TRAINS

Mr. Tatham: Mitchell Gordon, writing about sick cities and traffic jams, tells us, “Like the legendary Lorelei who lured Rhine fishermen to rocky self-destruction, the automobile is threatening commuting experiences much worse than the walk to the station, the waiting for trains and the crowded ride into town.”

Compared to rail, Transport 2000 tells us highways use 2.7 times as much land; passenger cars use 3.5 times as much energy; freight trucks use 8.7 times as much energy; motor vehicles cause nine times as much pollution, motor vehicles have 24 times as many accidents. Canadians want passenger trains that are as reliable and comfortable as the trains now in use in other major countries of the world.

Far from being obsolete, passenger train technology has progressed light years around the world. At the forefront of this development, the Train à grande vitesse whisks passengers between major French cities at speeds approaching 300 kilometres an hour.

In many other countries new developments are producing trains that are faster, quieter, and cheaper to operate. These trains are serving busy intercity corridors on long-distance continental routes. But the song of the siren beckons. We love the Lorelei lure.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: Recently the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced in the House that on the issue of Sunday shopping we would have a free vote for Liberal backbenchers. There is considerable confusion about this. The Liberal members have received a package which tells them what to say. They have received a package which says what speech they are to give. They received a package which says what letter they are to write with regard to Sunday shopping.

The Premier and the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) have said the issue is non-negotiable. We simply cannot believe the Premier on this issue, and the events of this week will clearly demonstrate that Liberal backbenchers will vote as they have been directed.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call the next order of business, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a Senator from the Republic of Italy, Riccardo Margheriti.

Please join me in welcoming the senator.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. He will have received by now, I am sure, a letter dated January 30 written by Gerry Vandezande, who is the public affairs director for Citizens for Public Justice, and he is representing in this letter the policy development committee of the Ontario Working Group on Sunday Shopping Policy.

The Premier will have received this letter and he will know that there have been discussions between Mr. Vandezande and his group, the broad coalition that he has been representing and several members of the Premier’s cabinet.

I wonder if the Premier can explain why the answer to Mr. Vandezande’s very reasoned amendments to the government’s Sunday shopping legislation has been a pure and simple “no.”

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have great faith in this Legislature and in the committees of this Legislature. They have had an opportunity to come forward to this Legislature, to present their views. There has been wide public discussion. Surely my honourable friend opposite is not telling me that I should be making secret deals behind the scenes rather than discussing it right here in the centre of democracy in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: I was not asking for anything of the kind, and the Premier knows it. What I was asking was: Why have his Liberal members, who are not acting without some sense of what the consensus within the Liberal Party is, when they are on committees -- we can take notice of the fact that his members, as our members do, reflect the general positions that are set out by caucuses and party policy.

Mr. Vandezande has made some very specific recommendations, several of which were moved by my colleagues in the legislative committee, all of which were rejected by the Liberal majority on that committee, in lockstep with this government’s position.

What I want to ask the Premier again is: Why has the position of his party, his members on the committee -- the cabinet members who strung Mr. Vandezande along, along with all the other members of his committee for several months in the vain hope that they would reach some sort of a compromise -- why has the answer to every single compromise position forwarded to the Premier’s party, his majority caucus, been a pure and simple “no?” Why is there not a willingness to sit down and look at these reasoned amendments?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is putting forward some strange views of democracy, it seems to me.

The government put forward its position. It had endless debate; some 60 or 70 days. It went into a committee of this Legislature. All groups had a chance to give their points of view. There were, I believe, nine amendments through that process. The committee had the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of every single amendment and then came up with its own views on the situation.

I recognize that there are lots of different views on a subject like this one, but I think the process has been thoroughly democratic and debated from all points of view.

I say to the member that they have met with the ministers, they have met with staff; there have been endless meetings. We are an open government; we are happy to meet with anyone who wants to discuss these issues. That being said, somebody has to make decisions around here and we are prepared to do that.

Mr. B.

Rae: If the Premier is not prepared to discuss the question in general in a way that shows any kind of flexibility on his part -- and that I think is now perfectly obvious; this government has made its decision and it is going to ram through whatever majority decision has been made regardless of the views of the people of this province -- I would like to ask him: Can he explain, with respect to one particular issue, why it is that the Liberal Party insists that for the next year any store calling itself a drugstore, even if only a very tiny proportion of that store’s business is selling prescribed drugs, is going to be allowed to remain open regardless of what any municipality wants, regardless of the effect it is going to have on competition, on smaller pharmacies, on smaller stores and on convenience stores?

I wonder if he can tell us why he is giving this one-year freebie to these huge warehouse stores that have nothing to do with the detail of selling prescribed drugs --

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I must say I find my honourable friend’s criticism somewhat strange: Half the time he will stand up and heap abuse on the government for not making decisions; when we make decisions, he stands up and disagrees with them. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. B. Rae: That’s because you make the wrong decisions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We make the wrong decisions. I do not agree with that at all.

There is a lot of discussion about the question of drugstores. As I understand it, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) wanted to open it up to 10,000 foot drugstores. We also know that the rules as they existed, the current legislation, was very confusing and we had a lot of stores coming in under the name of being a drugstore which sold a wide variety of other merchandise from hammers to lawn mowers.

We also recognize that this law takes some time for people to adjust to, hence the new definition of drugstores. There are regulations in that act to define what they are and it gives everyone one year to adapt to those rules. Then, if there any violations, obviously there are tough penalties in this bill which were not there before.

We have a reasonable transition period. We have a clear definition and penalties there for people who violate it. Then it goes to the municipalities; and if they like that, that is just fine, they do not have to do anything.

We are not opening up, the way many people think is going to happen. We have a clear provincial framework that allows a municipality like Sault Ste. Marie to have a different view should it so choose. Surely that is not unreasonable.

I tell the member that I have watched this debate for the last year and a half. We have watched it go on. I have never seen a debate with more misinformation spread about by people, more irrational fears. This thing goes on in other provinces. They are not Godless provinces. It works extremely well, and I think --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. New question.

Mr. B. Rae: I will pass on to Archbishop Bothwell and to Cardinal Carter the Premier’s views that they are irrational and misinformed. I am sure they will be delighted to hear that.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am sure that would lead to conversation on a wide range of issues with you and the cardinal. I will sell tickets to that.

Mr. B. Rae: I have had several meetings with the cardinal and they have been extremely friendly ones.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is my understanding there was a meeting yesterday that was attended by the Deputy Minister of Health, the Deputy Minister of Labour, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), representatives of the Ontario Hospital Association and representatives of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, at which time the Ontario Hospital Association stated it was uninterested and not prepared in any way, shape or form to reopen negotiations with the nurses with respect to their collective agreement.

Can the minister confirm that such a meeting was held and can she tell us what the role of her ministry was in that meeting?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, a meeting was held. I was present at that meeting. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association in a very positive environment, with the facilitation of the ministry and myself, agreed to continue moving in private on an ongoing basis to seek solutions to what they acknowledge are very, very difficult and challenging issues affecting the nurses in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can tell us her position with regard to the existence or nonexistence of a nursing shortage. Was the view expressed by the government at the meeting yesterday that there is not in fact an objective nursing shortage, or is it the view of the government that there is a nursing shortage and that something needs to be done to address that shortage before two years, which is when, as the minister well knows, the collective agreement as it now stands is due to expire?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The one thing that was acknowledged by all parties at the meeting yesterday was the importance of and respect for the collective bargaining process, and there was an acknowledgement that this was the first collective agreement collectively agreed to by the negotiating parties.

There was also discussion and acknowledgement that the vacancy rate in nursing varies across the province from no problem in some communities to one to three per cent in others. In downtown Toronto, which is of great concern, we know there is a vacancy rate of some seven per cent, particularly in the area of critical care nursing. Those are being addressed at the present time in a number of forums. I believe that with the graduation of some 68 additional nurses from a critical care training course at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, we will see the situation in downtown Toronto significantly improve.

Mr. B. Rae: I want the minister to answer these two very direct questions. I have asked them now by way of my first two questions. I want to ask her to address them very directly.

First of all, did the OHA say that it was prepared to reopen the collective agreement or that it was not prepared to reopen the collective agreement? It is my understanding such a position was taken by the OHA. I want the minister to say whether or not that is true. I want the minister also to confirm to this House that government representatives at that meeting expressed the view very clearly to the parties that in the government’s judgement, there was not a nursing shortage, so defined, throughout Ontario to justify the reopening of the collective agreement. Can the minister confirm those two questions?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As often happens in this House, the facts the Leader of the Opposition puts forward in his question are inaccurate, not factual and sometimes of great concern because they create a perception that is not reality. The agreement at that meeting, and I say to him that the Minister of Labour was present as well, was that the parties, the Ontario Hospital Association and the nurses’ association, preferred to conduct their discussions, with the facilitation of government, in confidence.

FUNDING FOR POLICE WORK

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General. I would like to raise some matters with respect to recent headlines that have been appearing in connection with crime problems in Toronto and throughout other parts of Ontario. I would like to have the minister recall that on October 1, the Globe and Mail in a headline said, “Cocaine Offences Raise Crime Rate.” On October 22, 1988, the Toronto Star reported that violent crimes are up 92 per cent in five years, a rather startling figure. Yesterday’s Toronto Star indicated “A Man Was Knifed as He Leaves Lecture at University,” and today’s Toronto Sun had a headline, “Sniper Blasts North York.”

