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

January 10, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L127 - Tue 10 Jan 1989 / Mar 10 jan 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GUS RYDER

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

ALZHEIMER AWARENESS MONTH

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMPUTERIZED PATIENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RESPONSES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COMPUTERIZED PATIENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HEALTH SERVICES

NURSING SERVICES

RENT REGULATION

USE OF LOT LEVIES

COURT SECURITY

DEATH OF PIERRE POULIOT

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

NONPROFIT HOUSING

NORTHERN AIR SERVICES / TRANSPORTS AÉRIENS DANS LE NORD DE L’ONTARIO

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES D’OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE / COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L’ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

HEALTH SERVICES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GUS RYDER

Mrs. Grier: Tomorrow, January 11, is the 90th birthday of a very distinguished Ontarian. I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in saying happy birthday to Gus Ryder.

Gus is known to thousands as Mr. Swimming and to thousands of handicapped children as the person who made their participation in swimming possible. To my constituents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, he is known best as the founder of the Lakeshore Swimming Club and as the coach who in 1954 helped Marilyn Bell to become the first person to swim Lake Ontario.

Swimming was not the only sport in which Gus excelled. He played football for the Excelsiors and the Argos’ Intermediates. He rowed for the Argonaut Rowing Club. He represented Canada four times in international handball.

However, it is for his work with handicapped children that Gus is best loved. He was one of the first to recognize that children who could not move with agility or speed on land could swim. In the 1940s, that was a fairly revolutionary concept. Society used to feel that the handicapped should be kept out of sight. To have them exposed to view in a public swimming pool marked a huge step forward in the integration of the handicapped into the community and swimming events showed what these children could achieve, not what they could not accomplish.

Gus has received many awards and honours from service clubs and governments to mark his work. He is a member of the Order of Canada and the Sports Hall of Fame. He received the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship and a senior citizens’ award.

On behalf of this Legislature, I am pleased to join in saying thank you, Gus Ryder, and many happy returns of the day.

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Villeneuve: Both in this House and recently in estimates, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) has bragged about meeting his mandate to provide skills training.

Since November I have tried to help a group of volunteer firemen to receive funds for some essential training. The course starts tonight.

I must mention that my constituency has no full-time paid firemen. Volunteers of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Mutual Fire Aid Association are the only firemen and provide a very, very essential service.

Our riding has both Highway 401 and Highway 417, with a large volume of truck traffic. There are also three major rail lines. There is clearly a great potential for a wide variety of accidents, spills and fires. But because we have no paid firefighters, Skills Development refuses to provide funds. The bureaucrats say volunteers, regardless of what kind, are not eligible. One ministry letter concluded by saying: “You may, of course, support the training of paid firemen under Ontario Skills -- then they can train the volunteers.” I say again, we have no full-time paid firemen.

This sort of bureaucratic insensitivity and ignorance of conditions outside of Toronto should be viewed with alarm by all members. Back in November when the minister met with the firefighters, he hinted the problem would be solved. However, he has refused to change program criteria and now says that firemen are a problem for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, where there are no funds for this training, while the minister’s program requirements do not meet the needs of rural Ontario.

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Miss Roberts: I am very proud to stand in the House today to inform the members of a special accomplishment obtained by the senior girls’ basketball team from St. Joseph High School in St. Thomas.

This year, the girls’ basketball team, coached by Gary Clarke and Jerry O’Brien, defeated Niagara District Secondary School 49 to 45 in overtime to win the Girls’ A Basketball Championship.

What makes this victory so sweet is the fact that this is the third consecutive year that the St. Joseph team has won the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations Girls’ A Basketball Championship. It is a very small school in St. Thomas; they have a very small gym, but they have done an excellent job in representing St. Thomas.

The members of the team are co-captain Erin Jenkins, co-captain Hilary Clarke, Denise Perrier, Corinne Kenny, Katie Bottineau, Marcia Beaudoin, Amy Gilmour, Kellie Danaher, Danielle Bottineau, Denise Budgell, Kim Jenkins and team manager Vickie Hunter.

Members of the school are here today in the gallery and I would like all members to join with me in congratulating St. Joseph High School in St. Thomas.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Miss Martel: Recently, a series of articles on affordable housing appeared in the Sudbury Star. Credit for most of those must go to Terry Pender, a local reporter who attempted to see what life was really like for the homeless in Sudbury, a city without an emergency shelter.

The articles came after the joint announcement by the ministers of Housing and Community and Social Services of $1.7 million to be spent on projects to address homelessness.

The situation could not have been more ironic: $137,000 will be granted to Crisis Housing Liaison in Sudbury to develop a central registry and provide staff to assist people to find affordable housing. It is a noble effort and the people involved are committed to helping the homeless, but the government missed the boat entirely. The vacancy rate in Sudbury is 0.3 per cent. There are 762 families and individuals needing affordable housing; 335 of those spend 30 per cent of their income on rent. New spaces are almost nonexistent and there is no emergency shelter for the homeless.

