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

January 24, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L134 - Tue 24 Jan 1989 / Mar 24 jan 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OPTOMETRISTS’ FEES

INTER-CITY GAS CORP.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

ROBERT J. WATSON

PRODUCT CERTIFICATION

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY / SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

TRITIUM

HOSPITAL SERVICES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

DIOXIN IN KRAFT PULP

MEDIATION IN FAMILY LAW

PAY EQUITY

HAZARDOUS SPILLS

DISPOSAL OF DDT

ACID RAIN

PROPOSED FERTILIZER PLANT

WASTE MANAGEMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

LARK MANUFACTURING INC.

PETITIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

NATUROPATHY

HOME CARE

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AMUSEMENT DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

OPTOMETRISTS’ FEES

Mr. Farnan: Ontario optometrists broke off negotiations with the government when they were denied fee parity with ophthalmologists for vision diagnosis. Professor Wesley Rayner, dean of law, University of Western Ontario, in his fact-finder report had recommended that optometrists receive the same fee as is paid to ophthalmologists for the same diagnostic services, pointing out that granting the same fee would be simple fairness.

The government has since rejected Professor Rayner’s recommendation and advised the optometrists that they should return to the bargaining table and begin the negotiations for 1987-88 again. The optometrists were in negotiations with Professor Rayner as chairman from April to September, but the government refused to budge from its opening offer of a decrease of 4.3 per cent. Ophthalmologists received an increase of 6.35 per cent for the same time period for providing virtually the same diagnostic services.

Despite a protest rally at Queen’s Park two weeks ago, when more than 400 of the province’s 800 optometrists were on hand, the government stubbornly refuses to negotiate in good faith. The government’s position is untenable. Simple fairness demands that the government reverse its position and make a reasonable offer to the optometrists.

INTER-CITY GAS CORP.

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). I asked him about his role in the Inter-City Gas Corp. $50 to $70 retroactive rate increase to consumers in the riding of Simcoe East. He indicated that the Ontario Energy Board, which approved this exorbitant increase on top of the regular December 1988 bill, is an independent authority. He passed the buck by saying that the board, not himself, is responsible for ensuring that the rates are just and reasonable for consumers of that energy.

His answer is unacceptable. He is abdicating his responsibilities as Minister of Energy. As far as I am concerned, his job is to review energy matters on a continuing basis and to co-ordinate energy-related activities of his government. That should include approving or disallowing the unethical $50 to $70 rate increase that hits senior citizens and those on fixed incomes the hardest.

He should have said no to the rate increase, just as many seniors in Simcoe East are saying no to paying this additional amount that turned up on their December bills. He has abdicated his responsibilities as Minister of Energy and therefore he should immediately abdicate his position as Minister of Energy. Shame on him.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to take this opportunity to inform my colleagues in the House of a recent report released by the city of Mississauga entitled the Mississauga Economic Development Strategy.

In light of the fact that free trade is a reality, Mississauga council is taking the initial step to make certain that its city will be able to compete in the global economy. Mississauga has not only a fast-growing population but also a fast-growing economic base. To ensure that Mississauga continues on its road of high-quality growth, the report recommends three goals.

Keeping business in Mississauga is the first goal, which focuses on our existing businesses. We at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology feel it is very important to act as an advocate for the business community, and I feel that this advocacy will also prove very successful for the municipal government.

The second goal of attracting quality growth is an issue that fits well with the Premier’s Council. It is through the small and medium-sized companies, which are the future development companies in this province, that we will be able to guarantee that quality growth will take place. We must help these companies to create wealth and, in turn, they will create economic benefits and employment for our city.

The third goal of city-building focuses on promoting the city centre, expanding a solid relationship between the business sector and the municipality and offering support to promote facilities that will heighten the quality of life in Mississauga.

I would like to congratulate the council of our city for such forward thinking.

ROBERT J. WATSON

Mrs. Marland: In a city the size of Mississauga, with a population of 400,000, there are many extraordinary people who rise to the top in terms of community service, and it is to one of those individuals that today I send, with deep appreciation, my sincere congratulations.

Robert J. Watson, QC, has just completed the full term of six years on the executive of the Mississauga Board of Trade, serving as president during that time. Bob has been a powerful force in the planning, growth and development of the Mississauga Board of Trade, and I am particularly proud of his accomplishments.

Bob Watson is a superb and caring human being who has made a tremendous commitment to our city and the people who live there. His present work of hundreds of hours as a volunteer member of the Olympic Council of Peel and the board of the Sports Council of Mississauga is a further indication of this man’s service to the community in which he has his law practice as a senior partner of Watson, Ublansky and Meehan. He is also counsel to the law firm of Fasken and Calvin.

Bob Watson exemplifies for all of us the true meaning of a volunteer and a friend in the community. He has made a unique contribution and in so doing gives all of us a great deal for which to be thankful to him. He is one wonderful person.

PRODUCT CERTIFICATION

Mr. Neumann: Now that the Canada-US free trade agreement has been enacted, some of the problems which were foreseen, and indeed some others, have emerged.

I have been made aware of a problem which may become common for small businesses that supply components for Canadian companies which export to the United States. The Canadian original equipment manufacturers are now beginning to require that all component parts be certified to American standards.

A local businessman has informed me that it could cost him up to $15,000 to go through the process of obtaining the necessary “U stamp.” Even if Canadian and American standards are identical, companies must pay for American inspectors to come to their plants, look at their product and give it the American stamp of approval. This will be required for those products destined for the Canadian market as well.

This same individual, who started his business within the past year, says that it may have been cheaper for him to locate in Buffalo and supply Canadian manufacturers from that location.

I ask the Prime Minister of Canada: Where is the adjustment assistance to help this company and others prepare for the wonders of free trade?

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mr. Cousens: I have a letter I received from a grade 2 child, who writes:

“Dear Guvearmint:” -- that’s the spelling, but this is a small child.

“It is not fair that you can say the Lord’s Prayer and we can’t. So please do something about it! If you do you would make us very happy. Please tell us why the government can say it and kids can’t? Thank you.”

I have another letter:

“Dear Guveannint:

“I think it is not fair that you get to say the Lord’s Prayer and we don’t get to. Can we please say the Lord’s Prayer again?”

We are changing some of the fundamental values of the system --

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: Well, we are talking about schools’

interpretations of what is going on and we are talking about the freedoms people have enjoyed in this province and we are talking about a government which has not listened to what some of the people want to try to do. I am insulted by the remarks of the minister for the disabled, because he should have respect for the views of other people.

All I am saying is that young people in the school system are asking that they be listened to. Maybe this government, spelled incorrectly, will start to listen to what the people of Ontario really want to do.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) concerning her government’s focus on saving money rather than ensuring that patients receive the treatment they have come to expect from what was once a world-class system of health care services in Ontario.

I recently told the minister about Lloyd Crawford of Oro Station, who has faced a series of heart bypass surgery delays over six months. The Crawford family has begun circulating a petition calling on the minister to accept her responsibility of making immediate improvements to our health care system.

The president of the Ontario Medical Association warned that more patients requiring heart surgery are going to die because her government is more concerned with saving money than providing proper care. Unless she begins accepting her responsibility as Health minister and does what needs to be done, more people are going to die needlessly. She should show some leadership and accept her responsibilities now.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: In light of the comments previously made, I would like to draw to the attention of the House and also to my riding that although the 5.4 per cent increase in terms of municipal funding has been kept at this stage from last year, emphasis has been placed on the educational system and also on hospitals. I think an 8.1 per cent increase for hospitals is a significant step by this government in terms of looking after what is an important issue for the province and also for my riding and other members’ ridings.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY / SANTÉ ET SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today I will be introducing for first reading a bill to reform the Ontario system for preventing workplace illness and injury and protecting worker health and safety. The bill flows from a vision that the productivity and effectiveness of Ontario enterprise are nourished by the value we place in fair and equitable workplaces; workplaces where labour-management relations are based on trust and mutual understanding, where health and safety are protected and in which the exploitation of women and minorities is not tolerated.

Ce projet de loi résulte de notre conviction que la productivité et l’efficacité des entreprises ontariennes sont favorisées par la valeur que l’on attribue à des lieux de travail justes et équitables ; des lieux de travail où les relations patronales et syndicales sont basées sur la confiance et la compréhension mutuelles ; où l’on protège la santé et la sécurité ; et dans lesquels l’exploitation des femmes et des minorités n’est pas tolérée. Ce projet de loi accordera aux travailleurs et employeurs de plus grandes responsabilités et une plus grande autorité pour contrôler les risques de blessures et de maladies au travail.

This bill is rooted in a perspective that success in the workplace can be achieved only if labour and management have, and indeed seize, the opportunity and responsibility to work collaboratively and constructively. It is against this backdrop that this bill will give workers and employers greater responsibility and authority for controlling the risk of workplace injury and illness. It will provide labour and management with new opportunities to work jointly to fulfil that responsibility effectively, and it will help ensure that they have the capacity to do so.

It will provide uniform training programs to equip them with the knowledge and the skills they need to do an effective, efficient and responsible job and it will ensure that they have full access to information about existing and potential hazards in the workplace.

For that reason, this bill will extend the requirement to establish workplace health and safety committees and appoint worker health and safety representatives to tens of thousands of additional enterprises across the province, including construction sites.

Furthermore, it will create a new Workplace Health and Safety Agency, chaired jointly by labour and management, to develop and deliver health and safety education for men and women in the workplace, to engage in research and consultative services and to provide advice to the Minister of Labour on future directions.

De plus, il établira un nouvel office pour la santé et la sécurité au travail, dirigé conjointement par les travailleurs et les employeurs, dont le but sera de mettre au point et d’assurer la formation concernant la santé et la sécurité sur les lieux de travail ; d’offrir des services de recherche et de consultation ; et enfin, de conseiller le ministre du Travail sur les orientations à prendre.

Honourable members will know that at present the responsibility for education and training is shared by safety and accident prevention associations, by the Occupational Health and Safety Education Authority and the Workers’ Health and Safety Centre of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

These organizations have provided a wide range of health and safety training programs for the specific sectors they serve. This bill will utilize their expertise by bringing them all, except the Farm Safety Association Inc., within the framework of the new agency so they can contribute to the development of a uniform standard of education and training right across the province.