I would like to suggest to the minister that there is an increasing number of people who are becoming concerned about safety on our streets, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area. In light of those headlines, which I do not believe are sensationalistic -- those headlines, when they relate to specific increases in violent crimes, are very realistic -- what does her ministry intend to do to combat this growing trend in the incidence of crimes?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to remind the member for Sarnia that we are regarded very highly around the world for our very excellent police forces in Metropolitan Toronto and all of Ontario. I have every confidence in them in their work in this city. However, we recognize the city is growing, as do they.

I also have been reading the papers and discussing these matters with them. I note with interest the

article in today’s paper about the Peel Regional Police Force having in special consultants from people in the United States to advise them on the kinds of problems they have run into in larger cities and the way they have dealt with them. But in the same article, they emphasized that the real need was still to turn back the clock from the days when police used to be always in cars and to get them out knowing the neighbourhood, working with the neighbourhood. Crime prevention is everybody’s business.

Mr. Brandt: I do not want for one moment to leave the minister with the impression I was in any way suggesting that our men and ladies in uniform are anything less than effective in doing the job they have been given the responsibility to do. But I would like to share with the minister a comment made by a police officer last night, a 13-year veteran of the force in North York, who indicated with respect to a particular investigation he was involved in that “there is enough crack in these buildings to build a fourth tower,” speaking about the drug traffic in that area.

I want the minister to know that everyone agrees more police officers are needed on the streets. I recognize there are some 97 officers who have been added to the Metro force who were specifically given the responsibility of fighting the drug problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: The question I have for the minister is, in light of the fact we need more police officers to fight a growing incidence of crime in the streets, why would her ministry support Bill 187, which according to our calculations is effectively going to remove 270 police officers from the streets of Metro Toronto while at the same time putting those police officers into a courtroom setting, which they will have to do in order to follow the directions suggested in Bill 187?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The bill has been referred to committee for discussion, where I am sure it will get a good airing. It is my understanding that at almost any time police officers are present in the courts dealing with the cases that are before the courts and that co-operative ways can be found to work with the court system with these police as the most effective way of delivering security.

I remind the member that his government’s Solicitor General of the day did in fact speak to this issue and provided $3 extra per family across the province to the police forces to provide security in the courts. This was something introduced by the member’s government for this reason.

Mr. Brandt: That is an excellent answer to a question that has no relevance to what I asked.

Let me suggest to the minister that the $3 that was brought in by a previous government was many years ago. Since that time, there have been a number of changes that have occurred, not all of which are positive, one of which is that in the current year the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has not increased unconditional grants one single dime to assist municipalities with the problem of providing adequate police forces.

I could take the minister through police force after police force across this province and what she would see is that every one of them is saying that Bill 187 is going to cost them money, that they are going to have to move police officers from the streets into the courts, or alternatively, as a result of the minister not providing any additional funds for unconditional grants, they will have to raise local taxes. I am concerned about this issue.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: Police chiefs across the province are concerned about it. What does the minister intend to do about it?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia well knows we have police commissions in place throughout this province that draw up their own police budgets. They have the right to appeal --

Mr. Brandt: They don’t have the money.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: If they do not like their own budgets, then that is their problem, but the municipalities have the right to appeal those budgets if they think they have been asked for too much money. There was only one such appeal last year. The police commissions got precisely what they asked for and what they budgeted for across this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville is waiting patiently.

Mr. Runciman: My question is to the Solicitor General as well and again ties in with the increasing public concerns about crime in the streets in metro areas, Toronto and Ottawa especially, that have been brought to the attention of this party. I want to put a quote on the record from a member of the Ontario Provincial Police drug squad with respect to cocaine: “The quantity of cocaine is increasing yearly. We are seizing coke now like we used to seize marijuana in the 1970s. Bikers, business people, stockbrokers are dealing coke.”

When I have raised this issue with the minister on a number of occasions now, she has fudged with respect to adopting the implementations recommended by one of her own colleagues in terms of beefing up the OPP drug squad. She has indicated there was going to be some reallocation of resources, some shuffling of priorities within the OPP.

I would like to ask her today, what is her view with respect to the recommendation made by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black)? Does she, as Solicitor General of this province, support the recommendation and is she making her views known in cabinet?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I indeed support the recommendations of the Black report and we recognize they all must be examined to see how they can be implemented and which take top priority for full funding. The drug squads already have been beefed up, not to the full amount of the recommendation, nor have any of the recommendations probably been fully implemented, although I bow to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). I believe the recommendations in that area that were well under way have been fully implemented.

We plan to work in co-operation with other ministries because we recognize, as the member has pointed out, that Canada is now being targeted as a place to market drugs in a way it was not targeted before. We have the advantage of being able to look to south of the border and see what was effective and what was not effective in fighting this sort of onslaught. We are working closely with all other ministries so that we can attack it from all sides.

Mr. Runciman: Regrettably, I have to question the minister’s credibility with respect to this issue. We are now talking about four months since the time the Black report was tabled in this Legislature. We have had a great deal of rhetoric from the government with respect to its concerns and we have heard more of it today, but there has been very little action -- a lot of excuses and rhetoric.

We have talked about reallocation of resources and changed priorities, and there is a general concern right across this province about the provision of adequate resources for policing in the province. My leader mentioned some instances of that with respect to a bill now before this Legislature.

I want to put another quote on the record from the chief of the Ottawa Police Force, Arthur Rice, “We don’t have the resources or manpower to deal effectively with the drug situation in Ottawa.”

I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House what in effect has been happening over the past three years with respect to the budget of the Ontario Provincial Police. I was advised yesterday by the deputy commissioner that the budget has been frozen in terms of --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member would do well to remember that Chief Rice speaks not for the OPP, but for his own police force, the Ottawa Police Force, which prepares its own budget. It follows without saying, as I said yesterday and repeat again today, that we recognize the drug business is such that it would not be possible, if you doubled the money of police forces -- there is still so much money to be made in drugs, as the United States experience will show, that as you pick off one person you still have more coming in behind.

Therefore, a great deal of emphasis has to be placed on other programs, as is now being done in the United States, to prevent the market from existing and from growing within our country. That is why it is so important the cabinet look at all the recommendations of the Black report, not simply at one or two in isolation from the rest.

Mr. Runciman: The minister did not deal with my specific question about the budget of the OPP. We are now seeing increasing concerns about street gangs in Metropolitan Toronto. Metro police say 70 per cent of all crimes in Metro are drug-related. In Ottawa, since 1987, at least 10 shootings, including that of an Ottawa police officer, and three murders, have been attributed to drugs. In Metro last year there were 180 bank robberies and a member of the holdup squad says 95 per cent of those can be attributed to cocaine users in Metropolitan Toronto.

The minister and this government are at this time reducing the budget of the OPP in terms of real dollars. They are taking initiatives like Bill 187 to frustrate municipal police forces.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Runciman: They are not following through on the recommendations of their own member. The minister is quick to criticize police forces across this province, not support them, on many issues.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Runciman: When is the minister, with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), going to start taking positions in support of police forces across this province with members of the executive council, positions that are going to strengthen the ability of the OPP to deal with many --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Leeds-Grenville finds himself very confused on the way policing services are delivered in this province. He keeps quoting examples of cities such as Toronto and Ottawa, and then asks me why I do not give more money to the OPP. The OPP do not police in Ottawa, Toronto and so on.

The drug squad of the OPP has already been looked at. We will continue to examine priorities with the OPP, as we have in the past, but most especially we will work with the municipal police forces that do the policing in the places he is primarily quoting.

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Security in community-based correctional centres for young offenders is being jeopardized by low wages contributing to poor morale and high staff turnover. In fact, employees of more than 40 privately run custody centres are earning at least $10,000 less than workers in provincially run institutions for young offenders.

Does the minister recognize that the whole issue of community acceptance of young offenders centres in residential areas depends on public confidence in levels of security? Will the minister admit that the poor morale and high staff turnover resulting from these low wages are helping to be a threat to public safety?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I certainly would concur with the member’s statement that public acceptance of our young offenders facilities in the community is based upon the sense that they are being run and supervised properly. I would, however, then go on to say that in my judgement, having visited most of them and having met with the people who work in those centres, that high degree of supervision and maintenance is in fact there.

I will also concur with the honourable member that the disparity in wages is something that concerns me, as much as I am sure it concerns him. I am in the process right now of allocating or attempting to allocate some resources specifically for that purpose.

Mr. Farnan: Management and staff turnover in these centres approaches 100 per cent per annum. Mr. Marks, the president of the Ontario Contract Observation and Detention Homes Association, has said, “At present, we feel we are able to maintain the security of the community, but we do not know about the future.” In the minister’s own riding of Kitchener-Wilmot, Donald Adams, the program manager of Cassatta Homes, has made the same charges.

Does the minister realize that the low wages offered staff means these centres put in jeopardy the fragile community support for these residential centres, and will the minister accept responsibility for the actions of young offenders in these centres who, as a result of inadequate security, pose a threat to the communities in which the centres are located?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would not accept the premise the honourable member’s question is based on, that there is inadequate security. In my judgement, that is not the case. The member does make a very real case, and quotes people who are knowledgeable of the situation, that we do have a disparity problem in wages when compared with staff people working in those facilities which are directly managed and operated by the ministry. I am aware of that problem.