The root of the problem is the lack of affordable housing, and without it, no agency can help the homeless find permanent shelter.

In June, I supported a proposal for an emergency shelter in Sudbury and wrote to the ministers of Community and Social Services and Housing requesting funding. The Ministry of Community and Social Services replied it could provide ongoing funding only after a charitable or service organization provided the shelter. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) did not even reply.

If this is evidence of the Liberal commitment to shelter and affordable housing, then the homeless in this province are in for a long, cold winter.

SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr. Runciman: In February 1987, I announced on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario an eight-point proposal designed to streamline Ontario’s liquor laws.

Today, I am pleased to announce that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario has decided to implement one of the Tory proposals announced two years ago. The LCBO has agreed to increase the use of agency stores, a concept that allows for the sale of alcohol products through privately owned stores.

As a first step, the LCBO intends to establish five new agency stores in eastern Ontario with more to follow. I believe this initiative is a responsible and progressive step in the process of ensuring that Ontario’s liquor laws more accurately reflect current practices, consumer needs and the generally accepted mores within today’s Ontario society.

We commend the board for acting on the Progressive Conservative recommendation and trust it is committed to carefully reviewing the other constructive proposals put forward by this party.

ALZHEIMER AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Campbell: As January is national Alzheimer Awareness Month, I would ask all members of the House to pause and think about the approximately 10,000 Canadians who will die this year, victims of Alzheimer’s. This insidious disease transforms vital men and women into withered shells, robbing them of their memory, personality and finally, their physical capabilities.

There are 34 Alzheimer society chapters in Ontario, where volunteers help victims function as best they can in day care programs. Their care givers, who must sometimes endure a lengthy and always painful struggle in looking after their loved ones, receive encouragement and support through regular meetings and respite care programs.

In Sudbury, the Alzheimer society is launching this month, with the Sudbury regional police, an identification registry, an important tool in the care of victims. Wandering through the streets is one tragedy of the disease. Any registrant found by police can be more quickly helped and returned to his or her home, nursing home or hospital. This program will be part of the Neighbourhood Watch and school program of the police. I would urge all members to support and encourage the work of the Alzheimer chapters in their areas. Finally, let us remember those who cannot.

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). He is no doubt aware that January is Alzheimer Awareness Month in Canada. The time has come when he should give serious consideration to a request that I have made on numerous occasions in this Legislature. In case the minister has forgotten, I have urged him repeatedly to consider using the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia to care for those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

This facility would also be an ideal place to research a disease that has affected nearly 100,000 Ontario residents. Alzheimer’s disease has a devastating effect on the patients and their families, who currently must travel great distances to visit them.

In some cases, families simply cannot visit because of the distance and expense. I think it would be an ideal time for the minister to announce that the Huronia Regional Centre will be used to care for the Alzheimer patient as well as a research facility where the disease can be studied. It would be a good time to announce it today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMPUTERIZED PATIENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to inform the House that 38 Ontario hospitals will receive grants totalling $1.6 million to install computerized patient information systems in their emergency departments.

Most Ontario hospital emergency departments now keep records manually, making it difficult to compile and analyse statistics about emergency room care. The development of computerized patient information for hospital emergency departments has been an objective of my ministry for some time.

Our long-term plan is to require standardized data collection and central reporting of emergency care activities in all Ontario hospitals with emergency departments. Last May, the ministry invited hospitals to apply for grants of up to $40,000 to help with the acquisition and implementation of emergency patient information systems.

The selected hospitals will proceed immediately with system implementations and are expected to begin data collection and central reporting by March 1989. These systems will provide hospitals with information they need to monitor and promote the quality of patient care. The information will also enable better planning and efficient management of resources at the provincial and hospital levels.

As soon as the new system is operational, participating hospitals will report to the ministry how the computerized information is being used to assess patient care and emergency department management. We regard this as an important initiative, designed to improve the planning and co-ordination of patient care activities in hospital emergency departments.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to announce today to honourable members a new Workers’ Compensation Board policy regarding the payment of interest on delayed compensation benefits. The workers’ compensation benefits are intended to replace the earnings a worker loses as a result of work-related injury or illness.

When a cheque is late, workers receive less than the full value of their compensation entitlement. It is recognized that these delays can cause serious hardships for injured workers. Under the board’s new policy, interest will be paid for payment delays which occur after a worker is disabled.

Where the disability is temporary, benefit payments are normally paid every two weeks from the date of disability. Where workers are permanently disabled, pension payments are paid once a month after the date of entitlement. In both cases, under the board’s new policy, interest will be paid for all delays beyond those due dates.