In addition to assuming responsibility for the employer safety and accident prevention associations and for two occupational health and safety clinics, the agency will assume responsibility for the funding of the province’s five health and safety resource centres and, of course, for research.

As I have suggested, the agency will exist in the first instance for the central purpose of supporting the effort in the workplace to prevent worker illness and injury through new approaches to education and training and through certification and accreditation.

As I have also indicated, the bill will put the responsibility and authority for controlling workplace risks in the hands of thousands more people on the shop floors, in offices and on construction projects.

For the first time in Ontario, construction projects with a workforce of 20 or more persons where the project is run for three months or more will require joint health and safety committees and worker trade subcommittees. In addition, some 30,000 offices and retail outlets currently exempt under the act will have to establish joint health and safety committees.

Pour la première fois en Ontario, les chantiers de construction employant au moins 20 personnes et devant durer trois mois ou plus devront avoir des comités mixtes de santé et de sécurité. Les amendements prévoient également la création de sous-comités, par corps de métier, pour les chantiers de construction sur lesquels il existe des comités mixtes de santé et de sécurité. De plus, quelque 30 000 bureaux et magasins, qui sont actuellement exempts de la loi, devront créer des comités mixtes de santé et de sécurité.

All committees will be co-chaired by one representative from labour and one representative from management. Some 50,000 businesses which employ more than five workers but fewer than 20 will be required to appoint worker health and safety representatives chosen by their employees.

If joint health and safety committees are to be truly effective in rectifying health and safety problems in the workplace, they will require special expertise. Under this bill, every joint committee will be required to have at least one labour and one management member specially trained and certified under a program to be established by the new workplace health and safety agency.

Certified members will have the authority to stop work if they find a provision of the act or regulation is being contravened, the contravention poses a danger or a hazard to the worker and the danger or hazard is such that any delay in controlling it will cause a serious risk to the worker.

As honourable members know, there have been growing concerns that the present worker right to refuse dangerous work fails to protect workers adequately because it does not cover work activity that is likely to endanger, such as lifting heavy objects. This bill expands the right to refuse to include work activity. It also ensures that if a worker refuses to do unsafe work, that worker will be compensated for the time it takes the workplace parties themselves to investigate the refusal.

The bill places other responsibilities on employers. For instance, it places a duty of care on officers and directors of corporations for ensuring the health and safety of workers. It requires employers to establish health and safety policies and training programs that meet new standards. The bill also raises the maximum fines for corporations that do not comply with the law to $500,000 from the current maximum of $25,000.

Since 1985, the Ministry of Labour has been actively and aggressively involved in the reform process that directly addresses the government’s commitment to improving the quality of the workplace environment. The measures I am putting before the House today will place the responsibility and capacity for resolving health and safety issues more explicitly and fully in the hands of labour and management.

Fundamentally, they will result in fewer workplace accidents and illnesses, in a lessening of the pain and suffering that imposes itself on too many of our homes and families. Ultimately, they will also mean more effective and productive enterprises in Ontario.

En résumé, ces mesures entraîneront une diminution des accidents et des maladies au travail, une diminution des souffrances qui affligent de trop nombreux foyers et familles. Enfin, ces mesures augmenteront l’efficacité et la productivité des entreprises ontariennes.

I urge their expeditious passage.

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Wong: Today, I am pleased to announce an initiative that reinforces this government’s commitment to ensure that Ontario Hydro is responsive to government policies on important goals such as energy efficiency.

The municipal street lighting pilot program is designed to help make this province more energy efficient. The program is jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro and will encourage and assist municipalities and townships to convert street lighting equipment to more energy-efficient lighting.

Together, the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro will make $1.5 million available for this one-year pilot project. Selected municipalities and townships in northeastern and eastern Ontario will be eligible for assistance to convert their streetlights. As many as 25,000 streetlights could be converted to save up to four megawatts of electricity.

The municipal street lighting pilot project will be evaluated and considered for province-wide expansion.

If all Ontario municipalities converted to more energy-efficient technologies, they could save up to 75 per cent of the over $35 million per year now spent on electricity for streetlights. This would produce province-wide savings of 72 megawatts, enough electricity to provide the needs of a community the size of Niagara Falls.

This program is the latest, but not the last, example of our commitment to energy efficiency. Yesterday, I introduced a major set of amendments to the Power Corporation Act to ensure Ontario Hydro will be responsive to government policies and public priorities. An important part of these amendments and the memorandum of understanding deal with Hydro’s commitments to energy efficiency.

Honourable members will recall that in the November 3, 1987, speech from the throne, the government committed itself to encourage greater municipal involvement in energy conservation. The Power Corporation Act amendments, the memorandum of understanding and this program meet that commitment.

There are good reasons for decreasing demand and using energy more effectively through conservation and energy efficiency improvements.

Energy efficiency can improve our security of supply and ensure that energy supplies are adequate to meet the needs of our people. Energy efficiency improvements can help us to maintain one of the highest standards of living in the world. Energy efficiency also helps us to lessen the burden of energy use on the environment. Every effort to safeguard our environment will rank high on our list of government priorities. The public demands no less.

This program will make an important contribution to ensuring Ontario makes more efficient and responsible use of its energy resources.

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: In response to the comments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), almost every working day someone is killed on the job in Ontario and almost every minute an employee is injured in an Ontario workplace. Back problems have become epidemic. Repetitive strain and injuries are rampant.

By the end of my statement, eight more workers will become victims of unsafe work environments in Ontario, the hidden time bomb in workplace health and safety for the thousands of workers suffering from occupational illnesses. It has to stop. Working people should not be put at risk simply to make a living for themselves and their families. The amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act brought forward today are a step towards making Ontario workplaces safer and healthier.

The situation has got worse under this majority government elected in September 1987. According to Workers’ Compensation Board figures, 469,681 workers made claims for compensation in 1987, up 6.24 per cent from the previous year. Fatalities went from 220 in 1986 to 238 in 1987, an increase of eight per cent. The following tables from the Workers’ Compensation Act show that injuries and claims have gone from 344,758 four years ago to 469,681 in 1987.

New Democrats like Stephen Lewis, Elie Martel and my leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), have fought to improve health and safety conditions in Ontario’s workplaces. For years, we waged an uphill battle against the Conservative government. Finally, in 1979, the Occupational Health and Safety Act was passed. For the first time, Ontario workers had the legal right to refuse unsafe work. They won the right to have joint health and safety committees in their workplaces.

After the 1985 provincial election, we seized the opportunity, ended 43 years of one-party rule and supported the Liberals on the basis of an agenda of reform. The accord made occupational health and safety one of the key priorities. New Democrats were able to get legislation passed in June 1987 that gives workers the right to know about workplace hazards. Bill 79 amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act to require employers to provide hazardous materials inventories, labels and data sheets. Employers must also provide training and instruction related to these substances in the workplace.

In 1986, Elie Martel, the 19-year NDP member for Sudbury East, introduced Bill 149 which would shift the balance of power concerning health and safety from employers to the workers. That legislation passed second reading in this House, a highly unusual feat for an opposition proposal in major legislation. It was gaining broad support when the government called a September 1987 election.

Mr. Martel and the member for York South have denounced the lack of training provided workers and the role of the safety associations as mouthpieces of business. Most importantly, workers need more power in the workplace.

I want to make it clear that today’s amendments go some considerable distance in giving workers more chance to work in safe and healthy workplaces. We look forward to debate on this legislation.

In the next 24 hours, another worker will likely be killed on the job and 1,290 workers will suffer injuries from minor cuts to life-disabling trauma. Cancer, which has touched so many of us, will claim the lives of many who develop the disease simply because their workplace is unhealthy. We have to do in this House whatever it takes to end the legacy of pain and sadness that rotten working conditions bequeath to us.

New Democrats, working with people from labour, business and the government, will do whatever is necessary to make that difference for working people in Ontario.

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. Charlton: I would like to take a few moments to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). The minister’s statement this afternoon is another primary example of a government with wonderful ideas that is too timid to pursue them aggressively.

The statement this afternoon clearly sets out in factual terms what the potential is in Ontario around a municipal lighting program, and yet the minister is still tinkering around with a one-year, mini-pilot project when he already knows what he can accomplish in a province-wide program. He has given us the figures right here today.

It is another example that follows the one he gave us yesterday when he introduced his amendments to the Power Corporation Act, amendments that are all headed in the right direction but do not --

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

Mr. Runciman: I would also like to respond to the Minister of Energy’s rather modest statement this afternoon. The minister has indicated a commitment to conservation and I have no doubt he personally has such a commitment but he is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with the power behind the throne, Ontario Hydro. We saw that very clearly in the announcement made yesterday. Ontario Hydro’s commitment to energy conversation is in question at best --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Energy conversation?

Mr. Runciman: Energy conservation, I said. The House leader should clear out his ears for a change.

We hear a great deal of rhetoric, but no real commitment on the part of this government or on the part of Ontario Hydro to meaningful energy conservation.

I went through the select committee on energy hearings dealing with the demand/supply planning strategy. We took a look at municipalities, for example, at the fact they are still out there, many of them, very vigorously attempting to increase market share.

We see Ontario Hydro advertising on television continuously, again pushing increased energy consumption. Why do we not see initiatives taken in that direction? There are continual efforts to encourage increased consumption of electricity across this province; no real commitment. We saw it during the Christmas break when Ontario Hydro was talking about possible brownouts. I have never, in my own area, seen such a proliferation of Christmas lighting on residential homes. There was no real commitment on the part of the municipal utilities or Ontario Hydro to meet those concerns, if indeed they were real.

The leader of the Liberal Party some time ago described Ontario Hydro as an out-of-control monster. We obviously are not going to see this government take control of that monster. The minister is in their pocket. Hydro has its own agenda and this minister is clearly following it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Harris: We look forward to seeing what will evolve from this new piece of legislation coming today from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). We question how serious he is about it. The first draft of this bill was introduced on the last day of the last session. Now we are presumably close to the tail end of this session, with the exception of the minister’s labour bill or nonbill on Sunday shopping.