I have indicated to the member that I have been working on it and continue to work on it, but I will not concur with him that we have a security problem in those facilities. I have visited them. I have been in contact with the members. They have expressed their concern to me about the low comparative wages. I have concurred that we have to do something about them, but they have not suggested to me and I have certainly not seen any evidence that there is a security problem.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing who keeps telling us the answer to affordable housing is increased supply. Everyone agrees that that is the goal. The problem we have when that is given as the answer is that since we all agree that is the goal, we are questioning whether in fact we are achieving that goal and we are asking questions about why we are not achieving it or how we are going to achieve it.

Yesterday, the minister admitted her failure to deliver on the supply side when she was forced to bring in legislation purporting to protect even the existing housing supply. This government pledged to bring in 102,000 new rental units by 1990. Will the minister tell us how many new rental units have been brought on to the market since this commitment was made?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As the member opposite knows, this government has instituted the largest nonprofit production program in the history of the province. He knows very well that we have a commitment to build 30,000 nonprofit housing units over the next three to five years, that we also have a commitment, shared with the federal government, to produce about 7,000 units of nonprofit housing a year together.

One of the reasons I have been so distressed about the problems we are having with the federal government is because, though they made a commitment together with us last year to build 7,000 nonprofit units, at the end of the year they decided to put a financial cap on the amount of money they would spend with us and put into jeopardy something like 1,300 or 1,600 units we were supposed to be building together. They have agreed to keep funding the commitment they made last year, but we are now in jeopardy of having to take that allocation out of next year’s promise which they made to us and to the people of Canada.

So I am extremely concerned that the member opposite, who is clearly committed to making sure there is much more nonprofit housing all over the province, is not, as far as I understand it, in conversation with the new federal Minister of State (Housing) about what role he and his party can play in making sure the federal government lives up to its responsibility, shared with us, to build nonprofit housing together.

We will make sure that the commitment we have made to build nonprofit housing unilaterally in the province will indeed be met.

Mr. Harris: My understanding is that the federal government gave this government an allocation of dollars based on the minister’s estimate of what it cost to provide those units and it lived up to that commitment. When the minister goofed and boobed, they agreed to advance funds from next year’s budget; but that is not the question.

The minister’s commitment was for 102,000 units by 1990, not with anybody’s help, not with the federal government, not by some mysterious mechanism. What I am told is that the ministry by 1989 will have 15,700 units, and that will leave 90,000 to build to meet the 1990 target.

The fact is that there is less affordable housing in Ontario today, not more, since the Liberals have taken office. Liberal policies to increase supply have totally failed. That is why the average apartment rents in Toronto are the highest in the world, second only to Tokyo according to the international survey that was released on the weekend.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Harris: Perhaps the minister can explain why typical low-cost apartment rents in Toronto are the second highest in the world. Toronto was in 11th place three years ago when the Liberals took office.

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

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite seems to me to be confused on a number of questions.

First, it has been clear for a very long time that a significant proportion of the work we do in social housing is done together with the federal government, and I would have expected the member opposite to know that.

As to the fact that this is a very expensive city in which to live, I and everybody else in this room is very aware of that. That is the reason we have made our commitment to build more nonprofit housing. This government has doubled its spending on social housing since it has been in office. I wish I could say that the federal government had doubled its spending on social housing since it has been in office. That would make an enormous difference.

This government is prepared to use provincial lands to make sure that housing gets built which people can afford to live in. I wish I could stand in this House and say that the government the member is allied with on the federal scene was prepared to spend its resources of federal lands to make sure there was housing available for people in this province. I want to see that happen and I urge the member, since he is so clearly concerned about --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

TEACHERS

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Education. Concerns have been expressed recently by school boards in my area that a shortage of French teachers is curtailing their ability to offer French-language classes. Could the minister inform this House of the action his ministry is taking to ensure that this need is being met?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member knows, my ministry and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities have been undertaking for some time now a very fundamental review of teacher education in Ontario. We expect that report to be completed in the next few weeks. It will be released and available along with its findings.

In addition, we have done a survey of teacher supply and demand. I want to say to the member that we very much share her concern over the shortage, particularly of French-language teachers in this province. I should point out, however, that through the faculties of education, this past September enrolment for French-language teachers has increased some 29 per cent. I believe that is a very positive step.

Working together with the federations and with my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), we are committed to doing what we can to resolve this very important issue.

Ms. Collins: There is also a broader concern, as the minister mentions, of a general shortage of teachers across the province. Would he please inform this House what is being done to address that problem?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think most members will be aware that some of our more recent initiatives in education have had an impact. For instance, the reduction of class sizes to 20 to 1 in grades 1 and 2 has certainly accelerated the demand for primary specialists within our schools.

Between the two ministries, we are trying to target our efforts to ensure that the needs of school boards and of the students of this province are being met.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. More than a year ago, on January 7, 1988, I pointed out to her that a majority of the rental buildings constructed since 1975 are registered as condominiums. In my own riding, this consists of just under 50 per cent of all rental units. I asked what the minister intended to do to protect the tenants from being evicted as those units were sold off. Her response was a discussion paper. She promised also that a new act would come in and that she would protect the tenants I referred to.

I ask the minister, am I correct that the new act which she introduced just yesterday does nothing to protect those people?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Indeed, I remember that question very well. We did examine this question very carefully in our discussions about what to do about the new Rental Housing Protection Act. Yes, the member opposite is correct. After much discussion, we decided that the tenants in registered condominium apartments are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act and that we would go no further than that.

Mr. Philip: They are protected to be evicted as the units are sold off, the minister would have to admit. Does she agree that 80 per cent of the so-called rental units that have been constructed since 1975 are in fact registered as condominiums and that as those units are sold off, the tenants will be evicted? Does she admit that is the case? Why has she broken her promise to the tenants then and not done something about that?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite is right. There are a large number of units that have been built in the province since the early 1980s and they are in fact registered as condominiums. They are built that way in order to make sure that there is some flexibility.

In this province, the law treats registered condominiums the same way that it treats a free-standing home which someone owns. We believe that if someone owns a free-standing home and chooses to rent it to someone, and then chooses to return to that house to live in it, he should be free to do that. We also believe that if someone owns a condominium and chooses to rent it to someone, that person should be free to move back into that condominium if he so chooses.

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Premier, and it has to do with the release on Monday of a young offender who is a triple murderer. I have asked questions of the Minister of Community and Social Services, because currently this individual is in his care at the Syl Apps Youth Centre in Oakville. The minister said that he cannot release information even to a group as limited as the police force because he is unable to do so. He is correct, because the cabinet has told him that he cannot do it.

I would like to give to the Premier a copy of the Young Offenders Act,

section 44.1(1)(h). Clearly, the Premier will see, as a former attorney himself, that it does give him and members of his cabinet authority to release that information. Why does the Premier refuse to release that information when this piece of Trudeau legislation clearly gave him that authority?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister had this discussion with the honourable member and I think the minister can clear up the member’s mind on this matter.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member should be aware of the fact, first of all, that the police have been notified of when this young man is being released. They have been notified of where he is going to live. They have been notified of where he is going to work. His employer knows who he is and what his background is. Those are the significant people in that community with whom he is going to come in contact, and they are aware.

My second point: Up until the day of his release, he is the responsibility of my ministry. On the day he is released, he is in the same capacity as anyone else. He is an independent adult citizen, a private citizen of this province. Does the honourable member honestly suggest that when that situation occurs, we should then follow him around and tell everybody with whom he comes into contact what his background is? Is that what the member is suggesting?

Mr. Jackson: The minister is quite aware that the call that was made to this government was specifically to release the information to the police forces only and to school boards --

Interjections.

Mr. Jackson: Well, the minister has not released the information to the appropriate school board, should the individual enrol in school. The point we have specifically asked --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: We now have a resolution from the city of Hamilton council requesting that the government act, given that the council relied on press statements that the minister refused to give this information to the police when we first called upon him to do so. But we appreciate the fact that the police now have been informed after people in the third party called upon this government and called upon the minister to interpret that

section of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Jackson: Will the minister notify the authorities also in the Scarborough area and the Halton area which were the areas of concern and where there may be transit involved with this individual on day passes? Will he please confirm that those communities as well will have their police forces notified?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The police force in the area where the young man is going to live has been notified. We have no capacity, and I must say that even if I did have I do not think it would be appropriate, and I honestly have some difficulty with the member’s suggestion that we then follow this young man around for I do not know how long and notify if he chooses to enter a college or a university, if he chooses to change employment, if he chooses to change the place where he lives. I cannot believe that the honourable member is suggesting that we do that.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Currently he has before this House Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act. There has been some concern expressed about this bill in the area of vocational rehabilitation services. The provision of effective vocational rehabilitation services is often the key factor in determining the success of workers’ attempts to return to work.

Some critics are alleging that Bill 162 will serve to restrict access, which workers of Ontario currently possess, to these crucial services. Is it true that Bill 162 attempts to restrict access to vocational rehabilitation services for injured workers of this province, services which many injured workers will require in order to --

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

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to thank the member for St. Catharines-Brock for his question and his interest in the matter. To clear up one point right off the bat: Under Bill 162 there is no restriction at all on the capacity of the worker to seek vocational rehabilitation under the board.