The honourable members should note that the new policy will be put into effect as part of a new computerized system of paying worker compensation benefits which will be introduced later this year.

Using the same approach as used by the courts under the Courts of Justice Act, interest will be calculated at a rate equal to the bank rate established by the Bank of Canada, rounded up to the nearest whole number, plus one per cent.

Pending introduction of the new interest policy, the board of directors of the Workers’ Compensation Board has approved interim measures to provide interest on payment delays associated with internal WCB appeal hearings and appeals to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. These interim measures took effect as of January 6, 1989.

The cost of the new policy reflects the fact that in the vast majority of cases worker benefit payments are paid by the Workers’ Compensation Board on a timely basis. Full implementation of the new interest policy is expected to increase annual WCB benefit expenditures by about $16 million. This figure represents roughly one per cent of the total annual benefits paid.

The new policy I am announcing today will make Ontario one of only three jurisdictions in Canada to pay interest on delayed benefits.

RESPONSES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I would like to respond very briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) concerning the Workers’ Compensation Board. On behalf of this party, we welcome the move that has been made by the board in this regard.

Most of us who deal with compensation on a regular basis understand very well the kinds of delays and strains that injured workers are put under because there is a delay in payment. Most of them already experience financial difficulty because they are not at their regular work and because they are receiving compensation which in some cases is very inadequate considering the other payments they may have to make in terms of mortgage, etc. So we welcome the announcement today.

We welcome also the fact that when appeals are won, not only retroactive pay but also the interest on all the money that was lost in the interim when the worker finally decided to appeal to the compensation board, and indeed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, will be included.

The only thing I would like to add in saying this to the minister is that I hope this is a sign of good news to come. Perhaps this announcement today, which we welcome, also indicates there will be some change in his policy on Bill 162, which we would also welcome.

COMPUTERIZED PATIENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. Reville: As I listened today to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I found myself wondering just what planet the Minister of Health has been visiting lately and perhaps in what time zone the minister is living.

Here we have an important announcement, theoretically, of some $1.6 million for computerized patient information systems in hospital emergency departments. We are talking about the emergency departments of about one fifth of Ontario’s hospitals.

There is an emergency in this province, but it is not an emergency about patient data. The emergency has to do with people who are at risk on waiting lists in the province, and the emergency has to do with a noble profession that is going to be dealt a mortal blow by the inaction of this government. Of course, I am talking about the nursing profession.

We have seen again today that hospitals other than general medical facilities are closing beds because of the nursing shortage. We are hearing about bed closures at cancer hospitals as well.

I think it is not acceptable at all for the minister to use up ministerial statement time talking about a project that was, in fact, announced last May. Instead, I would like this minister to come forward and say what her government intends to do to solve the nursing problem in this province.

Mr. Eves: I also would like to rise and respond to the statement made by the Minister of Health. While nobody can quarrel with the information in her statement today, I would agree with my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) that I fully expected, as a member of the Legislature, to be in my place today and listen to the Minister of Health describe how she was going to address the critical nursing shortage in Ontario.

We have people on waiting lists for cardiovascular surgery. We have beds closing down in all kinds of hospitals in Ontario due to a nursing shortage. For many months, the minister’s response to questions in the House about the nursing shortage was that various task forces and bodies doing their reports on nursing and manpower had not finished their reports.

We have four of them here now and the minister could pick any one she likes. I fully expect her to respond to the recommendations made in each and every one of these reports. They have been sitting there for weeks, in some cases for months now, and she has yet to respond in a very specific way to any of them or to address the very serious problem we have with respect to nursing, especially critical and intensive care nurses, in Ontario.

I think the minister’s statement today, while I am sure it will help in some small way with respect to emergency departments and hospitals throughout the province, does absolutely nothing to address the most critical and crucial problem facing health care in Ontario today.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Harris: Just briefly on the statement by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), I note that the minister indicates that this will add one per cent to the cost of the total annual benefits. Assuming that the interest rate is somewhere around 10 per cent, this would mean that 10 per cent of the payments that he makes to workers in this province are late. I do not know if that calculation is exactly accurate. I guess if it added one per cent over a year, if they are late for a year, it would be 10 per cent.

I really would be interested in hearing more about this. He used the figure and it sounds to me like it could be that 30, 40 or 50 per cent of the payments are late if it adds that much, because he says it will add one per cent to the total benefits if he were late for a whole year.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: But not one per cent of settlements.

Mr. Harris: I am glad I have lots of time to talk about this, because we can dialogue this for the next two and a half minutes.

If he were late for a whole year, conceivably we are looking at 10, 20, 30 or 40 per cent of the payments that in fact are late, because that is what it would take to impact $16 million in interest payments alone on the total out there.

I note that the minister says, “The cost of the new policy reflects the fact that in the vast majority of cases workers’ benefit payments are paid by the Workers’ Compensation Board on a timely basis.”