The bill comes back in again. I understand it has been revised, but I say that this one will probably die again and then we will get the next bill when the next session comes in. People can see how serious we are. We keep introducing these bills. When they come in on the last day or in the last week or the last couple of weeks, we realize how serious the minister is.

Second, with the amount of time that has passed, the one aspect, the key part, of this particular piece of legislation, as I understand it, is this: In his statement, the minister emphasized that the effectiveness of both joint health and safety committees and worker representatives will depend on their training and the information available to them. So it is indeed this committee itself, these 14 -- seven from labour and seven from management -- who are going to be the key. The minister says that is the key.

He also says, “It will provide uniform training programs to equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to do an effective, efficient and responsible job.” But with all this study, and in questioning in the lockup today, nobody could answer how much training, what kind of training and how long the training is going to be. Some of the answers were, “It depends on the industry.” The minister’s statement says “uniform training programs.” The key to making it work is not in this statement. It is not in the bill at this particular stage.

It appears to us the government still does not know how it is going to work. Perhaps when they reintroduce it a third time, they will have a little better handle on this.

MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: The Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) has risen in his place to comment about conservation of one of the two resources he is responsible for, one being electricity; the other is the public purse, which has been entrusted to him as a member of the cabinet.

I would like to point out that a constituent, a resident of the city of Burlington, received two large packages one day apart with the same material, by Priority Post. Yet the thermometers the constituent requested were still absent from the packages the minister sent.

Perhaps he should look at getting his own act together in terms of how he is administering his portfolio.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICE ACTIVITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Solicitor General. I wonder if the Solicitor General could explain why the Ontario Provincial Police is not covered by the government’s legislation on Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy to point out to the member, as I have done before in this House, that we are working on amendments to the Police Act or a new police act that will look at the responsibility of the OPP in this direction. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be very satisfied and happy to support this when we come forward with it in the next session.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is quite wrong if she thinks we are going to be satisfied. It is my understanding, according to the Ottawa Citizen of October 3, 1988, that it is her plan to split the Ontario Police Commission and give to the police commission itself the responsibility for reviewing complaints against police officers who are employees of the police commission.

I wonder if the Solicitor General can tell me why that solution is good enough for the OPP, but in fact does not appear to be good enough for other municipalities and other police commissions in other municipalities. It is an approach that was explicitly rejected by her party when it was in opposition, in discussing the Metro Toronto complaints bill.

Can she explain why she continues to refuse to allow a totally independent civilian review of the OPP, just as it is covered in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy for this occasion given to me to explain this. The Leader of the Opposition has it completely backwards, which is most unfortunate for him and for those who are listening to his opinions.

The OPC has indeed already been split in its responsibilities. We have, on the one hand, the quasi-judicial arm of it, which is the OPC, and which will deal with complaints. On the other hand, we have the policing element that is directly under the ministry and is where the OPP work. They do not work for the OPC and would not be reviewed by those for whom they work. The very point the Leader of the Opposition is making is why we have split this into two functions, the one being the policing function and the other being the quasi-judicial function of the OPC.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is talking about something that has absolutely no legislative authority. When she says I have it backwards, I think she should at least have the courtesy to say that there is in fact no legislative authority for this division.

The legislative authority of the Ontario Police Commission is as now set out in Ontario’s Police Act. The Solicitor General knows that. I am asking her if she can tell us why it is that the Ontario Provincial Police is being treated differently from any other municipal police force across this province. Why is there not one complaints process which covers, in principle, police officers who work as members of the OPP, police officers who work for various municipal police forces as well as for those who now work in Metropolitan Toronto?

Why is the same law not in place, so civilians have the same rights of complaint, the same rights of redress, the same rights of investigation living outside Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member asked the same question four times.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, one cannot bring in anything as complicated as a new Police Act or a basically amended Police Act without consultation. This consultation, as I have already told the member, has been going on and people are being very co-operative: the Ontario Provincial Police Association, the police chiefs, the Ontario Police Commission itself and the government. We will be bringing forth

an act that very much will satisfy the complaints which have been made. A bill that deals specifically with municipal police forces by its very nature does not deal with the OPP, which is not a municipal police force.

Mr. B. Rae: I could ask the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) the same question to see whether we get the same answer. I am sure I would get exactly the same answer, because I know he agrees entirely with the views that have been expressed by the Solicitor General. The Attorney General is saying I am wrong, that he does not agree with the Solicitor General. I do not understand.

TRITIUM

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Yesterday the Minister of Energy presented a bill to the Legislature asserting the political primacy of the government and the government’s political direction with respect to Hydro, making it very clear that it is important that the government ensure that Ontario Hydro is working within the policy framework this legislative package outlines.

I wonder if the minister can turn his mind for a moment to the very difficult and controversial question of whether Ontario Hydro should be selling radioactive tritium to the United States. Can the minister tell us what is the policy framework of the government of Ontario with respect to the sale of tritium to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Wong: This is a question that I think concerns all members of the Legislature, not just the members of the government. It is our view that we would not want tritium sold for purposes that would find themselves in military applications or weapons. In terms of the peaceful use of tritium, this is a matter which the cabinet will be addressing to detail fully what the precise policy decision of this government is, in a timely way.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has a rather illusory view of the way the world works. He will know that there is a crisis in the tritium supply in the United States, because of problems that have been well-documented in newspaper reports and elsewhere about what has happened to a number of American nuclear plants and, indeed, nuclear weapons facilities which have been closed down because of safety problems.

I would like to ask the minister very directly: What is the position of the government of Ontario with respect to the proposed export of tritium to the United States? Is the government going to export tritium from Ontario to the United States? Yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Wong: In answering the Leader of the Opposition, let me say that the policy on the export of tritium will be decided vis-à-vis Ontario’s position with respect to the whole world, not just the United States.

As many members in this House know, there are people in western Europe, in Japan, in the USSR and in the United States, for example, who would like to utilize our expertise and our knowledge in the handling of these materials, so the policy this government will establish will be based on our view of whether export should be done anywhere in the world.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure that Colonel Gadhafi and a number of other world leaders will be delighted to hear that in fact the government is contemplating the sale of tritium not only to the United States but indeed all around the world, but it does not give any comfort to those of us who believe that once the substance is exported, it is impossible for the government of Ontario to dictate that substance’s use.

We are in possession of a substance that is extremely important for the triggering mechanisms on nuclear weapons, which have to be replaced and replenished about every 10 years. The minister should be aware of that. He should be aware of enormous pressure that is now being brought to bear on us and on Ontario Hydro, as a potential supplier of that tritium, not only to the United States, as the minister now states.

I think we are entitled to an answer. What is his position with regard to tritium? Why does he not stand up in the House today and say to Ontario Hydro that the potential use of tritium is simply too dangerous for it to be exported from Ontario and that is why it is not going to be exported from Ontario? What is wrong with just standing up and saying that?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Let me stand up and say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that we firmly support the Atomic Energy Control Board and the other federal departments and agencies of the federal government which have the responsibility for that export, but let me add further what I said in answer to the first question, that this government is also concerned. Therefore, when this cabinet and this government look at this problem, we will not just leave that to the federal arena, we will look at the implications for the people of this province.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health and it relates to the situation that I discussed with the minister yesterday, the case of Mrs. Maria Gaccioli and the tragic death of Mrs. Gaccioli, which occurred on January 13. I took the opportunity to advise the minister’s office that I was going to raise this question again with her today, as I did yesterday, to see if in fact the minister has been able to ascertain any of the details surrounding the events that caused Mrs.

Gaccioli to be released from the hospital on January 13 and why surgery was not performed on that particular lady when she was fully expecting that surgery would be performed before she left Victoria Hospital. Could the minister give some information to the House on that particular case?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Following yesterday’s question from the leader of the third party, the ministry contacted the hospital for information. The cardiologist is currently out of the country, so I asked ministry officials to contact the family and to get its permission to release the patient’s file. In fact, the ministry has just received that permission. I have asked them to develop a chronology of events and I will report to this House as soon as that information has been assembled.

Mr. Brandt: As the minister is well aware, the situation regarding Mrs. Gaccioli does not just involve one particular case but a number of cases that we have brought to the attention of the minister, literally right across the entire province.

I would like to bring to the attention of the minister today two additional cases of individuals who are, thankfully, still alive, one of whom is Betty Ann Tyrie, age 52, resident of Sarnia.

She has in fact been diagnosed as having a hole in her heart. In my view, as a nonpractitioner in the field of health and as a layperson, it would indicate to me that is a fairly serious condition.

Betty Ann Tyrie does have an appointment for March 1989 at University Hospital. She has an appointment for June at Victoria Hospital.

Jack McGuigan, age 62, had his third heart attack in February 1988. It took nine months, from February to November, for him to receive an angiogram, at which point he was diagnosed as requiring a quadruple bypass.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: This man is undergoing continuous chest pains. The earliest date for his operation is March.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: My question is: Would the minister indicate whether the problem is a shortage of nurses, a shortage of beds or a shortage of surgical teams? What is causing this life-threatening kind of problem that is occurring with respect to the individuals I have just --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the leader of the third party, there are some 40 surgeons in Ontario in nine hospitals in six centres providing cardiac surgery. I can tell him that I rely on advice from physicians. I do not, as he did in the House today, give my medical judgement or opinion because I am not a doctor.

We rely on physicians to determine who should have surgery and in what order, based on their judgement. I can tell the member that the advice I have received from the surgeons and the cardiologists in this province suggests that the situation is in hand, that the funded capacity, which next year it will be almost 5,000 procedures available in this province -- last year there were more than 4,000 -- is a significant increase. It is coming on stream, and they believe the situation is in hand.

Mr. Brandt: The minister may think the situation is in hand. I have pointed out two more cases to her which are absolutely critical. These people do not have the time to wait. When she indicates that the physician is in a position to prioritize these particular procedures, we are playing with lives. We are playing with the lives of people who cannot get the surgery they require.

The minister knows full well that some of them are taking the option of going to clinics in Cleveland. They are going to clinics in Detroit or elsewhere, and in some instances spending their life’s savings in order to undergo a procedure that is not available to them in Ontario.

Is this satisfactory to the minister, or does she intend to find some method by which she can reduce the six-month waiting period -- and longer in Toronto? It is now three months in Sudbury. It is running 27 weeks in London --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important that we fairly categorize the situation and that we listen to the experts who tell us and who advise me on what the situation is in this province.