Let’s just clarify, if I may for a moment, what we are trying to do under Bill 162, and that is to intervene as early as possible in the life of an injured worker so that vocational rehabilitation will be effective. The constraints within Bill 162 are indeed not on the worker but on the board, requiring it to intervene early, within 45 days, to begin the process of vocational rehabilitation. Once implemented, it is our belief that we will make a positive impact on the lives of workers who otherwise would not expect to return to the workplace.

Mr. Dietsch: It seems to me that both the minister and I agree that each and every single worker who would benefit from the receipt of vocational rehabilitation services should be entitled to them. This being so, I would like to ask the minister what Bill 162 does to ensure that such becomes the norm in Ontario. What specifically does his bill do to ensure that every worker who would benefit from vocational rehabilitation services actually receives those services?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The bill does two things in very specific terms. It requires that any worker who is away from work as a result of an injury or illness in the workplace be contacted if that worker is away for more than 45 days. The board is then under an obligation to advise the worker of the range of vocational rehabilitation services that might be of assistance in assisting the back-to-work process.

Even more important, if that worker is away from work for six months as a result of an injury, the board is required to conduct a comprehensive vocational rehabilitation assessment, and then any service that the assessment suggests is necessary to help that worker get back to work must be provided under the bill to that worker to assist in that process.

I think what we are going to have is a dramatic turnaround from the present situation which typically can be characterized by a period of some 12 months to 18 months of waiting before the first intervention step is made.

FRANCO-ONTARIAN STUDENTS / ÉTUDIANTS FRANCO-ONTARIENS

M. R. F. Johnston : Merci. J’ai une question pour le ministre de l’Éducation (M. Ward). Nous avons obtenu aujourd’hui -- sans l’aide de votre ministère -- les résultats d’une étude internationale, qui portait sur la performance, en mathématiques et en sciences, des jeunes étudiants âgés de treize ans de douze régions. Dans le cadre de cette étude, les jeunes Franco-Ontariens occupent les onzième et douzième places. En comparaison, les jeunes Québécois, anglophones et francophones, ont obtenu de bons résultats. Comment expliquez-vous que votre système d’éducation ait permis à ces jeunes étudiants d’échouer de façon aussi lamentable ?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do want to thank the member for Scarborough West for asking this very important question.

This government is particularly concerned about the performance of all our students in the areas of math and science. I do believe that the results of this study very much reinforce the steps that this government has taken over the course of the past two years for the renewal of science and mathematics education in this province. The member will be aware that my predecessor, the government House leader, brought in a very significant 24-point action plan. We have developed a new curriculum that has certainly been widely praised in terms of its new emphasis. That curriculum will be going into our schools this September.

We have provided additional funds for learning materials and other resources and we are working with the federations in the area --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister has not responded to my question about why our Franco-Ontarians have suffered so badly. In that 24-point program, there is nothing laid out that is specifically geared to the Franco-Ontarian community or that recognizes this problem that exists.

My second question concerns the minister’s behaviour in this matter. It is not unlikely that this minister will make announcements on the most useless of projects like this provincial report on whether or not people were following the curriculum in the province.

He puts out a news release on that, sends it around to the press gallery and lets everybody know about it, but on this matter where young Franco-Ontarians are doing so badly in our education system, he did not have the grace, even though he has had this report for some time, to even make a statement yesterday in this House or today in this House concerning this matter, to invite the critics from the opposition parties to a briefing that he held for people in the education community at one o’clock yesterday afternoon.

I would like to know why he is trying to suppress this information which is of dramatic importance to the families of French kids in this province, and why he is not highlighting how important it is instead of trying to hold it back the way he has done these last number of days so shamefully.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do have to say that I fundamentally reject the member’s notion that we are holding anything back. As a matter of fact, I will say to the member that, indeed, we are very proud in terms of our efforts to move further into the area of student assessment, and that we are very proud of our efforts to set benchmark standards for all our students. New benchmark standards in science and mathematics will be completed and available by the end of 1989.

In terms of his specific question as it relates solely to French-language students, I would like to stress that indeed, much of the resources in my ministry are committed in a very fundamental way to improving French-language curriculum and support materials.

Renouveau élémentaire en mathématiques et Renouveau en science élémentaire are both ministry-supported projects designed to provide French language elementary school teachers with local professional development and curriculum resources in mathematics and sciences. The ministry’s French language fund for the development and production of learning materials is giving priority to the area of mathematics and science. The same applies for additional development of computer software.

If we were not concerned about the quality of our students’ performance in this area, then I suggest we would not be committing the resources that we are to undertake these sorts of reviews.

The member rejects the notion that it is important to follow curriculum guidelines. I have to say to him that, if we are going to get --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question, the member for Sarnia.

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health and it is with respect to the proposed merger of Sunnybrook Medical Centre and Wellesley Hospital. As the minister knows, there are a number of very fundamental and important questions being raised about the very significant change in service that will flow from any merger that might take place between those two facilities.

One of the matters of concern to myself and my party is that when the merger actually takes place -- if, in fact, it does -- there will be some 230 beds, in total, lost to the community. Wellesley effectively would close, with a loss of over 500 beds. There would be some increase at Sunnybrook; the net result would be a loss of some 200 beds.

That concerns me, but what also concerns me are the voices being raised in the community. Elected members of council and many community representatives are saying that they want to have a full and total discussion with respect to what will happen with regard to the proposed merger. Will the minister agree to a public and open discussion on this matter prior to any final decision being made?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I remind the leader of the third party that, in fact, we have received a proposal from the Sunnybrook hospital board, the Wellesley hospital board and the University of Toronto. That proposal is presently being reviewed by the district health council in Metropolitan Toronto. I expect that they will be reporting some time in March with their recommendations.

I am also very concerned that, whenever we do planning, there be community discussion. I understand, in fact, that a meeting is being held in the community today.

Mr. Brandt: That does not quite answer the question. What I am asking for, very simply, is that there be time given to the community to analyse the impact, not only the loss of beds but the change of location geographically that will occur -- a downtown hospital will effectively be moved north in terms of where its new service area will be -- and the type of patients who are going to be served. Will the minister simply commit to an impact analysis following the receipt of the proposed merger so that the community will have an opportunity to raise legitimate questions?

I am not suggesting now that we are opposed to the merger. I am saying that we want to proceed with caution before any merger becomes a fait accompli. That is all we are saying. Will the minister agree to that kind of public hearing with respect to the entire matter?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Again, I would say to the leader of the third party that a proposal has been received. It is presently being reviewed in a number of forums within the Ministry of Health and, as well, with the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council, whose advice I rely on. I understand there is a public meeting taking place in the community. I believe whenever there is a significant proposal which comes forward that engenders public debate, that is good. I support that kind of process, and I believe we will have an opportunity for much dialogue on this and other health planning subjects over the weeks and months to come.

MUNICIPAL HIRING PRACTICES

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Since last November’s municipal election, I have noticed a number of municipal representatives, including some from the city of Scarborough, are hiring immediate family members as political staff. Members of this Legislature are aware that this practice is unacceptable by both provincial and federal standards. When it comes to serving the public, representatives must be beyond reproach, as even a perception of nepotism can damage the public confidence in its elected officials.

Can the minister advise this Legislature whether our municipal representatives are subject to standards with regard to the hiring of immediate family as personal staff?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I certainly understand the question the member is asking. I would say that at the present time there are no provincial standards for municipalities. My own view is that municipalities are fully accountable for their actions. They make the decision, it is their option and it is certainly their responsibility.

Mr. Faubert: I would like to ask the minister then if he would consider implementing municipal standards similar to those that provincial and federal representatives are subject to, in order to ensure that any public perception of nepotism at the municipal level is avoided.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: As the member knows, I am at the present time reviewing the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I would be glad to include that for review. That does not necessarily mean that we will be imposing standards in this area, but I think it is something we might look at.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware, I am sure, that workers at a company called Dominion Forge in Windsor have been out on strike now for two years. It has been a bitter strike. There has been violence on the picket line. The company there has been asking for huge concessions. They have also, at the beginning of the strike, cut all the retirees off benefits. As I say, it has been a very bitter strike.

The union now is making efforts to get back to the bargaining table once again in another effort to try to settle this strike. I would like to ask the minister if he would use his offices, perhaps himself as the former Minister of Labour did, in an attempt to try to solve this long and bitter strike that has occurred in Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Windsor-Riverside points to one of those strikes that really has created a great deal of agony. Although I do not live in the community, I have heard from people who do the extent to which the parties have simply been unable to reconcile the differences that have kept them apart for so long. He, as well as his colleagues from the Windsor area, probably knows about how that has imposed such great difficulty on the workers in that area.

His suggestion is that I personally intervene. Probably a better approach, and I would suggest this as a response, is that, through effective mediation from the Ministry of Labour, we could once again attempt to bring the parties together.

As he knows, mediation is most effective when each side is willing to participate. I will undertake here to re-examine the situation once again and to determine whether or not, through the mediation services of the ministry, or perhaps personally, we could bring a resolution to a strike that has, as he said, gone on a very long time.