“Timely” appears to be “late,” if I read his figures correctly, and I would be interested in knowing how many people do get their cheques late. Is it half? Is it 40 per cent? Is it 30 per cent? What is the average length of time that these cheques are late? Why should any of them be late at all, except in the odd case of a mixup here or there?

I do not know why the minister is so proud of stating, “in the vast majority,” and this is just picking up this little every once in a while when something goes amiss. It appears to me things are going amiss far more often than they are going right.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: Along with a great many other constituency members, my office has been flooded with calls from patients who are affected by the extraordinary delays in surgery. I had a call yesterday morning from a Patricia George, who is the daughter of a patient who is on the urgent list at St. Michael’s Hospital for a triple bypass. He was admitted to the hospital on December 14, scheduled for surgery two days later, it was cancelled and he was sent home. He was supposed to be going in again on January 10 and surgery was supposed to be on January 13.

He was called yesterday morning to be told that that also was being cancelled. There are, he has been told, no intensive care beds available for him. He is on the urgent list of Dr. Baker. He is not on some long-term list; he is on an urgent waiting list.

I would like to ask the minister, how is it that she has made no announcement in this Legislature, this past time or at any other time that we have been debating this question of care being provided for patients, on nursing to focus on the nursing crisis as the essential base of this problem --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. B. Rae: -- of the reason 71-year-old Albert George is waiting and --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have discussed the issue of nursing and the nursing manpower issues in this House on a number of occasions. The Leader of the Opposition is aware of the number of studies and recommendations that have come forward. Many of those recommendations are focused on the profession, the union, the employers and the hospitals as well as government.

He knows full well that I have made a commitment to open the Public Hospitals Act for review and that I am at the present time looking at the potential of draft regulations to acknowledge the important role that nurses play in hospitals and to see that that is acknowledged by their participation under the Public Hospitals Act.

Mr. B. Rae: We not only have older people who are waiting for heart surgery, we have kids who are now on waiting lists that are as long as eight months at the Hospital for Sick Children. When the spokesmen at the Hospital for Sick Children talk about this problem, they come back to the nursing crisis.

When the spokesmen for Princess Margaret Hospital, which is the centre for Ontario’s cancer research and cancer treatment, speak of the issue -- when up to 20 per cent of their beds were closed at Christmas and are going to stay closed right the way through, delaying for over a year care and treatment for hundreds of people who are in need of treatment -- the issue comes back again to this question of nursing.

I want to ask the minister, has she personally spoken to the Ontario Hospital Association and has she indicated to them her willingness to go to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and say, “If it is a question of more money which will deal directly with the problem of nursing care, the government of Ontario is ready to act with you” --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: -- “in sitting down with the nurses’ association and finally dealing with this question”?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the union for the nurses, and the Ontario Hospital Association reached a three-year collective agreement which governs the situation between nurses and their employers, the hospitals.

I would like to see the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association talk about pay bonuses for critical care nurses in downtown Toronto. I think the opportunity for them to sit down and look at that particular issue together could be productive and helpful. I respect the roles the hospital association and the nurses’ association play as they together discuss the relationships. However, I am very aware of the importance of the collective bargaining process.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe my ears. The minister is saying she is not prepared to pick up the phone and speak to the lead employer, the Ontario Hospital Association. We do not have a collective bargaining issue here. We have a health issue, we have a people issue, and we have a government that is not prepared to exercise leadership on this issue, and that is a disgrace.

Why is the minister not prepared to pick up the phone, talk to the hospital association and say: “Let’s get on with it. Let’s not get bogged down in technicalities. Let’s deal with those kids, those heart patients and those cancer patients who are waiting for care and who are not getting care because there is a nursing shortage”?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: With all due respect, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is absolute nonsense. Everybody in this province, I believe, respects the collective bargaining process between the Ontario Hospital Association and the nurses’ association. I said very clearly in this House that I would support the two coming together to look at the specific issue of solutions to critical care nursing in downtown Toronto. We are all actively seeking those solutions and I would encourage him to be constructive and helpful in this debate.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: I think what I have suggested is the most constructive suggestion that has come forward yet. It is certainly more constructive than any --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have a new question to which minister?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. The Ontario Automobile Insurance Board is now playing a version of “pick a number, any number” when it comes to car insurance rates. I want to ask the minister if he can state clearly for us whether it is the intention of his government to invoke

section 27 of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act, which states clearly that the government of Ontario, the cabinet, can issue a directive on policy to the insurance board before it makes any decision --

Can the minister tell us whether the government is intending to issue a policy directive clearly on rates prior to the decision of the board with respect to rates?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The policy that is being carried out now by the board is one that the government has spent some time putting together with the participation of the hearing process in this Legislative Assembly. What we have said there is very clear. They are carrying out that policy directive now, which is to look at the industry, examine it, study it, see what goes into setting rates and then set a range of rates. They are doing that now.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is not correct. What I am asking him to state is that he knows full well that

section 27 of the act says quite clearly that the superintendent of insurance, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- that is to say, the cabinet -- may issue policy statements on matters related to categories of auto insurance, classes of risk exposure and automobile rates and dividends. That policy statement, as soon as it is issued, takes effect on the day it is issued, and in making orders under the act, the board has to have regard to those policy statements.