Mr. Brandt: These people are going to die if they don’t get surgery.

Mr. South: We’re all going to die, Andy.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Dr. Keon, a noted heart surgeon in this province said recently, “I do not think the demand does exceed our ability to do the operations.”

He said, “We are turning our volume up slightly, as a matter of fact within the next few weeks, to try to reduce our waiting lists; but it is not excessively long, and we think that people are being managed in a pretty safe way.”

He said: “I realize that there are waiting lists in Toronto, but also these waiting lists are not out of hand. I believe that with some relatively minor adjustments, the patients who are at risk and who need coronary surgery could be managed.”

I can tell the leader of the third party that I listen to these experts like Dr. Keon. I have been assured by the leadership of cardiovascular surgery and cardiology in Toronto that the funded capacity will be on stream within a matter of weeks, and they believe the situation is being managed.

Mr. South: The best health care system in the world.

Mr. Brandt: Was.

Mr. South: Is.

Mr. Brandt: Was.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, can we make sure Mr. South’s comments are recorded?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the assistance of the members. However, I will recognize the member of Leeds-Grenville for a new question.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health, dealing with risk management for the criminally insane. Last week, in response to a question from the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), the minister said that the last six recommendations of a risk management report she tabled in this House last November had been implemented right after the report was received.

Will the minister tell us how she knows they were implemented and how they are being monitored for effectiveness?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As a matter of fact, just this morning I met with the director of the psychiatric branch, who informed me that the recommendations are being implemented and monitored.

Mr. Runciman: I guess we have to wonder who is in charge of the store. I would hope --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to remind the members of standing order 24(

b) once again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: I guess the members of the other two parties are only interested in public safety questions if they raise them.

Mr. Speaker: I recognized the member to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: I would hope the minister is aware of recommendation 8 of her report, a recommendation that deals with the vital importance of controlling access to and use of alcohol.

I have an internal Brockville Psychiatric Hospital document -- I have sent a copy to the minister -- dealing with John McBeth Finlayson, a forensic outpatient charged with aggravated sexual assault of a Brockville woman. The report indicates that hospital staff knew this man was drinking at least three days before the alleged offence.

This is a man responsible for the horrific murder of a nine-year-old Toronto boy, a man who himself said, “Every time I go on a binge, something terrible happens,” and this walking time bomb was not pulled off the street, he was not even contacted and the police were not informed.

In the face of this evidence, is the minister still prepared to stand in this House and tell us that the system is working well and that public safety should not be a concern?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said repeatedly in this House that protection of the public, the safety of the public, is always my number one concern.

As the member opposite knows, the process for Lieutenant Governor’s warrants is mandated by the federal Criminal Code. We have received a recommendation on how, through implementing the recommendations of an outside report, we can ensure that we have the very best risk management system available. I have told him that we are in the process of implementing that report, and I am assured that we will have in place the very best possible systems available for risk management.

As he knows, I cannot comment on any individual case because of this matter being before the courts, where it will be fully aired, and I would say to him that it is important that we acknowledge that in fact we have an excellent system here in Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: One as committed as this minister is to everything could be considered committed to nothing. The sad reality is that the minister has been a dollar short and a day late on this issue since the brutal attack on a London girl last spring. She has not done her job.

Faced with the evidence I have presented, if her staff is not supplying her with that kind of information, is the minister now finally prepared to support an open and public review of the administration and monitoring of community privileges for the criminally insane, or is public safety going to continue to take a back seat to patients’ rights?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me try again to explain to the member, who does not seem to want to listen, that it is the responsibility of the federal government for the warrant process. Second, the terms of reference of the warrant include such things as location. They are set out very clearly by the independent LGW Board of Review as established under the federal Criminal Code. That is the way the system works.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Runciman: You are responsible for administering privileges -- your administration in the hospitals. Don’t try to fob it off. You’re responsible and you don’t know what’s going on and you don’t care. You don’t know and you don’t care; that’s the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Jackson: There are unsolved murder mysteries in my riding, sexually-related murder mysteries.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South is not helping.

DIOXIN IN KRAFT PULP

Mr. Hampton: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is aware that the European Community recently announced that it is preparing to ban the importation of all chlorine-bleached paper products as of the year 1990 because, as he knows, chlorine-bleached paper products contain detectable levels of the pollutant dioxin. In view of the considerable environmental damage caused by dioxins and in view of the European Community’s decision, what action does the Ministry of the Environment intend to take to require Ontario pulp mills to convert from the chlorine bleaching process to an oxygen bleaching process?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member, who is very interested in these matters, would be aware of the expert committee’s report. I know he would have reviewed it along with the other material which he has, which is most appropriate. In fact, it points in that very direction.

As we develop new regulations to deal with the effluent and the processes related to the paper mills in the province, we are in fact encouraging them to do that.

What in effect will make the difference is the new levels that they must meet in terms of contaminants which are produced. I think, very clearly, that will point to the oxygen bleaching as being superior to the chlorine bleaching which is taking place at the present time.

I think what was advantageous was that the expert committee consisted of a person who was an engineer, a person who was a scientist and a person who was an economist from northern Ontario. What the report pointed out was that not only is this technically and scientifically the very best way to go at this time but also the economics would dictate that it seems to be a reasonable course of action.

As I say, as the new control orders come up and are improved and made more stringent and as the regulations are being developed at this time, I think the member will see that those regulations will point in the direction of simply having that chlorine bleaching process removed and replaced with a new process, which I think the member would agree with me is superior to an abatement action, rather a process change.

Mr. Hampton: I appreciate the plethora of information that always comes from the minister, and there is a plethora of information out there. There is the minister’s study; there is a federal study. There is no doubt about it. But the key question here is, when is the minister going to act? I think there is an economic aspect to this too. The profits in the pulp and paper industry are at a record high at this time.

The time to make the change is now, not two or three years down the road when the profit level is low and we have companies crying poverty. When is the minister going to sit down with the pulp and paper industry in Ontario and say, “The time to convert is now”?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fact, we have had those discussions. As I say, I think what is probably superior to stipulating some specific technology -- though as a nonscientist or nontechnical person, I happen to like that particular option being available. The government’s role and responsibility is to set the specific levels. The company must then achieve those levels, using the kind of technology that is best suited to removing the contaminants.

What I always find interesting is that --

Mr. Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, he is taking a long time to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Now, there is the member for Lake Nipigon who, I remember, on one occasion -- I will not say that. I remember one occasion when the member, a very good friend of mine, and it is in answer to this question --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

MEDIATION IN FAMILY LAW

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for women’s issues. The minister will be aware that in 1987, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) commissioned a study on mediation in family law. The report of that study was recently leaked to a member of the media and it was uncovered that within it there is a recommendation that the mediator have the power to force an abused woman into mediation if he thinks that the woman is in a position to effectively negotiate with her abusive spouse.

Does the minister recognize that the power imbalance that exists between victims of domestic violence and their abusive spouses makes mediation inappropriate and has he made representation to that committee outlining that fact?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is really too bad that when the member for Burlington South refers to a leaked document it is obvious from the information he provides in his question that he has not read the document. I sincerely suggest to him that before he raises the matter again in the House he have a good, thorough look at the document, if he happens to be in contact with the person within the media who has a copy of it.

If he does that, he will find out that the document is a draft consideration of the question of more effective utilization of mediation in the instances of family breakdown. The document does not make any suggestions at all about compulsory mediation but looks at ways to more effectively make mediation available to spouses who, as a result of a series of incidents within the family, determine to separate.

I encourage the member, if he wants to find a copy of the document, to have a good read of it. Perhaps in the next days and weeks he may have better questions on the subject.

Mr. Jackson: The invitation was to get this minister, who has responsibility for women’s issues, to make presentations before these types of commissions. It is apparent that the minister has not made representation nor has the minister taken a position on this very sensitive point regarding domestic violence.

I would ask the minister if he will give his commitment in this House, as he obviously has seen the report and not made any recommendations to it, if he will give his undertaking that he will not force women who are the victims of domestic violence into mediation situations without their permission.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will give my commitment to the member and to the House not to support any initiative that forces anyone into mediation. If mediation is going to be an effective process, it has to be a consensual process.

I urge the member to get his facts clear before he asks a question. I want to tell him that the Ontario women’s directorate was a member of that committee studying issues surrounding mediation and made very effective representations on that committee. The directorate and I as minister --

Mr. Jackson: We have already established that you don’t meet with them. I just want to know if you made a presentation to the committee.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If the member for Burlington South will just stop shouting for a moment, I will complete my answer.

I want to tell the member that all of us have to be very sensitive to the unique position in which the spouse who is the victim of domestic violence finds herself when the question of mediation arises. I encourage him, when the report is made public, to read it -- that would be a good first step -- and after he has read it, perhaps he will have a useful comment or two as we make mediation more effective and more available to spouses in this province.

PAY EQUITY

Mr. Owen: I also have a question for the Minister of Labour. I know that every member of every party in this Legislature has a commitment to workplace equality. I know we are all committed to improving the lot of women’s incomes in this province. However, a few days ago the Toronto media indicated that women now earn 62.2 cents for every dollar earned by men. It used to be 64 cents. If the figures from the Toronto media are correct, it means we not only are not keeping pace with what we were doing before but are losing ground.

I would like to ask the minister today if he has any statistics which can shed some light on whether we are progressing under the programs he has initiated.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to thank the member for Simcoe Centre for the question. It is a very important issue.

I tend to agree with him that when we put the politics aside, every member of this House is committed to workplace equity issues as they affect working women. I do have some problem, however, with the statistics suggested by the member for Simcoe Centre. In fact, the latest Statistics Canada reports indicate that women who were working full-time in Canadian workplaces throughout 1987 earned an average of some 65.9 per cent of the average male income. By the way, the same figure for the previous year was 65.8 per cent.

The situation in Ontario is even happier than that, that is, the direction in which we are going. Indeed, we have had some significant improvements statistically for working women in the province. Of course, the agenda is not over by any means. It is my firm belief that as Ontario moves towards implementation of the Pay Equity Act which this Legislature passed during the last parliament, we will be making significant strides in closing that gap between what women make in this province and what men make.