PETITION

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition signed by a number of members of the Church of Scientology requesting the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to drop the charges that have been laid against that church. In accordance with the rules of the House, I would like to sign it and present it.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. Bossy and Mr. Callahan exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 7 1(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 61.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 212,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: This bill, and the second or companion bill which I will introduce shortly, have as their purpose the intention of adjusting, by 4.7 per cent, the salaries and allowances payable to members of the Legislature and the executive council for the fiscal year 1988-89.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 213,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

The Deputy Chairman: Dealing first with Bill 113, are there any questions, comments or amendments and, if so, to which sections of the bill?

Mr. Hampton: We have a number of amendments to move at this time, several amendments dealing with

section 4 of the bill. It is probably best if we deal with those at this time and then move on to the other sections, since there are a number of them.

The Deputy Speaker: Could you identify the sections to which you would be proposing amendments; what other sections besides

section 4?

Mr. Hampton: As I indicated initially,

section 4, and there will be at least three or four amendments. I have amendments to

section 6 and

section 7 and that is it.

The Deputy Speaker: Could I ask whether or not you have copies of your amendments that could be brought forward to the table officers?

Mr. Hampton: I have copies of those amendments, yes.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

Section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(1) of the act, as set out in

section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(1) Despite

section 2, the council of a municipality may by bylaw permit retail business establishments to be open on any holiday,

“(

a) if, in the opinion of the council, it is essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry or cultural industry in the municipality; or

“(

b) if the establishments provide essential services to the municipality.”

Mr. Hampton: The central debate in this bill is about the municipal option. It has always been the government’s contention that there was a municipal option before and that there shall be a municipal option now. However, the argument is about what the extent of that municipal option shall be.

It has been the opposition’s position, and I think it has also been the third party’s position, that our proposed

section 4, as I have set out here, is much more in keeping with the original intention of a municipal option; that is, a municipality or a municipal council should have the option to declare an area to be essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry or a cultural industry in the municipality. That should be the extent of the municipal option, or it should have the capacity, with respect to clause 4(1)(b), that is, where the establishment provides essential services to a municipality.

It has been our position throughout this debate that what the government says is a municipal option in the original bill is not a municipal option. It is an abdication of the rules in favour of each municipality being able to set up its own regime. It is much more than a municipal option. It basically says to the municipalities: “Here, you handle this problem. We don’t like it. We don’t want to handle it. You handle it however you want to do deal with it. We really don’t care if there is any attempt at consistency across the province. We really don’t care about the problems you may encounter.”

It has been our position throughout this debate that the amendment I have proposed here is much more consistent with the term “municipal option.” In other words, while protecting the concept of a common pause day, a municipality has the option of declaring certain establishments or certain areas as essential for the maintenance or development of a tourist industry or a cultural industry within the municipality.

We feel that amendment makes eminent good sense and, in the long run, will lead to a lot fewer problems, both for municipalities and for the province, in terms of interpreting it, applying it and enforcing it. In moving the amendment, I think it is very much in agreement with the original tenor of the act and is in fact a true municipal option rather than an abdication of the situation to municipalities, as the government bill is.

Mr. Kanter: We will not be supporting this motion, which was previously put in the committee, because of the experience the committee had in travelling about the province and hearing information and evidence as to the many and varied purposes for which local councils actually exercised the local option in the past. As I said yesterday in my comments, the local option has been in effect for the past 15 years or so and experience has shown that municipal councils have permitted Sunday shopping for a variety of reasons.

In some cases, they might be under the rubric of tourism or culture or perhaps essential services, although I am not really quite sure what that means or entails. But we have found other purposes as well: social service, as in the case of Thunder Bay where shopping is permitted for people who are seniors or handicapped; multicultural purposes in other municipalities; perhaps shift work, or proximity to a border to discourage local residents from shopping in other places.

It is our view that experience has shown that the local option should stand on its own, that local councils are in a better position to determine without any rigid fetters from the provincial level, and therefore we will be opposing this amendment to

section 4 of the bill.

Mr. Harris: My critic is just outside. The media are very interested in another matter that he raised today. I wonder if I could ask the committee’s indulgence to do a couple of things. We are on

section 4 now, I believe. We would like to table amendments to

section 4 and also to

section 9 and

section 10. I also have one to

section 3, for which I must ask the committee’s indulgence, if with unanimous consent I could move back at some time, not right now, to

section 3.

The Deputy Chairman: We can deal with

section 3 and unanimous consent after we have dealt with this first amendment to

section 4 by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton). Do you have any comments with respect to the amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River?

Mr. Harris: It sounded like a fine amendment to us. However, we do have amendments of our own to

section 4.

The Deputy Chairman: I have recorded and the table officers have recorded that you wish to propose amendments to sections 3, 4, 9 and 10.

Mr. Harris: Right.

The Deputy Chairman: You have made copies available and that is all that needs to be done at this point.

Mr. Harris: So at this point, you would like to deal with this amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: The amendment on the floor.

Mr. Harris: Yes, we think it is a fine amendment.

Mr. McGuigan: I would just like to comment that I am opposed to that amendment, especially on behalf of one of the communities in my riding, the town of Belle River, which a year ago declared itself a tourist area. These people, for their own reasons, have taken this move. I do not think it is fair for the province to put limitations on their actions in deciding the future of their business life and their community life. This has been in effect for a year now and it is working very well.

Certainly on their behalf and on behalf of other smaller communities that are actually hamlets and do not have a government body to speak for them -- several of those are open on Sundays -- I would not like to see the province limiting their scope.

Mr. Sola: I would just like to point out that when you try to define things too closely for the municipalities, you run into trouble with the courts.

Under our present system, the Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada took to court Longo’s Malton Fruit Market in a riding just north of mine, as a matter of fact, Mississauga North. The courts decided they could not decide on the merits of the evidence that the municipality provided, but just on the fact that it did provide evidence. In other words, all that a municipality has to do, when we try to define something in this Legislature, is show an attempt to make a study. The courts will accept that attempt as evidence that the study proves the need for whatever purpose the municipality has decided.

In other words, we would just be getting the same situation over again. If we are going to give a municipal option, we may as well make it a real option where the municipality decides in the open, with public hearings, what it will allow within its own borders. So I am opposed to this amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Five members having risen in their seats, a vote will be necessary.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think you have anticipated my comment, Mr. Chairman. The House leaders met earlier this afternoon and have agreed that any votes arising out of the proceedings today and tomorrow will be stacked until 5:45 p.m. tomorrow.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent that all votes arising out of the considerations today will be stacked until tomorrow at 5:45 p.m.?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Then 5:45 p.m. for that vote.

Mr. Hampton: Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman, but the amendment you should now have before you is again an amendment to

section 4.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(2) of the act be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(

d) shall publish a notice announcing the council’s decision to review the Sunday shopping issue and providing details of a public meeting and shall send copies of the notice to all persons who have asked to be notified about any proposed changes in Sunday shopping bylaws.”

Mr. Hampton: If you read subsection 4(2) of the act, you will note that it sets out certain procedural guidelines for the municipal council in dealing with the Sunday shopping issue. However, those guidelines that are set out in clauses 4(2)(a), (

b) and (

e) are not complete by themselves.

Clause (

a) says that the council “shall hold a public meeting in respect of the proposed bylaw.” Fair enough; a public meeting shall be held. Clause (

b) says, “shall publish notice of the public meeting in a newspaper having general circulation…at least 30 days before the meeting is to be held.” That is a requirement for one notice and one notice only. Clause (

e) says, “shall permit any person who attends the public meeting the opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed bylaw.”

However, what we maintain is necessary in order to provide the requisite notice is that the council should be required to “publish a notice announcing the council’s decision to review the Sunday shopping issue and providing details of a public meeting and shall send copies of the notice to all persons who have asked to be notified about any proposed changes in Sunday shopping bylaws.”

The point we wish to make here is this: Some people may have a general interest in the issue of shopping bylaws, in whether there shall be Sunday shopping or whether there shall not be Sunday shopping. Some people may have that general interest.

But some folks and some organizations -- this was brought home to the committee when it travelled across the province -- whether they be churches, trade unions, trade associations or certain store owners, may have a special interest in the issue and may have already been in touch with council to say, “If you’re going to make any changes on these things, please let us know well in advance so we can marshal our arguments, so that we will have the opportunity to come before council and present a co-ordinated and well-thought-outline of argument on the issue.”

In our view, those individuals and those groups that have a special interest in the issue, that you might say have a vital interest in the issue, perhaps in terms of their own businesses or their own jobs, or in terms of organizing their working lives, their family lives, their business lives, ought to receive a special notice. That is what this amendment speaks to, the fact that if groups or organizations have in the past indicated a special interest in the issue, they should receive a personal notice indicating council’s decision to review the Sunday shopping issue, so that they may have the requisite time to put their arguments together on this very important issue.

By themselves, clauses 4(2)(a), (

b) and (

c) do provide procedural guidelines, but in our view they are not complete procedural guidelines, especially when one considers that this kind of issue may quickly divide into two camps: those types of businesses or commercial undertakings that feel they may have a special interest in having a Sunday opening bylaw passed, and those businesses, trade unions and community groups that feel they have much to lose when a Sunday opening bylaw is passed.