The board is now playing a game of “pick a number, any number.” One day it is 20 per cent, one day it is 35 per cent, one day they are going to take into account what happened in 1987 and the next day they are going to ignore what happened in 1987.

On behalf of the consumers of this province, I want to know whether the minister is going to issue a clear policy statement, stating exactly what kinds of rate increases are acceptable to him. Yes or no; is he or is he not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is not correct. He is under some illusion about this being a process of picking a number. It is not that. He should confess his problems to the public and be very clear that this analysis is unlike any other that has occurred anywhere and is a better analysis of how the rates surrounding auto insurance are being considered and then set.

He should come clean with the people of Ontario because it is not fair to categorize this as a pick-a-number exercise. It is to study the industry, it is to put together a full series of parts of the industry’s makeup so that it can come up with a fair and adequate rate for the provision of auto insurance in the province. In fact, that is what they are doing. It is very clear that that is what the policy is. They are following that.

What he is really asking is whether I, as Minister of Financial Institutions, on my own behalf, by myself, am going to set the rates for auto insurance in Ontario. I am saying to him that I am not doing that. It is under the auspices of the board and that is what its mandate is. That is what the hearing process is about, and that is how we will get fair rates in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister said he had a specific plan. I am sure the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario will express its gratitude to him at the dinner which it is holding for the Liberal Party caucus.

The minister clearly said he would reduce rates. He has not done that. The act clearly anticipates, under

section 27, that he is to issue a policy statement with regard to auto insurance rates if he so chooses. It clearly anticipates that. All I am asking the minister is simply, is he going to issue a policy statement with regard to auto insurance rates; and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is quite clear that the honourable member does not understand what is going on right at the moment. What is going on right at the moment is an examination of the auto insurance industry in a manner which has never been undertaken anywhere in any other jurisdiction, as far as I am aware.

It is very interesting to note that in times when he thinks we should be consulting widely, he would ask why did we go ahead and make a decision without the consultation and study that was required. When we go ahead and do the most thorough analysis of this industry that has ever taken place, he then says: “You go ahead and do it yourselves. Don’t do anything else. Don’t study it. Don’t understand what you’re doing. Don’t do an analysis of what is a very important commodity in Ontario, auto insurance. Just do it.”

I can tell the member that I will support the exercise which will determine what fair rates are in Ontario. That is being done under this hearing process and we will understand, as consumers and policy-setters, what in fact has to be done with respect to auto insurance in Ontario in a way which will serve us in good stead for future reference of other problems. But right now, I am not going to go out and issue a directive that says that rates, despite whatever the member has heard, are going to be X.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I will wait till the applause dies down.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier in his capacity as head of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy --

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: I will wait until the member is finished.

The question I have is to the Premier and it is relative to his position as head of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. The Premier is well aware that in media reports across the province there are discussions going on about what is being termed, and I believe is in reality, a crisis in health care in the province.

Those media reports are becoming horror stories in the sense that they are increasingly pointing out the failings of the health system in Ontario in being able to deliver what is necessary in terms of the way in which the people of Ontario have expected the system to deliver in past years, the most recent problem being the 40 children at the Hospital for Sick Children who have had their surgery delayed up to eight months. A couple of days ago, there was another story with respect to the large number of Ontario citizens who were forced to go to the United States to get surgical procedures relative to heart conditions.

Surely the Premier is aware that the seriousness of this situation is becoming increasingly evident to even himself and his own members, that there is something wrong with the health system, that there is a problem here that has to be addressed.

I ask the Premier rather than the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) because she will tell us it is a collective bargaining issue or it is under study. That is simply not good enough any more to alleviate some of the concerns that are being raised by people who have real concerns about what is happening to our health system.

Can the Premier tell us how he intends to address this in the weeks and months ahead?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister can give my honourable friend as much time as he wants on this question. It is being looked at across the country.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the opportunity that we have had in this House on a number of occasions to discuss the challenges and changes in health care, I believe, are extremely important. We know there are three irresistible and compelling forces for change, not only the economic reality, the changing demographics and the changing technologies. In fact, there are a number of forums in which short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies are being considered.

The Premier’s Council on Health Strategy has four subcommittees. One is the subcommittee on the health system itself. Another is on healthy public policy. The third is on integration and co-ordination and the fourth is on health goals for Ontario.