Mr. Owen: Last night, I was attending a dinner function in the city of Barrie. One of the businessmen who was attending there indicated to me that his business was out $70,000 to do a study to give some guidance about what could be done with establishing equal pay for work of equal value in his business. He was also saying that he questioned whether it could be done or how effective it would be in the end.

I am wondering if the minister could tell us how his program is progressing with the business community. What progress is he making? Are there any signs as to whether it is going to work or not?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think it is safe to say that some of the concern expressed, particularly by the business community on the implementation of pay equity when that act was before us in this parliament, has indeed subsided. All the evidence points to the fact that the self-managed process implementing pay equity is going to be successful as we work our way through the timetables in the legislation.

The pay equity office has conducted some 900 seminars around the province, preparing representatives of both workers and managers in understanding the features of the Pay Equity Act, leading, for most businesses, to the posting of a pay equity plan and the wage adjustments that are necessary as a result of the analysis going into the creation of the plan and its posting.

The Pay Equity Commission indeed is working with a number of public sector organizations to ensure that the timetable for the public sector, which begins on January 1, 1990, is implemented in accordance with the act. I am not only very hopeful but very encouraged by everything I have seen around the province.

HAZARDOUS SPILLS

Mrs. Grier: Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment made a strong speech telling the chemical industry that it had to stop putting its toxic chemicals into the St. Clair River. I am sure all members will welcome that speech. However, unfortunately it sometimes appears that the commitment of the ministry is only as deep as the minister.

On the morning of January 10, Dow Chemical spilled six tons of propylene oxide into the St. Clair River. Propylene oxide is mutagenic and carcinogenic. The town of Wallaceburg, which takes its drinking water from the St. Clair River, was not notified of that spill for two days. Can the minister explain that fact and can he also tell us what action he has taken to investigate the behaviour of his officials in the Sarnia office and the fact that the town of Wallaceburg was not notified?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Whenever there is an incident of this kind the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment has a particular interest in it. What happens is that the investigations and enforcement branch interviews everybody who could potentially be involved. It also relies on the ability to detect precisely what was spilled, when it was spilled, what action was taken by the company to avoid this or what action was taken in terms of notification. There will continue to be an extensive investigation of all spills that warrant it, because that is the mandate the investigations and enforcement branch has.

In terms of notification that takes place to any of the municipalities, whether it be on our side of the St. Clair River or the other side of the St. Clair River, we are always reviewing any incident that happens where there are people who would allege that the action that was taken on the part of the Ministry of the Environment office in Sarnia was appropriate or not. The member has brought that to my attention, I think, previously in the House and I have asked for information in that regard.

Mrs. Grier: The minister is always very quick with his good news press releases. This is the second occasion when I have had to draw to his attention the fact that the bad news never seems to get out quite so readily. Because of its concerns about drinking water from the St. Clair, the town of Wallaceburg has a spills notification procedure with the Ministry of the Environment --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have lots of bad news releases.

Mr. B. Rae: Listen to this. Listen to this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the supplementary about the bad news.

Mrs. Grier: There has been so much bad news that in 1985 the town of Wallaceburg negotiated a spills notification procedure with the ministry so that it would be notified every time there was a spill. I now have a letter from a resident of Sarnia asking me to ask the minister if in fact the ministry notified the Michigan authorities of the fact that there had been a spill at five o’clock on Wednesday, January 10, and did not notify Wallaceburg until the Friday.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I notice that the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) was trying to get a look at who the letter was from. Who is the president of the Progressive Conservative Association in the member’s riding?

One of the criticisms which is levelled at me right across Ontario is that I am often presenting the bad news to the people of this province. With the activities and actions we are taking to try to turn that around, whether it is in the Niagara Peninsula or western Ontario or northern Ontario, I think if members counted all the information we provide, they would find we provide more bad news in terms of telling what the problems are that were left to us by the previous government than we provide good news. I want to assure the member that we will continue to provide both the bad news and the good news in this particular case.

In terms of notification, I have indicated to her that we are reviewing our practices of notification, because on some occasions the judgement of the officials of the Ministry of the Environment will be that there is, for instance, a very minor spill which would not perhaps, in their view, precipitate an action which would close down any plants. What we are reviewing is what criteria would be used, what threshold would be used, because it is very understandable, as the member points out, that people --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

DISPOSAL OF DDT

Mrs. Marland: My question is also for the Minister of the Environment. The minister banned all uses of DDT on December 2, 1988, and gave the following notice to all those with existing DDT stock: “Until December 31, 1988, DDT may be transported in accordance with sections 105 to 107 of this regulation to the Tricil waste transfer station at 551 Avonhead Road, Mississauga.”

Could the minister explain why Tricil’s disposal fee for DDT of $2.50 per pound increased 180 per cent to $7 per pound immediately following the minister’s announcement of the ban and of the requirement to send all in-stock DDT to Tricil?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am afraid that I do not control the prices which the company charges for whatever it does. The member’s party is familiar with the free enterprise system. She and her friend to her right, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), and her leader and others would say that the free enterprise system works as a free enterprise system works. We simply do the regulation. We put forward the regulation because we perceived that a problem existed. This company is a company which is licensed to do this and therefore we put forward that regulation, but I do not have control over what the company charges.

Mrs. Marland: Before December 2, the pest control operators purchased and used what was then a perfectly legal substance. Now not only have they lost the value of their inventory but they also have to pay inflated disposal costs. When property is expropriated, governments usually compensate the owners, so my question is: In fairness to these companies and in the interest of protecting the environment, will the minister be offering some form of compensation or disposal assistance to those with existing DDT stock?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fairness, my number one concern has to be getting rid of any DDT which exists in the province. I am not here to protect the companies which had the DDT in hand, because I think most people would have anticipated it years ago. DDT should have been totally out of use. What happened, in fact, was that some people still had some.

I wanted to see the DDT completely taken out of use and out of the stockpiling in inappropriate places. I know that sometimes enforcing the rules and regulations and the laws of this province is costly for some people, but that is the price we have to pay to protect the environment.

ACID RAIN

Ms. Hart: My question is also to the Minister of the Environment.

Last Friday we saw the swearing in of George Bush as the 41st President of the United States. Sulphur dioxide emissions, largely from coal-burning power plants in the midwestern United States, are one of the major sources of acid rain which falls upon Ontario’s lakes, forests, streams and cities, as we know from today’s papers.

In light of Ronald Reagan’s total lack of action on acid rain, can the minister outline what actions on acid rain he expects from the new American administration?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is an excellent question from the member. I want to indicate to her that I think, in fairness to President Bush, one cannot make any specific judgements until we see what programs are going to be implemented.

He did indicate during the election campaign that he wanted to see a reduction of some millions of tons of acid rain in terms of the emissions that fell both on the United States and on Canada. He also selected James Baker as the Secretary of State. Mr. Baker has indicated very clearly that he wishes to see and expects to see a change in the manner in which the US administration deals with the issue of acid rain, and a change for the better.

In addition to that, there have been others appointed to key positions, including the new Environmental Protection Agency director, who is a person who comes from the environmental community. I think that probably bodes quite well.

The key question is, of course, how many millions of tons? Not just millions of tons, but how many millions of tons will the United States be prepared to reduce? I think what we want to see is a matching of the program that we have implemented here in Ontario, called Countdown Acid Rain.

Ms. Hart: While I am glad to hear that the minister believes that this administration will be an improvement over its predecessor, it is vitally important that Ontario keep the pressure on the United States to fight acid rain. We cannot stand idly by while thousands of our lakes die, our buildings -- this very building -- crumble and our health may be affected.

What action is the minister taking to press the United States to reduce acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We in Ontario, as I have indicated, believe in leading by example. With the Countdown Acid Rain program in Ontario, we have very much strengthened the Canadian hand in any negotiations with the United States and have strengthened the position of environmentalists, both in the United States and Canada, who have called for significant reductions on the other side of the border.

The members from northern Ontario would know, for instance, that Inco has committed almost $500 million, Falconbridge some $38 million, Algoma Steel will meet its requirements and Ontario Hydro will meet its requirements, probably at a cost in excess of $500 million.

Second, we are petitioning the US Court of Appeals to force the EPA to enforce its laws which prevent acid rain. We have joined with other states in the United States and environment groups. I am pleased to say that Environment Canada, part of the federal government, has come into this case as a friend of the court. I think that is very productive and helpful.

Third, I will continue my dialogue with key members of the US Congress and administration in an attempt to persuade them of the validity of the case that we in Ontario and Canada are putting forward.

PROPOSED FERTILIZER PLANT

Miss Martel: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) concerning the establishment of a fertilizer plant in northern Ontario.

The minister will know that for many years my predecessor, and also the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), advocated the establishment of such a plant in northern Ontario. Finally, in March 1986 his ministry determined that a feasibility study should be undertaken to look at the prospects of that.

The consultant’s study was finalized in July 1987; it recommended two things: first, that such an undertaking was feasible, and second, that phase 2 of the study be undertaken immediately. Since then, we have asked the ministry to take a lead role with private industry in developing phase 2 of the study. In November we were guaranteed this would happen. We have had no new information since then.

I would like to ask the minister specifically, which companies in the private sector have agreed to participate in this study and when will phase 2 finally begin?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would like to refer this question to the Minister of Mines.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my colleague and friend the member for Sudbury East that I very much appreciate her interest in this. She is correct that there has been an ongoing dialogue about this particular matter. The ministry has aggressively encouraged interest in the private sector.

It seems to me that, subject to my checking the file, the private sector parties that have been encouraged to take an interest are parties like Falconbridge, Sherritt Gordon and C-I-L. These are two or three of those parties that I recall having been encouraged. We are actively pursuing the matter with them, but as the honourable member would know, we want to ensure that there is a very active canvass of all in the community and we want to make sure that there is a market to which we could direct this particular matter.

Miss Martel: The reason for my concern is that this is beginning to sound like the northern Ontario heritage fund. It goes on and on and we have commitments, but nothing is undertaken.

The minister will know that one of the things which disturbed my colleague and me the most about this whole situation was that the city of Sudbury was excluded from the original study. This occurred in spite of the fact that the press release issued by the Minister of Northern Development in 1986 specifically stated that the Sudbury mineral operations would be included.