Inasmuch as on one side of the coin we may have an organization that is a proponent of a Sunday opening bylaw and may have lots of notice of what is happening, and in fact may be the initiator of a Sunday opening bylaw, we feel it is only fair that those who may be opposed should have equal early notice, notice at the earliest possible time, and should have, again in line with their interest, special personal notice of what is happening. That is the reason for the amendment.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The amendment proposed by the member for Rainy River makes extremely good sense. I am sure the government would want the very people who would be affected by this legislation to be aware of the fact it will be coming in in a short period of time. I see no reason at all why the proposal should not be accepted. We are simply saying that the people who are vitally interested would leave their names with the town clerk per se, and that he in turn would notify them when the hearings are going to be held. That just makes sense and we support that.

Mr. Kanter: I am glad the members of the opposition parties have recognized the importance of subsection 4(2) of the legislation, because it is that subsection, which they seek to amend, that sets out the very important procedural guidelines, requirements of notice, a public meeting and permission for any person who attends that meeting to speak.

I want to reiterate that this provision, which was in itself an amendment to the bill, is much higher than the current requirement under the local option. There is no requirement currently that there be notice and a meeting and an opportunity to speak. The provision we have established is similar to the Planning Act and in our view the provision the government moved in the committee is a complete and appropriate code.

There is nothing in the bill as it now stands that would prevent any council from going beyond the minimum standard of notice and hearing provisions. Some councils may indeed choose to establish a mailing list of the sort recommended by the member for Rainy River, or they may put information out in various languages or they may adopt various other additional provisions. However, the government realistically does not wish to fetter the hands of councils unnecessarily, particularly perhaps the smaller municipal councils with less professional staff.

I think there are some practical problems inherent in the motion suggested by the member for Rainy River. There might be a relatively small change in the legislation, perhaps expanding the size of one drugstore that may be permitted to open, something that may be of little interest to people who may be generally interested in the issue.

There are many practical questions as to the length of time these names must be kept on file, whether they must be kept in writing. What would happen if someone moved, whether a municipal bylaw could be voided if a very strict, overly strict and detailed procedural requirement were set at the provincial level?

We have some confidence in local councils. We believe they will do what is appropriate for local circumstances and therefore we will oppose the amendment put by the member for Rainy River and supported by the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson).

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any other discussion? I will therefore put the question.

Mr. Hampton has moved that subsection 4(2) of the act be amended by adding the following clause:

“(

d) shall publish a notice announcing the council’s decision to review the Sunday shopping issue and providing details of a public meeting and shall send copies of the notice to all persons who have asked to be notified about any proposed changes in Sunday shopping bylaws.”

Is the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will be please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Runciman moves that

section 4 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“4(1) Despite sections 2 and 3, the council of a municipality may, under the procedure established in 4(2), designate retail business establishments to be open on any holiday for one or more of the following reasons:

“(

a) it is essential for the development or maintenance of a tourist industry;

“(

b) it is essential for the development or maintenance of a particular cultural community.

“4(2) A municipality may make application to the Retail Business Holidays Exemption Board for approval of exemptions to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

“4(3) Upon the receipt of an application from a municipality, the Retail Business Holidays Exemption Board has 30 days to indicate to the said municipality whether or not public hearings on the application are necessary.

“4(4) In the event the board determines that public hearings are necessary, these hearings must be held in the said municipality within 90 days of the receipt of the application.

“4(5) Within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearings or in the event no hearings are held within 30 days of receipt of the application, the board must inform the municipality of its decision.

“4(6) The board’s decision must take one of the following three forms:

“(

a) accept the application; or

“(

b) reject the application; or

“(

c) accept the application with modifications.

“4(7) In the event that a municipality is dissatisfied with the decision of the board, the municipality may appeal such decision to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Mr. Runciman: Regrettably, our critic on the Sunday shopping issue is not able to be with us during these deliberations, but I will as best I can attempt to elaborate on the positions she put forward at the committee with respect to this particular amendment.

Obviously, the intent is to try to be more restrictive with respect to the ability of individuals, corporations, businesses and so on to open on Sundays. It is an attempt to try to be more definitive with respect to spelling out clearly the kinds of situations whereby a municipality would be enabled, under this particular

section of the bill, to allow Sunday shopping in any given municipality.

The drafter of the amendment and our party believe the areas we have dealt with, the development or maintenance of a tourist industry and the development or maintenance of a particular cultural community, certainly are areas that our party and, I suspect, all members of this Legislative Assembly can live with.

I want to make a point at this juncture that I think is appropriate, although it does not deal with the specific amendment. That is the absence of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). She has certainly been absent since I have entered the chamber and I want to --

Mr. Faubert: How about the absence of your critic?

Mr. Runciman: Well, I want to make a point that was raised during the deliberations of the committee during my presence. We were assured at that time by the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr.

Kanter), in presenting justification to the committee for the ongoing absence of the minister -- when her presence was required or requested, let’s say, on a number of occasions and the minister declined to make an appearance except for one brief stop for 15 minutes to deal with the concerns of members of the committee -- that the minister would be here during committee of the whole House deliberations on the legislation, to answer questions and address concerns raised by members of the assembly.

Obviously, that commitment is not being met here today on the first day of deliberations in committee of the whole House.

I want to say it is indeed regrettable and another indication of this minister’s lack of commitment to this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that ultimately has been an embarrassment to her, if not to her leader.

I simply wanted to put that on the record. Hopefully, the members of the governing party will do whatever they can to encourage the minister responsible to attend these hearings. I do not think there is anything more I want to say at this stage.

Mr. Kanter: This motion was also put in committee by a representative of the Conservative Party, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham). While some of our difficulties are similar to those we encountered with a previous motion put by the official opposition, in terms of the limited criteria under which opening would be permitted, our reservations about this motion are really much more serious.

It would set up a retail business holidays exemption board. Our concern is this would be an elaborate, expensive and ultimately undemocratic check on elected local representatives. There are many practical questions in terms of the membership of this body and how it would be chosen. As I think all members would be familiar with by now, there are great differences, even among religious groups, among employer groups or employee groups, as to the desirability or lack of desirability of Sunday shopping.

There would certainly be expenses incurred and I know that members, particularly of the third party, have spoken from time to time about their concerns about establishing other bureaucracies or other expenses. There is no question that other expenses would be involved here. Really, our primary concern and our primary point of principle why we feel this would be a very bad idea would be the replacement of local, elected decision-makers with centralized, provincially appointed decision-makers.

We simply do not feel that a body appointed by Queen’s Park can be as responsive to conditions in the area of the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) or the member for Rainy River, or indeed any part of the province, as can local decision-makers, people on the spot, elected members of local councils. We feel it would be a very retrogressive step to accept this amendment and therefore we will not support it.

Mr. Hampton: We will support the third party on this amendment. Despite the comments of the parliamentary assistant, we think it is a good amendment. It is a reasonable amendment. It is one many communities asked for. It seems to be an amendment only the government of the province is opposed to. We will support it.

Mr. Sola: I oppose the amendment on two counts. First of all, both opposition parties seem intent on tying the hands of local municipalities, and at the same time, tying the hands of the government that is supposed to be running the province.

If the members look at what the Progressive Conservative task force tried to set up in its recommendations, I think this goes against the grain of the recommendations of the PC task force. For instance, the PC task force tried to open up certain Sundays as we approached Christmas and decided to do away with banning shopping on Boxing Day. At that time, they had 18 members of their caucus sit in on this task force, going around the province to see what the province wanted. They recommended opening up certain areas at certain times and now they are trying to do the opposite.

Of course, there are only five left in the present caucus from that committee that travelled the province. As a matter of fact, their whole caucus is not as large as the task force that travelled the province. I think they should be a little bit more consistent in their proposals and that is why I am opposed.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other participants? I will therefore put the question.

All those in favour of Mr. Runciman’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: We have a request from the House leader of the third party that notwithstanding the fact that the committee has already approved

section 3 of the act, the third party be permitted to propose and move an amendment to

section 3. Is there unanimous consent that the amendment be permitted to

section 3?

Agreed to.

Mr. Runciman moves that

section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection thereto:

“(3) Subsection 3(8) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“Section 2 does not apply to retail business establishments or any class thereof which have been exempted according to the criteria established under

section 4.”

Mr. Runciman: This amends the

section of the proposed act by changing the square footage requirements for holiday retail openings from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.

It would also repeal subsection 3(8) of the Retail Business Holidays Act. This subsection states that

section 2, which prohibits any retail outlets from opening or admitting the public on a holiday, does not apply in the case of any exemptions made under

section 4.

This new subsection that we have proposed will provide that the act does not apply to any retail establishments exempted, as outlined in the criteria of the new

section 4.

Mr. Kanter: I find the motion somewhat technical, but I believe that it essentially would be superfluous. I believe that the intent of the mover would be to suggest that the

section does not apply to retail businesses where there has been a municipal bylaw passed and I believe that provision is covered by the opening words of subsection 4(1) in the proposed legislation, which say “despite sections 2 and 3.” I believe it is superfluous, unnecessary and, therefore, we will not be supporting it.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other

participants? I will therefore put the question.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Section 4:

Mr. Philip: I move that the motion to add subsection 4(1a) be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(

d) shall publish the notice mentioned in clause (

b) in any ethnic language newspaper where more than 10 per cent of the residents of that municipality have a language other than the mother tongue.”