I would say to the leader of the third party that in fact we are looking at long-term strategic direction, as well as short-term and medium-term initiatives to face these enormous challenges facing health care, not only in Ontario but across Canada and worldwide.

Mr. Brandt: When the problem of nursing shortages was first raised with the government, the current Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), a fine gentleman, indicated at that time that “this government has the matter well in hand.” That was his response in connection with the problem of nursing shortages. It was more than half a year ago that he made that particular comment.

Well, the situation has continued to deteriorate since that time. I am sure the minister reads the editorials and the media comments. I am sure she hears the horror stories, as we do. I am sure she is hearing from the health professionals about their attitude with respect to what is happening within the health system.

It is a very simple question about these long-term plans with respect to how the minister intends to clear up the backlog of surgical delays and how she intends to assist the hospital system to respond, as it must, in terms of the bed capacity of those particular hospitals and the nursing requirements of those hospitals. Surely there must be something the minister can suggest to this House that will be done immediately to alleviate the current problem. What plans does she have to do that in terms of a short-term solution?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that our plans have been well articulated. We know, for example, that when we talk about nursing, it is not a problem that is unique to Ontario; in fact, it is worldwide. It is probably one of the most difficult and complex issues because it relates to a societal change and the changing role of women, to the values and working conditions within which nurses in general are working.

It relates to the recommendations of the Evans, Spasoff and Podborski reports, which talk about a better balance in our health system, a move to community-based services to take the pressure off our hospitals, so we can establish the kinds of facilities where people who do not require inpatient services can be provided with those services in community-based settings closer to their homes, and free up the hospitals to do that which they do best, the primary, secondary and tertiary care that require inpatient services.

Tomorrow, I hope we will have an opportunity in this House, on second reading of the Independent Health Facilities Act, to begin with the legislative framework to allow us to expand community-based services. I believe that will assist us as we rebalance the system.

Mr. Brandt: All too often, the government’s response to what I consider to be an extremely critical problem has been to blame others. The minister has passed the problem on to hospitals. She has expected them to operate with reduced budgets. She has expected them to deliver a service when she has required them to shut down beds. She has not addressed the nursing problem. She has reduced support to the health system very dramatically in this province and expects the same level of procedures, the same level of service to be delivered to the people of Ontario. It is simply unacceptable.

I have had calls to my office from people who are waiting their turn for surgical procedures that are life-threatening, situations that are totally unacceptable in this province --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: -- and that I have never heard of except in the last couple of years during the minister’s term as Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Brandt: What does the minister intend to do in connection with the immediate problem, which is to alleviate the nursing shortage, address the problems that hospitals have and bring the system up to the level --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The leader of the third party is incorrect when he says there has been a reduction in any hospital budgets. In fact, since 1985, hospital budgets have been improved by some 39 per cent. This year, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) announced an 8.1 per cent increase to the hospitals’ base budget. Since this government took office in 1985, health expenditures have reached $12.7 billion, up almost $3 billion from the time of the change of government. We anticipate that next year the institutional sector will receive almost $6 billion.

I would say to the member that his categorization of insufficient funding is false, inaccurate and points out the fact that the problems we have in health care require a response other than simply money -- looking at structural change. That is the direction we are taking because all the experts are telling us that the problems we have in health care are not going to be responded to simply with more money.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health as well. I think it is more than obvious that we have reached a crisis in our health care system here in Ontario. A nursing shortage exists that is so acute we have critically ill patients waiting for surgery on waiting lists that in some cases are many months long.

We have been raising the shortage-of-nursing issue in this Legislature at least since November 1987. Yet the minister has never given a straight answer to myself or any of my colleagues on this side of the House as to what concrete steps she is going to take to react and address the nursing shortage in Ontario and especially in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Can the minister for once give us a straight answer and tell us what exact, specific, concrete steps she, as Minister of Health, is taking to address this very serious issue of the acute nursing shortage in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have discussed this on a number of occasions in this House and recognized that in fact it is in downtown Toronto where we see a particular shortage of nurses in the area of critical care. This is not the same across the whole province. There are variations and differences. I can tell the member that at the beginning of February, critical care nurses will be coming from Sudbury to help alleviate the situation in downtown Toronto in the short term. As well, a number of critical care nurses are being trained at the present time. This fall, we established through the Toronto Institute of Medical Technology additional training for cardiac technicians.

We believe that in the short term this will help. However, we know that by working together with the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association, by bringing people together, we will continue to seek solutions to adjust this important problem.

Mr. Eves: The minister is quoted in the media this morning as saying that the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association should reopen their contract to talk about premium pay for critical care work. She has stated to us in this House on several occasions, and most professional nursing organizations would agree, that there are enough nursing graduates coming out of the system. The problem, as I am sure she is aware, is that they tend to leave the system anywhere between their third and seventh year of experience for the very simple reason that they are not paid for their experience. They are not paid for their expertise with respect to critical care work, for example.