I would like to ask the Minister of Mines if he can guarantee in the House today that if and when phase 2 finally gets off the ground, the city of Sudbury and those operations will be included.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The short answer is yes, the honourable member is quite correct that there has been a very active consideration of the possibilities, particularly in northeastern Ontario. We are looking now at the phase 2 level, the whole feasibility question, particularly with respect to market development.

I can assure the honourable member, whose interest I noted earlier, that in this, as in all matters, this government intends to consider all communities in northern Ontario, and certainly included in that would be Sudbury.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Harris: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Development about garbage. His government is now working on a plan to deal with Metropolitan Toronto’s garbage. Like so many problems, it now appears that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), instead of developing a solution, plans to put the onus for a solution on somebody else’s shoulders.

We have heard about a proposal to transport Metro’s garbage to some undisclosed site. I would like to ask the minister if he thinks that southern Ontario’s garbage problems should be resolved by creating a huge, new garbage dump in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Again, I want to remind my honourable friend that I am not the Minister of the Environment. I will refer this question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I simply say to the member for Nipissing that a number of options have been canvassed and a number of potential ways of dealing with waste management in the Metropolitan Toronto areas have been discussed. What has happened is that several of the regional municipalities have got together to attempt to work together to find solutions to the waste management challenges that face them.

Certainly, one would anticipate that if there were any such proposal that would come forward, host municipalities or host areas would be those that would initiate an interest in it and certainly not others, and it would be with the acceptance of any community, whether it is in northern Ontario or in southern Ontario. There would be an evaluation on the part of that community as to any proposal to be put forward. It would not be a matter, which I think the member legitimately would be concerned about, of simply selecting a site and saying, “Here’s how we are going to deal with a specific waste management challenge.”

Mr. Harris: The real supplementary is, who is over there fighting for the north? Who is speaking up for the north? Who is the minister responsible for northern development? But since he referred it, I will go back to the Minister of the Environment and say this to the minister, because he is responsible for some of the other problems of the north too, since we do not have a Minister of Natural Resources any more: This government has brought in a number of disastrous policies, to the detriment of resource workers, sportsmen and wildlife management, all on the pretext of preserving northern wilderness, but the government will not rule out dumping Metro’s garbage in the Temagami area.

I am told one of the sites under consideration is the Sherman Mine near Temagami, in the Temagami wilderness area. Can the minister tell me why responsible forestry, mining and outdoor recreation activities are unacceptable in this area but he and his ministry and his government will not rule out dumping garbage in that area?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, one has to say that the member for Nipissing should consult other members of his caucus, because on these issues it seems four or five different positions are forthcoming.

I look at the situation with the number of incidents or policies to which he has made reference, and some of his members from other parts of Ontario would have said they were interested in a different point of view than the member for Nipissing, but I am not aware of any such proposal as the member has made reference to.

Mr. Harris: Why don’t you just rule out the Temagami area? You are the great defender of nothing happening to Temagami. Answer the question: Will you say no to Temagami?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Well, the member went into a long

preamble and brought in other things, so I thought it would be most appropriate that I would have the opportunity to respond in kind.

I am telling him that I have no knowledge of any such proposal that has been put forward, and if the member has knowledge of it, I would be most interested in hearing about it, but it is news to me.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Beer: My question is to the Attorney General. Before Christmas, the minister met with the Alberta Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs and earlier this month he met with Senator Murray to discuss, among other things, Senate reform. I wonder if he could inform the House of where, in his judgement, those discussions now sit, and were there any other issues that were raised during his meeting with Senator Murray regarding the current impasse with respect to the Meech Lake accord?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, Mr. Horsman, the Alberta Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, made a nationwide tour to discuss with provincial governments and the federal government the Alberta government’s proposal for triple E Senate reform. Following that, as the Prime Minister of Canada had promised, he sent Senator Murray from coast to coast to visit provincial governments and determine whether there was any basis for consensus on Senate reform, and Toronto was his first stop.

We discussed the Horsman proposal. We said that one of the Es in triple E seemed something we could work with but that there were problems about it. We also raised with the senator Ontario’s view that the matters that were set out in the select committee on constitutional reform’s report would have to be addressed by the first ministers at the same time as Senate reform.

Mr. Beer: The minister mentioned the various recommendations that were contained in the select committee report which this House adopted last year in June at the time of the discussion of the Meech Lake amendment. I would like to be clear in terms of the discussions that the Attorney General and the Premier are having that in fact we are continuing to push for the inclusion of the recommendations which we made in our report to be discussed at the second round, and particularly, I suppose, the two recommendations that we crafted in the form of amendments, recommendations 9 and 10.

Is it the continuing intention of the government to pursue those matters with other ministers of intergovernmental affairs?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is clearly the intention of the government. Senator Murray, of course, had read the committee report and was thoroughly familiar with it. I explained to him that I thought there was no question but that the issues which were identified by the committee, particularly the recommendations to which the honourable member refers, would be treated by Ontario as having equivalent priority to any other issues which were advanced in the second round, including Senate reform and fisheries, which are explicitly mentioned in the political accord.

I also indicated to him, as I think the committee represented in its report, that I thought Ontarians were very concerned that we begin to elaborate the process of constitutional negotiation. He essentially accepted both those points as the view of the province.

LARK MANUFACTURING INC.

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister will know that in September 1988, at the end of the day on a Friday afternoon, Lark Manufacturing Inc. told its workers not to bother coming back. The company failed to pay the workers their vacation pay. It failed to deal with termination pay. It failed to deal with severance pay. In fact, it failed to pay the workers their wages.

Could the minister tell us what specific steps the employment standards branch has taken to ensure that the workers get the money to which they are entitled, that orders are laid against this company promptly and that assets are not stripped, as the workers fear they have already been, from this company?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is too bad the member for Riverdale has asked this question right at the end of question period, because it is a serious issue. He has raised his concern about it previously and I am glad he has raised it at this point.

I cannot give him an up-to-date indication, that is, as of today, where the status of the case is within the employment standards branch. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this question period that the employment standards branch is now meeting with the workers at Lark.

Many of the workers at Lark were women, some of them immigrant women, indeed, in some cases, the most vulnerable people in our workforce. The branch is meeting with those women, a case is being launched, and I would anticipate that actions will be pursued to recover wages owing, to recover vacation pay and any other benefit those people working at Lark are entitled to as a result of the closure of the facility, including severance and termination pay.

PETITIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have approximately 50 petitions here from people across the town of Markham addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the dramatic growth rate in York region has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process and, given that serious allegations have been made regarding the integrity of this process in York region, we strongly urge the provincial government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process and land development practices of York region.”

It is duly signed and duly submitted by myself on behalf of the people of Markham.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Polsinelli: I have three petitions addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

I have subscribed my name to that petition.

HOME CARE

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition signed by some 600 residents from Burlington addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

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

“Whereas the Red Cross Society has incurred a deficit because the government of Ontario has failed to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and therefore the Red Cross may be forced to withdraw their home care services, we petition the Treasurer of Ontario to adequately fund the Red Cross services so that 170,000 citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive care in an institutional setting.”

The petition has my signature and support, and the total is now 2,600 signatures from the city of Burlington on this subject.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mr. Lupusella: I have a petition addressed:

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

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

“Whereas the crown in the province of Ontario continues a lengthy, futile and expensive prosecution against the Church of Scientology; and

“Whereas at no time in recorded history has an entire church been charged with a criminal offence for the actions of individuals, and freedom of religion in the province is at risk; and

“Whereas the alleged offences occurred over a decade ago and those responsible have been expelled from the church or rehabilitated,

“We petition the Attorney General and the government of Ontario to withdraw the charges against the church and end this prosecution.”

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Miss Nicholas from the standing committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee’s report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Miss Nicholas: The report has a number of recommendations in it, but I think I would be remiss if I did not mention on behalf of the committee that the Ombudsman is retiring in March from his position of five years. We want to, and did in our report, commend Dr. Dan Hill for an excellent job well done as Ombudsman. I know that on behalf of all the committee members, and perhaps the Legislative Assembly, we respect him as an Ombudsman and we will miss him dearly.

As I mentioned, the committee has a number of recommendations. I hate to highlight one, but we did deal with the northern health travel grant. We recommended that travel grants be given to individuals who are older than 18 years of age who are travelling with patients to Toronto or to major city centres. I think this is a good recommendation, one which was unanimously supported by the committee, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate it in the House.

We have a lot on our agenda for the next year, including expanded jurisdiction, and I know that we will have a fruitful discussion.

On motion by Miss Nicholas, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AMUSEMENT DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 205,

An Act to amend the Amusement Devices Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly on these changes we are proposing, in cases where no safety hazard is presented, the bill gives licensees reasonable time to remedy minor violations and permits the director of the elevating devices branch to grant technical variances. In addition to some administrative clarification and fine-tuning, the amendments enable the ministry to require third-party tests of amusement devices and to lay charges within a year of an incident.

Furthermore, the bill makes unsafe behaviour in and around amusement devices an offence under the act. Based on our experience during the first season of our licensing program, I feel these amendments will prove practical for ride operators, while enhancing public safety.

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 206,

An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This bill will extend the period of time in which charges may be laid from six months to one year. The change is consistent with changes we are making to the Amusement Devices Act which are intended to improve our administration of justice.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 207,

An Act to amend the Energy Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: These housekeeping changes will clarify the ministry’s ability to grant technical variances that do not undermine safety standards and to delegate specific responsibilities to the natural gas utilities, thus ensuring that inspections are as comprehensive as possible.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation

Motion agreed to.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION ACT

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro moved first reading of Bill 209,

An Act to revise the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: It is my pleasure to introduce

An Act to revise the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

As members know, the McMichael Canadian Collection is one of the most important collections of Canadian art in existence. While focused on the Group of Seven, it also includes works by their contemporaries as well as by native and Inuit artists. It is the only gallery in Canada devoted exclusively to Canadian art.

Revisions to the existing act were required for a number of reasons. An appropriate bilingual name was needed for the collection. Under revisions to the act, it would be known as the McMichael Canadian Art Collection d’Art canadien.