The Deputy Chairman: We do not have at the table here the motion in writing, as required. Do you have a copy?

Mr. Philip: I understand that, I just -- Maybe we can stand it down and I will supply it to you in a minute, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hampton moves that subsection 4(7) of the act be amended by striking out the word “may” in the first line and substituting the word “shall.”

Mr. Hampton: The subsection shall now read, “The council shall establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered by it in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection 1.”

As you read

section 4, one can see that there is some intention to establish a procedural code or procedural guidelines which councils must follow when they go about passing or considering a Sunday shopping bylaw. We are of the view that many of the procedural guidelines are, of course, inadequate.

One of the inadequacies is found exactly here in subsection 7. The government might as well remain silent on the issue if it is merely going to say, “council may establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered...in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection 1.” Putting the language in the terms that it “may” set up such a plan provides no procedural protection at all.

In fact, what it amounts to is putting down words in subsection 7 which might have the effect of leading someone to believe that there are procedural safeguards, but in fact there is no procedural safeguard there at all. It simply says that council may do it or may not do it.

What we are advocating is that if the government is serious about providing meaningful procedural safeguards, subsection 4(7) should require a council to establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered by it in determining whether a Sunday shopping bylaw should be passed under subsection 4(1).

If a council is required to set out such a plan which lists the criteria it will look at in considering whether it will pass a Sunday shopping bylaw, it provides for those organizations or groups which may be vitally concerned with the issue and for the general public a framework within which they know the bylaw will be debated. It provides a framework within which they know what the critical issues are.

Otherwise, it is very difficult for interest groups which may be for one reason or another opposed to a proposed Sunday shopping bylaw to address on the spur of the moment whatever the arguments may be that are put forward by the other side.

What we are saying is that if we are going to pass on these kinds of difficult commercial arguments and these kinds of difficult bylaw arguments to a municipal council, they at least ought to be passed on with some sort of criteria guideline so that everyone knows what the ground rules are and everyone knows what the considerations are.

A council can start from within that framework of rules and can have an organized debate within the municipality rather than a disorganized one, rather than some of the things we saw taking place in some of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto last fall, where there were allegations that some parties actually went out and gave money to individuals and said, “Look, show up at this meeting at council and whenever anyone says anything favourable towards a Sunday shopping bylaw, show your support for it by giving a rather loud demonstration.”

That is the kind of thing we want to avoid. If we are going to pass this down to municipal councils, we ought to at least have the decency to pass something down that has some guidelines to it, that has some criteria to it or requires them to set up their own criteria.

Municipal councils, in fact, asked for this. At the same time, the municipal councils were saying: “Look, we don’t want this political football handed our way. We don’t care to have it. It belongs in the provincial ballpark, but if we’re going to have it forced on us, we want a clear direction as to how municipalities and municipal councils are to handle these sorts of things.”

By inserting the word “shall” and taking out the word “may” in

section 7, we provide a better procedural code. As I say, the

section with the word “may” in it, as it now stands, is rather empty.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: I am willing to listen to the government’s version first and then speak after the government has given its opinion.

Mr. Kanter: At this point and in the context of this amendment, I think it is important to review one more time the basic framework of the legislation, because the legislation does not require every municipality to consider, of its own volition, what it wants to do with Sunday closing. The legislation sets out a provincial closing framework.

A municipality which does nothing is under that provincial closing framework. Penalties are stepped up, enforcement is much tougher, as long as the municipality stays within that provincial framework.

I think it is very important to note that a municipality is under no obligation to change from the provincial Sunday closing framework. That is why it does not make any sense to require a municipality to establish a plan for dealing with something it does not have to deal with.

Certainly, if the comments of the opposition parties are correct, if most municipalities do not want to change or vary from the current Sunday closing procedure, there will be no need for a municipal plan.

On the other hand, if we have any municipalities that do choose to deviate from the provincial closing framework, we have established a procedural code -- a requirement for notice, hearing and participation -- a much stricter, more accountable code than existed in the past, a way to allow every interested citizen to participate directly at the local level in this decision.

We have gone further and we have permitted municipalities to establish a plan. We feel this could be useful for municipalities. Some have suggested that some person might design some sort of model Sunday closing bylaw that a number of municipalities might agree to accept jointly. That might be useful.

However, I would remind all members that there are some very small municipalities, which do not have a large and elaborate professional staff, that might not want to deviate from the provincial closing framework or might feel they could do so on the basis of an individual application and would not have the expertise, the inclination or the desire to establish a plan beforehand.

We feel that our amendment, which makes a Sunday closing plan optional with the municipalities, is the best way of recognizing the diversity of municipal governments in this province with the diversity of resources and interests that they contain.

Mr. Philip: The Liberals argue that this is provincial legislation. The major problem, the municipalities have argued, is, “How can you have provincial legislation without any clear-cut guidelines, without having any clear rules?”

Now the Liberals want to have a

section that allows the municipalities to do whatever they want and they put in this namby-pamby little clause that is meaningless, because it says, “may establish a plan setting out the criteria.”

That is a little bit like the National Hockey League saying: “We’re going to have a world hockey tournament, but we’re not going to have any kind of rules. So you won’t really know, if you’re one of the teams, how you are going to be judged or what you are going to be judged by.”

What the government is doing in this

section is it has a contest and the contestants do not know what the rules are and there is no requirement that those who are refereeing the game have any kind of criteria by which they judge who is the winner and who is the loser.

All we are saying is fine, if the Liberal government wishes to abdicate its responsibility to the municipality, at least have a requirement that when somebody is faced with a major change or indeed if somebody wants to bring about a major change, he at least knows what the rules are. If the government does not, then what it is opening it up to is all kinds of capriciousness on the part of whoever happens to be in the position of deciding one way or the other as to whether a certain request will be granted.

I say that will lead to all kinds of abuse. It creates a tremendous instability in the marketplace. If it is worth while to put in “may,” then it makes even more sense to put in “shall” and require that the municipality spell out exactly what the rules are.

What the Liberal government seems to be intent on doing is not only giving up its own responsibility, but also making sure that the local municipalities do not have to be responsible either by spelling out exactly what it is they are doing and how they are doing it.

The municipalities have said to the parliamentary assistant and the minister in no uncertain terms that this is irresponsible, that it will not work. If you look at practically any other decision made by municipalities, I can go down to the municipality for the simplest change in bylaws or to the board of revision or any one of the various municipal bodies and I can say: “Here are some of the things that I would like to do. What are the rules about it? How am I going to be judged if I go before this particular municipal body and ask for this or that particular committee and ask for that?”

The municipality will tell me in no uncertain terms, in black and white. They will say: “Here are the rules. Now you can decide whether you want to make an application or not.” If I can find out what the rules are for something as simple as perhaps making a small revision in some property that I own, which may, at the most, affect a neighbour or two, then surely for something that is a major economic change in the community, the government should have clearly established criteria. Unless the Liberal government accepts this, then once again it is being irresponsible and abdicating its responsibility to the taxpayers.

Mr. Runciman: I want to indicate that we are supporting the amendment. We agree that the word “shall” should replace the word “may.” In terms of the expansion of guidelines and sending out some very clear signals to the municipalities, I think that indeed has to be done.

I know the parliamentary assistant talks about trying to recognize the different situations in a variety of municipalities, going from rural communities to the largest urban area in terms of resources, but I think that can be recognized in some form of broad guideline direction that should be incorporated in this bill as well and in any specific details with respect to the development of a plan in any given municipality.

I think those differences can be recognized and indeed should be recognized, but I do not think the parliamentary assistant’s concerns are legitimate in the sense that he is suggesting to the assembly that, because of the disparities in tax base population and so on, this sort of thing cannot be addressed through the bill, that we have to leave individual municipalities with adequate flexibility to address it based on their own needs.

I think in this particular situation it is incumbent upon the government to spell out very clearly the kinds of areas that it wishes to be considered in the development of any plan dealing with this matter. I think there are areas in terms of the socioeconomic effects of Sunday shopping on municipalities, and they may want to build in some sort of population bridge and that sort of thing. We have done that in other pieces of legislation where we have different levels of assistance, different initiatives of the government applying, dependent upon the population level of any given municipality. That is one option that could perhaps be reviewed.

I think we have to spell out the considerations clearly -- and I am thinking more in terms of some of the modest to large-sized urban areas -- for example, the costs of added day care, the question of added transportation costs. The parliamentary assistant knows that is a particular concern that has been raised by many in their appearances before the committee.

In my own community of Brockville, for example, the public transit system shuts down on Sundays. It does not currently operate on Sundays, but if we get into a situation where Sunday shopping is being considered, I think this is the sort of thing that can and should be addressed. As other members have mentioned, it is the kind of direction, the kind of assistance that the municipalities out there wish to see occur.

They are being forced to accept this legislation by this huge majority Liberal government against their will, against the wishes of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They are having it shoved down their throats. The people of Ontario are having it shoved down their throats. I think it is incumbent upon the government to do whatever it can to moderate, to alleviate the very valid concerns that are out there in the public and certainly within municipal governments across the province.

Mr. McGuigan: This amendment touches a concern I have and I feel a lot of my constituents have, that is, that they are a separate part of Ontario. There is Toronto and then there is the rest of Ontario, and all of our laws are being made on behalf of Toronto. In our small communities of 2,000 and 3,000 people, and I mentioned some of them, where the councillors are very close to the people -- they meet them on the street; they meet them, of course, in election campaigns -- these things are debated at the street level before they are brought to the council.