Now, is the minister telling us by her statement this morning that she is going to provide the OHA with the additional money it needs to enter into serious negotiations with the ONA, or is she telling us that she is just passing the buck to the OHA, that she has no intention of providing them with the money they need, which she knows they need, to address this very important issue? Is she going to exercise the responsibility --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has placed the question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, pay practices are part of the collective agreement. However, I believe that even through discussions outside of the collective agreement, the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Ontario Hospital Association could come together and seek solutions. I would encourage them to talk about such things as opportunities to solve the problem particular to downtown Toronto, particularly in the area of critical care. I would encourage those discussions.

Mr. Eves: This is not a collective bargaining issue. With all due respect to the Minister of Health, this is a health issue. We are talking about health care in Ontario. We are not talking about a collective bargaining issue. She has four reports here. One came from the ONA in March 1988. That is almost a year old.

They have very specific recommendations that are the likes of better pay; salaries increasing with education, experience and/or responsibility; better hours, more flexible, shorter hours; more opportunity for nurses to advance; a better attitude towards nurses from the public, doctors and their co-workers; more staff to reduce workload stress. I would suggest to the minister that every one of those issues affects her very directly as Minister of Health and that only she can address them.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: We have three other nursing reports that I am sure she is aware of.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has 14 of them. They are all numbered.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Eves: Would she quit passing the buck to these people and quit passing the buck about it being a collective bargaining issue, assume the responsibility that is hers as Minister of Health --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Parry Sound take his seat.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is clear the Health critic from the third party simply does not understand the jurisdictional responsibility of collective bargaining of the unions, of management and of government. In response to those reports and recommendations, I have taken the initiative, as the responsibility of government, to announce amendments to the Public Hospitals Act.

Many of those issues that are responded to in fact have nothing to do with money but are questions of working life issues that respond directly to the employers. I know that they are being addressed by the individual hospital employers and that the Ontario Hospital Association has shown leadership in helping to assist the hospitals in their membership as well.

The Ontario Nurses’ Association, I believe, has an opportunity to sit down with the Ontario Hospital Association and look at a host of issues, many of which may not include money and resources, to help address some of those recommendations. The problem specifically for critical care nursing in downtown Toronto is, I believe, quite a separate issue, and one I am hopeful, through flexibility and creativity --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning rent review. How does she explain this process to Wayde Guest who lives at 104 Confederation Drive in St. Thomas? His building is jointly owned by two Toronto-based firms. Over the past four years, the rent review system has awarded these two investors a total amount of 58.7 per cent when they only asked for a modest 46.3 per cent. How does she explain to Mr. Guest that her rent review system gives the landlords more than they ask for?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our rent review system takes information from the landlord, information from the tenants, and calculates the rents based on a number of factors, including capital costs and the costs of managing the building. As a result of those numbers, it comes up with what it sees as the appropriate number justified by the economic facts that are given.

Mr. Breaugh: This is sure a good place to invest, where they give you more than what you asked for.

How does the minister explain to Mr. Guest, who is a pensioner and lives on a fixed income, the sad fact that he has now been ordered by rent review to pay a total of $752 in back rent? This is the adjustment figure that has been used. How is someone on a fixed income supposed to come up with this kind of cash in a hurry on the orders of the minister’s rent review system?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The most important thing about the rent review process is that it is a way of making sure tenants do not have to pay unjustified rent increases. It is not the only answer for people on fixed income who have problems with housing issues. Rent review was never meant to solve the housing problems of everyone in the province, including people on fixed income.

It is because of the problems of people like the one the member describes, who is on a fixed income, that the province has made the commitment, that we have made the commitment, to build more housing that is affordable to people all over the province, to make sure that there is much more nonprofit housing being built all over the province. Rent review is only one part of the protections that we give to people. It is not the only way of meeting the needs of people with economic difficulty, in particular people on fixed income.

USE OF LOT LEVIES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The Toronto Star says today, New Metro Home is Costing $347,000.” I am sure the minister agrees with me that we have an affordability problem. I am trying to be helpful and I would like to ask the minister if the following scenario makes sense to her.

Let’s take an average community of 20,000 homes, 50 existing homes for every new one built. If new ones go up, say, $5,000 as a result of lot levy, if that is the figure, and they build 400 new ones in this community, lot levies will raise $2 million. But the other 20,000 homes will go up $5,000 as well, so the total impact on the cost of housing in that average community will be increased by $102 million.

Does it make sense to the minister to add $102 million to the cost of housing for an average community for the sake of raising $2 million for education or whatever?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think the member’s hypothetical case makes very little clear sense. I think the important issue here is that people of moderate income have a lot of choices in the housing that is available to them. It is my concern and commitment that people of moderate income in this province have real choices about where they live and the housing that is available for them.