The board of trustees will be enlarged to increase its fund-raising capabilities and to ensure effective direction of the collection. The collection mandate has been clarified so that it will remain focused on Canadian art as the gallery continues to expand.

Finally, financial and administrative clarifications have been made that will provide for greater efficiency without altering the relationship of the agency to the ministry.

The McMichael collection is one of our great cultural treasures. This act, revising the previous act, will ensure that it remains such for years to come.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion 20.

Mr. Harris: I do not plan to be very much longer, but I did want to have an opportunity to conclude my remarks.

When I left off yesterday, I was discussing the fifth and last of a number of quotes from the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). I think there are another 40 or 50 that I am saving for some of my other colleagues who I think will want to refer to some of them.

I was talking in the context of Bill 114 specifically and the remarks on February 15, 1983, of the member for Renfrew North, that great part of the Ottawa Valley. He said, “I cannot believe we are seized, in the winter of 1982-83, with some parliamentary crisis that forces us into a new avenue, down a slippery slope of time allocation.”

I really think that is the most condemning of quotations for me to read into the record in this debate because, as I referred to yesterday, it implies, even in his very vocal opposition to time allocation, that were the matter of some urgency such as a parliamentary crisis, something of great import, he might then understand -- he might not agree with it, but he might then understand -- the government’s bringing in time allocation.

The occasion when that time allocation motion was brought in was the inflation restraint program. It was designed, as has been proven very successfully, to fight the very severe problem of inflation which this province, this country and certainly the western world faced in 1983.

Now, the member has brought in a similar mechanism, a similar time allocation, on Bill 114.

I think it is important that the House understand just how important Bill 114 is. What is the bill? It is a labour bill designed to make the government look a little better because of the disaster of Bill 113. It is to defend workers from what the government is foisting on them in Bill 113.

Does it do it successfully? Not one worker thinks so, not one union thinks so, not one store owner thinks so. Ninety per cent of the people it is designed to provide some measure of protection for are nonunion; they work in small family stores, with one, two, three, four, five or maybe 10 employees. None of them feels the bill offers any protection at all.

In fact, what it suggests is that if a worker feels things are not being worked out to his satisfaction, they will make mediation available, provided by government mediators; the same mediators who are some three to four to six months backed up on the mediation they currently perform for the Ministry of Labour.

Bill 114 is a bill that store owners do not want. It is a bill workers do not want. It is a bill that has been described by one of the largest unions as probably discriminatory, as probably an infringement of personal rights, as probably unable to withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is a bill of such insignificance, such undesirability, that the government has chosen to bring in time allocation for it. I do not think by any stretch of the imagination there is a single, solitary person I know of across this province who thinks this bill is significant, meaningful and worth while. Why pick this bill for time allocation?

Second, this bill of such insignificance, such undesirability, has had a total of one hour of second-reading debate and a total of an hour and a half to two hours of consideration in committee. It is one on which the opposition parties have been very co-operative, have been very facilitative, and have said: “Let’s not prolong the debate. Let’s get it out to hearings, hear what the people have to say. We’ll have an opportunity. This government will give us an opportunity to have full and open debate when the time comes.” That is what we thought. How wrong we were when we see this guillotine motion before us today. How wrong we were.

When it came back into committee after the hearings, we sped it along in less than one session’s worth of time, an hour and a half or so, because we felt the bill required and deserved to be in committee of the whole, where all of our members could express their concern with the bill, where all of our members could have the opportunity they did not have on second reading.

I guess I feel particularly betrayed. As House leader for my party, it is my obligation, one of my tasks, to negotiate with the other House leaders a reasonable forum for each individual member, if he or she so chooses, to speak and express his or her thoughts on a particular piece of legislation. I, in good faith, felt that would happen when we limited debate on second reading. I said there would be another opportunity. Now, there is not that opportunity for all of my members. In that sense, I have let my members down by trusting in the good faith, by trusting in the sense of fairness, of the government that the opportunity would be provided.

It is for that paramount reason that I feel very sad the government has brought in this motion. I mentioned a number of other reasons in my remarks yesterday about why I think it is wrong. I have encouraged my colleagues, if they wish to make comment on Bill 114, to seize upon this opportunity as they are being closed out to make some reference and some comment to Bill 114, because this motion itself which we are debating is to cut off that debate, to limit that debate.

My party will oppose this bill. My party will vigorously debate this bill. My party is saddened and very much regrets that the government has chosen to proceed in this way.

Mr. Kormos: I am going to speak relatively briefly about this. I am undoubtedly the most junior member here. In the approximately 75 days I have been here I have been impressed by much; yet other things that have occurred have, rather than impressed me, disturbed me greatly. In Welland-Thorold, where I come from, where I live and the riding I represent here, I know that the matter of Sunday shopping and Sunday working is of great importance.

I listened with care yesterday as the government House leader spoke. One of the things that he said was that the government listened. I can say this: If they listened, if indeed they did, they certainly did not hear, because it seems to me -- and I speak not only of Welland-Thorold -- that disfavour and thorough disapproval of this legislation, opposition to this legislation is widespread throughout the province. One is hard pressed to think of more than a handful, if that many, of parties or persons or groups that support or would be in a position to support what is blatantly bad legislation.

In addition, we all know now so well that the promotion of the legislation is but another breach of a pre-election promise. That has been spoken of already by other members of the opposition. We know that workers across the province -- both organized workers and more significantly, perhaps, unorganized workers -- are thoroughly opposed to Sunday shopping. The reason they are opposed is because they know that it does not just mean Sunday shopping; it means Sunday working as well.

These same people are opposed to the whole concept of local option. They recognize that this is but some sort of diversion that the government raises to direct attention away from what the real impact is going to be, because the net impact of local optioning is going to be wide-open, across-the-board, across-the-province Sunday shopping, and that will inevitably mean Sunday working.

We know that senior citizens are opposed to the legislation. They have said so. We know that women are opposed to the legislation. They have said so. We know that the churches are opposed to the legislation. They have said so. We know that small businessmen are opposed to the legislation.

In the communities where I come from -- communities like Welland and Thorold which have downtown areas occupied by small businessmen, primarily family-run businesses -- they have devoted a great deal of effort and attention to the demise of the downtown, to the surrender of the downtown, the eclipse of the downtown by the fringe shopping plaza.

We know that the shopping plaza operators are one of the few groups of people or classes of people who have any real interest in seeing this legislation pass. Small businessmen who are ill pressed now to maintain their businesses, to maintain the downtowns of communities like Welland and Thorold, are least of all capable and prepared to maintain seven-day-a-week opening and seven-day-a-week working. Wide-open Sunday shopping will mean the end of small-town downtowns like those in Welland and Thorold.

Bill 113 and Bill 114 before the assembly are not just bad and unpopular. Their passage will have a lasting and unfortunate impact on every city and town in the province and on every family in each one of those cities and towns. As I have said, I know that in Welland-Thorold there is acute concern about these bills. I can say that the people of Welland-Thorold feel a great sense of betrayal by the introduction of this legislation, and even more so now by the effort to muzzle on the part of the government.

The question is, how could a government persist with legislation that is so unpopular and just plain bad? How can the Liberal government carry on with these bills when so many people, not just in Welland and Thorold but across the province, have said no and have said, “The Liberal government is not speaking for us when it says that Sunday shopping and Sunday working are okay”?

Now the Liberal government wants to restrict debate on it. One would have thought that not only opposition members, who of course would want every opportunity to place their positions on the record, but also government members would want every opportunity to indicate to their communities and to the public why they would be supporting the legislation.

It is legislation that eradicates, that destroys a common pause day. It is legislation that constitutes an assault on the role of the churches in our communities and in our personal lives. Surely one would think that the government would welcome the most thorough debate and would seek a public expression of all the interests at stake. Stifling debate, muzzling the members of the assembly is an assault on the rights and interests of every person in the province.

But then, and this was referred to yesterday, there is even more that becomes apparent here, which is clearly that the government and its members want the legislation passed. They want Sunday shopping and Sunday working, even though the clear majority of the province does not. The government obviously wants to pack up and get out of here before the heat really gets turned up.

The government’s Ontario Automobile Insurance Board is going to announce its auto insurance premium increases shortly; and there is no doubt that they are going to be increases. For a government whose leader promised a specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums, those increases will effectively hit the fan shortly. I suggest that even the Liberal members -- certainly the Liberal members least of all -- do not want to be here when that happens. At least, they want to flee from here as soon afterwards as possible.

I would ask whether that is not yet another reason why the government would prevent full debate on this issue, on the discussion of Sunday shopping and Sunday working, so that it can flee the heat when the increased premiums hit the fan, so that it can hide from its role in having created yet higher insurance premiums when it knows it broke its promise to reduce premiums.

The Liberal government, I would suggest, wants to be as far away from here as possible, because it will not be able to defend the board, it will not be able to defend its process and it will not be able to defend the massive premium increases. The government will not be able to explain why the board failed to make a single inquiry as to what is just and reasonable, what is affordable for the driving public. In effect, they are avoiding the maxim: “You’ve called the tune. Now pay the piper.”

I very briefly indicate that it seems to me grossly irresponsible for the government to avoid this particular issue, to muzzle the assembly, to muzzle the opposition and, as I say, to prevent its own members from explaining to their ridings and to the province why they will be supporting the legislation. It seems to me imperative that the public has a right to know why each and every one of the government members would vote on behalf of this legislation. It is a process that, I submit, is an unfair and undemocratic restriction on debate.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to speak to the resolution placed by the government House leader, which in essence means that there will be, at most, four more days to deal with the future direction of this province in terms of Sunday shopping and Sunday working, I must say at the outset that I really probably had a little more confidence in the reliability of some of the statements made by this Liberal government in the past.

I suppose I did that in a rather honest, nonpartisan way. I perhaps felt, when this government promised the people of Ontario that it would be a government with no walls, no doors, no barriers, it would be a new government and a new time in Ontario where people would be listened to, where people’s wishes would be represented by that government and it would be a wholly open government.

What in fact we have completely confirmed for the people of Ontario by this resolution of the government House leader which is before us today, which is no less than a closure motion, is that it not only limits the debate on one bill, but it is precedent-setting because it limits the debate on two bills. Two bills together, for the first time in the history of this Legislature, are being moved to closure by the current Liberal government.