Those small communities may decide, just on a visceral opinion, that they want to or do not want to go with this system. They do not want imposed upon them from Toronto that they have to set up a very elaborate set of criteria. They just decide in their own minds whether they are going to move. The proposed law as it stands gives them that opportunity. They may or they may not. On that point, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Philip: I would like to ask the member who has just spoken what he feels “council” is referring to in this bill. Would it affect his local council of 3,000 people?

Mr. McGuigan: In answer, I do not think it should be imposed upon them that they must set out these criteria, which, in my opinion, takes us back to the same position we were in when we tried to define what a recreation area is. When we try to define that we get into all sorts of trouble. I think you are taking us back to that same position. I believe councils should be allowed to make up their mind on the advice and the consent of the people they represent.

Mr. Philip: I would like to follow that further. I wonder if the member realizes that “council” refers to the council of a municipality; if he would like to check what “municipality” means in this bill, he would realize that what he said is completely irrelevant to what we are debating in this bill.

Mr. Sola: I would like to refer to the example the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale used of the hockey tournament. I particularly like that example because it proves he does not know what he is talking about. When you set up a hockey tournament, you can only set the rules for the participants. You cannot set rules for people who decide to opt out of the tournament.

Our provincial framework is like the hockey tournament. It sets out the rules for those who participate. We do not want to set the rules for those who think this particular tournament is not convenient for them at this time and want to opt out. They may decide to go to another tournament. They may decide to play broomball or go on a vacation. We set the rules for the people who want to participate, but it is up to those who do not want to participate to set their own rules. I think it just proves that the honourable member for Etobicoke-Rexdale does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Philip: As usual, the member has not read the bill. He not only did not listen to the delegations, but also did not read the bill. If he read subsection 4(6), he would realize that it allows both the opting in and the opting out, and in fact it deals with the whole regulatory process whereby people can opt in or opt out, stay open, stay closed or whatever, as it affects their livelihood.

Mr. Fleet: I am voting in favour of the bill. What else do you want to know?

Mr. Philip: The Liberal members obviously did not listen in committee and they do not want to listen in the House. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), of course, who has not had the courage to stand in the House and tell his constituents where he stands on this bill yet, still wants to interrupt me as I try to show the people who are viewing this and who are concerned, the four million people who --

Mr. Fleet: I am voting in favour, Ed.

Mr. Pouliot: You’re on the wrong side of the House, that’s your problem.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Philip: The member for High Park-Swansea, who has not had the courage to stand in the House, face his constituents on television and tell them why he is voting contrary to their wishes, insists on interrupting members of the opposition who are --

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Aside from the improper suggestion as to my motives by the last member speaking, as I have indicated repeatedly from this spot, I am supporting the bill for a host of reasons. It is a good bill. It is good for the province.

The Deputy Chairman: Could I interrupt you, please? You will have your opportunity to make a speech in rotation. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has the floor.

Mr. Philip: What we are trying to do in this amendment -- and I realize it upsets the member for High Park-Swansea, because he does not want his constituents to know exactly where he stands because they will be voting against him in the next election over this, so he continues to interrupt -- what we are clearly trying to do is to require that there be rules.

These are matters that are affecting a person’s very livelihood. We heard from groups such as the Korean Businessmen’s Association about how, as a result of similar legislation to this in British Columbia, they were forced out of business and moved to Ontario where they thought there was some kind of stable environment where they could operate a business, where there were clear-cut rules and where they would not have capriciousness or changing of the rules overnight.

All we are saying is that if the government is going to change the rules, then it at least has to have criteria so that a person then can know what the rules are when decisions are being made that affect their livelihood or the quality of their lives. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not want any rules and that is why they are giving up their responsibility to the municipalities, and now they do not even want the municipalities to have clear-cut rules in the case where people feel that perhaps a decision has been made that is unjust.

They cannot even have a set of rules whereby they can say, “Here are the rules that are being violated in making this decision.” I say to the government: That is not flexibility; that is simply anarchy.

I realize that the Liberals have trouble making up their minds on anything and therefore anarchy is the rule by the Liberal members in this House. Surely if the government is going to give up its responsibility to the municipalities, it can at least require the municipalities to have some rules so that when a person’s livelihood is affected, he at least knows how he is being judged.

I realize that the member for High Park-Swansea does not believe in that, but his constituents do and they will tell him so in the next election.

Mr. Allen: I would like to make a couple of points. First of all, with regard to the comment by the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Sola), there are, after all, in

section 4 a number of elements in which the word “shall” is used, and by his logic they should not be there. This is a government bill, so I do not know how he deals with that.

Second and perhaps more to the point, the proposal is not to establish the rules or the criteria that a municipality must adopt by which it judges whether it will move into an opting-out pattern and what it will do under the opting-out formula. The only requirement is that the municipality pay its own residents and voters the courtesy of laying out a plan; that surely is the least that this government ought to require of a municipality. After all, the municipalities are constitutionally subject to this Legislature. They are creatures of the Ontario Legislature.

It only makes sense that if we, as a Legislature -- compromised as I am on this side by the vote on the other side -- are making an opportunity available to municipalities to provide an option to the framework, at least we say that some things need to happen; not that we tell them what criteria they have to establish, but that they be required to establish a set of criteria by which the action they will take, as the clause goes on, “in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection (1),” will take place.

It seems to me it is an important kind of measure for this Legislature to have in this section. It certainly places no mandatory burden of the opinion of this House, beyond the point of saying such a plan should exist. I have no problem in supporting my colleague’s motion that the word “may” should be amended to read “shall.”

Mr. Runciman: I have just a few more comments. We are talking about the plan, and I am not sure if the parliamentary assistant has responded since his initial outburst. I want to point out as well that the Solicitor General continues to be absent during the debate. I am going to continue during this process to point that out.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Runciman: The Attorney General as well, as has been brought to my attention.

We want to talk about the plan and the fact that subsection 4(7) simply says, “The council may establish….” We were talking about whether the wording should be changed to read, “The council shall establish a plan setting out the criteria to be considered by it in determining whether a bylaw should be passed under subsection (1).”

We have been arguing about the fact that it should require that through the word change to “shall,” and also about the fact that there should be some more direction provided in terms of what plans should indicate to municipalities across this province; that in fact there should be some clear definition with respect to just what kind of plan we are talking about here, who will draft it and whether there will be any assurance that the plan includes some sort of analysis or at least an estimate of the added costs municipalities could incur.

I mentioned earlier in my comments two examples: transportation and day care. I think it could be argued that there should be consideration given to some sort of provision within this plan that would clearly stipulate that more than 50 per cent of the population in that particular municipality approves of Sunday openings. That indeed would be an appropriate initiative and one I hope the government would give favourable consideration to.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, are we ready for the vote?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What about the parliamentary assistant? No response?

Mr. Chairman: No response.

All those in favour of Mr. Hampton’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I believe you have my amendment that we stood down a minute ago.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I do.

Mr. Philip moves that subsection 4(2) of the act, as set out in the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

All we are saying is that many of the merchants are people who have come from other countries, in many cases people who may have PhDs or who may be medical doctors or lawyers in their own countries, but because of the educational problems, because of the problems of getting certification, they have entered into businesses that can help them become self-supporting citizens. Many of their sons and daughters are now becoming the doctors, the lawyers, the chiropractors and the teachers in our society.

But because of the language problems, because of the certification problems of their degrees and so forth, they have gone into businesses that allow them to support their families and be productive citizens.

The Provincial Auditor has been somewhat critical of the fact --

Mr. Faubert: That’s imputing motives.

Mr. Philip: Well, it is a fact. It is a fact that the Liberals, when in opposition, were very critical of how the Conservatives spent money on advertising in these various newspapers without any criteria. Now we see that the Provincial Auditor says the government has changed but, in this regard, nothing has changed; there are no criteria, there is no focus and so forth and a lot of money is being spent.

If this government believes, and I think it is right in so believing, that all of these different-language newspapers are important for it to get its message across, even about legislation which might not be considered of major significance -- and it does; it buys ads in these papers to let the people know what the government is doing -- then surely something that is as important as something that will affect their business, their very livelihood should follow the same pattern and should be advertised in these various newspapers.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale should realize that the criterion for ads in any of the ethnic newspapers is quite strict. When he stands up to say that the ads --

Mr. Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ruprecht: This is very important.

Mr. Chairman: It is not a point of order; it is a point of information. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale may continue.

Mr. Philip: It is so rare for the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) to speak in this House that I certainly would not want to deprive him of the opportunity.

The fact is that if the member for Parkdale had taken the time to read the last Provincial Auditor’s report, he would have seen exactly what the auditor said about the advertising policy of this government. He said there were no figures as to who its population was. He said there were no follow-ups and no adequate evaluations. If evaluations are not criteria, I do not know what are.

He said that the government was wasting the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Pouliot: They are not getting value for money.

Mr. Philip: Not getting value for money.

I know the publishers of some of these newspapers come to me and say: “We have a good newspaper, and we publish in this province. We can’t seem to get ads from the present government, but our competitor does. Why is that?” I understand why they might feel upset and w