It is somewhat ironic when you follow what the government House leader said yesterday in some of his comments. I really wonder what the government House leader thinks is the responsibility of each one of us who is elected to this Legislature. I acknowledge I do not have the number of years of experience that the member for Renfrew North has, but I would have thought that some of his statements yesterday would have reflected some of his experience in terms of the responsibility that each one of us holds as an elected member of this Legislature.

Instead of that, yesterday I heard the government House leader saying things like the government really had been moved to this point where it had to place this resolution of closure because of a number of tactics on the part of the opposition parties. Unfortunately, I cannot extract from the Instant Hansard, of which I have just received a copy, exactly where the Liberal government House leader placed his opinions when he started this debate yesterday.

However, I know that he did refer to, among some of the tactics that he accused the opposition parties of using in our fight in opposition to both Bill 113 and Bill 114 -- and I am paraphrasing probably, but I know with some accuracy -- our needless and endless reading of petitions. Is that not interesting? Needless and endless reading of petitions.

I would have to wonder what other obligation or alternative an elected member of this Legislature has than to read petitions that are presented to him, in turn to be presented on his behalf to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the government of Ontario. Frankly, it is our job; it is our mandate; it is our obligation to read and present petitions in this House that represent the opinions of the people who elect us to serve them.

I think that for the government House leader to refer to this as needless and endless reading of petitions shows little empathy or understanding for each one of us who sincerely tries to fulfil our obligations as members in this Legislature. As we try to serve the people who elect us, we try to do that very conscientiously.

If it means that we read petitions in opposition, as it happens to be in this instance, to a government bill, a piece of government legislation, then so be it. That is our job. That is our responsibility. If we are not here representing the opinions of the people who elected us to represent them, then I would have to wonder what purpose there is for us serving in this House at all.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Mississauga South indeed has some words of wisdom, but I do not believe in accordance with the standing orders that this House is duly constituted.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum being present, the member for Mississauga South may proceed.

Mrs. Marland: For the record, I hope that those members who have been recalled into this chamber will certainly recognize that it was not the speaker who has the floor currently who called for the quorum to be present. However, I am more than delighted to have more members come into the chamber and now listen to my words of wisdom, especially those government members who will ultimately be placed in a position where they will have to vote on this motion of closure --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: -- particularly those members of the government benches who have also presented petitions on behalf of their constituents asking them not to support this legislation and who now have been freed by their Premier (Mr. Peterson), by the leader of their Liberal Party in Ontario.

They have been freed by the Premier to vote as they choose. In so doing, they will represent the people whose petitions they have presented in this House -- and since that was the point at which the quorum was called, then I am quite happy now to resume my comments on this very regressive government resolution.

It is true that yesterday when the member for Renfrew North was speaking, he referred to some of the tactics by the opposition parties on this motion. He said, “In this debate, for example, we have seen not just endless bell-ringing but also endless reading of petitions where we could not get to the orders of the day.”

Well, it so happens that a part of our routine proceedings is called petitions. It just happens that it precedes orders of the day, and if in fact there are petitions to be presented and to be read in this House, that is the point at which they are read and presented, and the obligation that each one of us who receives petitions from our constituents has is to read them.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Marland: Here we are today with a resolution that will now control the process of free and open speech in this House, and as I said a few moments ago, for the first time dealing with two bills.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying very hard to address my comments to you. As you are aware, I am certainly trying to ignore the comments of those members who have yet to speak but who do not have the courtesy to allow the person who is speaking to have the floor without interjections. I sympathize with your job. I realize it is a very difficult position you have also.

I just feel that in quoting the government House leader, I would also like to quote what he said in opposition when he too was faced, as I am today, with speaking to a government motion for closure. Is it not funny when you think of that old song, the old adage, “What a difference a day makes”? What a difference, indeed, because on February 15, 1983, the member for Renfrew North said:

“I reiterate, we have been able to do the business of this Legislative Assembly for a long time, through wartime, through great depression and much acrimony, without the time allocation procedure,” the very same procedure that now the member for Renfrew North is in government, he himself has placed in this chamber.

In fact, the member for Renfrew North goes on the next day, February 16. Obviously, the member for Renfrew North got to speak in the Legislature on two successive days in 1983, February 15 and February 16. On February 16, he said: “My point is simply that in my time here...we have had many a heated debate on many a government bill....We saw the best of the British parliamentary system at work, a bit of give, a bit of take.”

Would it not be just great if we had a Liberal government today that believed in the British parliamentary system, that would in fact have a bit of give and a bit of take.

I further quote from the member for Renfrew North on February 16, 1983, where he went on to say, “It reminds some of us of the happy compromises of an earlier day on important legislation that made this place work in the face of strong opposition....And without closure.”

Mr. Conway was speaking in favour of having debate without closure.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, if you please.

Mrs. Marland: The member for Renfrew North at this time. I do not know the name of his riding at that time, on February 16, 1983, although his name, Sean Conway, was the same.

Further on that day, the same person says: “It is the way of our forbears. It is the way of our tradition. It is not the way of some extraneous place that might, in this instance, provide some convenient crutch on which the government might lean.”

You would think that with 94 seats, this Liberal government would not need any crutches, but obviously, using the words of the current government House leader, it does need crutches and therefore it is moving this motion of closure, or time allocation in other words, in this House.

Lest we think it is only one member of the current Liberal government who had concerns with this very same process in 1983, I would like to read what the current Minister of the Environment, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), said on February 15, 1983.

“I feel the government would have been much wiser to have adopted a different course of action. I think it is blocking the democratic process; that is a mild word to use,” said the member for St. Catharines in 1983. He said “blocking the democratic process.” The member for St. Catharines, who is now our Liberal Minister of the Environment, said that in Hansard on February 15, 1983, for those of you who wish to check the reference.

On that same day he also went on to say: “I ask that he” -- the Premier -- “recognize the lack of wisdom of proceeding with a motion of this kind. It clearly stamps his government as one that is prepared to bulldoze legislation -- important and less important -- through this House.”

I am sure this very eloquent speaker on February 15, 1983, the current Minister of the Environment for the Liberal government, today has these words haunting him, as he is part of this government which is now bulldozing legislation that the people of this province do not wish for, that the members of the opposition parties of this House do not support, and that I hope some of the members of the Liberal government will not support.

In quoting the current members of the government, who obviously have all turned their coats inside out and are now sitting in the government, those things they believed in so strongly six or seven years ago suddenly do not matter any more. Suddenly, they have 94 seats and a mandate and they are completely different people. They think differently and they feel differently. Obviously, it is very easy for them to change their minds, and I would guess, perhaps their standards.

I feel it would be unfair to focus only on the government House leader and the Minister of the Environment in these quotations from the past. In order to be completely fair, I will now quote David Peterson from December 8, 1982.

The Deputy Speaker: May I again remind the member that there is a parliamentary tradition not to call the members by name.

Mrs. Marland: I will quote the person who is currently the member for London Centre, the Honourable David Peterson, the Premier of Ontario, the Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. I do not know the name of his riding back in 1982 because the riding names have been changed.

On December 8, 1982, this person said, “As my colleague pointed out, there were other options. That is why we cannot support this motion for closure, guillotine, phase closure, time allocation or whatever one wants to call it.”

How interesting that the current member for London Centre, the current Premier of this province, felt that this very motion that his government has now introduced in this House in December 1982 was perhaps a guillotine type of procedure. Indeed it is.

This same speaker went on to say on December 8, 1982, “I have the right to pursue the most vigorous opposition that I can pursue, and the longer I am here the more I believe very strongly that the opposition is the only thing that stands between government and the sheer, naked use of power.” The words “sheer, naked use of power,” were the very words of the current Liberal Premier himself back in December 1982.

Six years ago, plus two or three weeks when the current Premier was simply David Peterson, a member of the Liberal opposition in Ontario, he was moved to make an extremely strong statement against the very type of motion he now, as leader and Premier of this province, has introduced, a motion that at that time he said was “the sheer, naked use of power.”

He also said he had the right to pursue the most vigorous opposition he could pursue. Is that not a right for every single member of this Legislature? Is that not the very right each one of us is trying to exercise? Is that not the very right each one of us wants to exercise on behalf of the people who elected us to represent them in this House?

For those of us in the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario who are totally opposed to Bill 113 and Bill 114 and the direction in which our province will go once those bills are proclaimed, that is all we want. We want the very same right the member for London Centre, the then member of the opposition and now the Premier wanted to pursue in 1982.

There is no question, when we look at the impact of this legislation, that we will have tremendous changes in the future direction of the society of this province. How ironic that when these two bills change society in Ontario, that change will be totally against the will of the majority of the people. How ironic that the majority of those people in Ontario who voted Liberal on September 10, 1987, because they heard the Liberal candidates across this province promise them, as they also heard the leader of the Liberal Party, the Premier, that they would not make any changes in the Sunday shopping legislation --

Mr. Faubert: Who said that? Oh, come on.

Mrs. Marland: We have the statements of those candidates. We have statements in the press. We have advertisements by the Ontario Liberal Party where it promised that it had no intention to change legislation affecting Sunday shopping or Sunday working in this province. They gave those assurances. On the basis of those assurances, they were elected with 94 members.

There were many promises made by the Liberal Party as it rode around this province in the summer of 1987. This is just one of the many broken Liberal promises. It happens to be one that Progressive Conservatives and my colleagues in this caucus feel very strongly about. It happens to be one that I, personally, feel very strongly about. It happens to be one of the promises on which I never thought this government would be so foolish as to run counter to public opinion.

They knew public opinion at the time they were campaigning in the summer of 1987. The reason they knew was because we had had two legislative committees travel this province and ask the public what it thought.

We had had a Progressive Conservative task force travel to all points in the province, both urban and rural, both tourist and business. The Progressive Conservative task force visited 14 centres and heard very clearly from the people in Ontario that they did not want changes to permit Sunday shopping in Ontario.

Only six months later, there followed around this province another group of people who were members of an all-party legislative committee. On that committee, we had the member for London South (Mrs. Smith), now the Solicitor General. That committee also travelled to 14 or 15 locations in Ontario and also heard loud and clear from the people of this province that they did not