It is for that reason we put forward our land use policy, in which we say that from now on, in new housing that is being built across this province, we expect at least 25 per cent of that to meet the needs of people of low and moderate income. That, in particular, also was addressed to people of moderate income.

We know that working together with municipalities and the private sector builders, it will be possible for us to increase the supply of housing for people of moderate income in this province substantially, not on a one-time basis and not as a blip, but as a steady stream of production of affordable housing through working together and making sure that municipalities and builders, together with us, meet our guideline for affordable housing.

That is the answer to make sure there will be much more housing available for people of moderate income. The supply of housing for people of moderate income is a significant issue here and that is the one we are trying to meet.

Mr. Harris: Of course it is, and I do want to be helpful.

Hon. Mr Kerrio: Yes.

Mr. Harris: Well, I do.

Mr. Breaugh: I see that. He is trying.

Mr. Harris: I do. I appreciate supply is an important part, but I want to address specifically the lot levy issue.

I contend, and everybody I have talked to, including the industry, everywhere except the minister, agrees that considering there is one new home for every 50 existing, on the average, for every dollar raised by new lot levy, she increases the cost of the total housing stock by $50. That is a fairly understandable and logical conclusion.

The Treasurer suggests he wants to raise an extra $100 million for education or health or something through a new form of taxation, a lot levy. To get that $100 million, the total cost of housing in the province -- I think she would agree affordable housing is a problem -- goes up $5 billion. That is the increase on the total housing stock in the province.

My question is, does it make sense to her as the Minister of Housing to get $100 million from some new tax source so that the municipalities will pay instead of the province? Does it make sense, to get $100 million for something else, to add $5 billion to the cost of housing in the province?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member is well aware that this entire question of how to fund the infrastructure costs of significant growth in the province is one that is being discussed right now. It is my commitment and it is my job to make sure we increase the supply of affordable housing in the province. It is the Treasurer’s responsibility to make decisions about taxation.

In the paper on funding infrastructure costs for rapidly growing areas that was released a little while ago, it was made very clear that the goal of making sure the affordable housing commitments of this province are met is uppermost. It is there.

The other part of making sure housing gets built is also making sure the quality of life for the people in those communities is maintained, and that requires roads, sewers and schools. We have to make sure the housing gets built and we have to make sure the services are there. How to make sure both those goals are met is the purpose of the exercise we are engaged in right now.

I am sure we will get some interesting ideas about how to meet those goals and I look forward to working with every member in the House who wishes to be helpful, like the member opposite, to make sure our housing goals are met.

COURT SECURITY

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Attorney General. I have had a number of inquiries from various parts of my riding about the financial and operational implications of Bill 187. I am advised that back in 1985, when this was contemplated, the government of that time saw fit that there was something like $3 per household allowed for the security the bill was requiring.

At the present time, the town of Bradford tells me that it is looking at an increase of costs to its police force to implement this of something like $85,000 a year. The city of Barrie says that its costs will run several hundred thousand dollars a year. In areas like Simcoe county, the security within the court and transporting or moving the prisoners from the jail over to the court is handled by contract officers who work as they are required.

The system seems to be working. I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of the costs that are involved to the municipalities and what was contemplated at the time this was introduced.

Hon. Mr. Scott: In the vast majority of cases in Ontario, there should be no additional costs at all. The province has for many years been funding municipal police forces through the municipal councils in the unconditional grant system, and in 1985 the unconditional grants were increased specifically to deal with courthouse security by $3 per family.

The purpose of this bill is simply to identify precisely what we are funding. What we are funding, so the honourable member will know, is work that is now done by police forces in almost every municipality in Ontario: the transporting of prisoners; responding to threats of violence if they are made at the courthouse; and maintaining a presence, as required, to maintain the safety of the occupants of the courthouse.

On balance, that is done across Ontario by municipal police forces now and is paid for under the unconditional grants. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the dividing line between that function and the function performed by sheriff’s officers.

Mr. Wildman: Saving you money.

Mr. Brandt: We know what it is for.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: I appreciate that the concern is that we are living in changing times and that the circumstances of our security in our courts 10 or 15 years ago was different than what we are facing today in our courts, so I see somewhat what the Attorney General is saying, but in places such as our county, and I believe Perth is another county which is similar to ours, we have the situation where we have contract staff who are working on an on-call basis. They feel that their jobs are jeopardized. They do not know where they are going.

Can the minister give us any indication as to what the future prospects might be for these people in areas such as ours, where they are working on a contract basis?

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the honourable member is telling us that in a municipality in Ontario, funds are being taken under the unconditional grant for courthouse security, which work is being performed by others, I am surprised to hear that. The purpose of the increase in the grant in 1985 was explicitly to allow police forces to do courthouse security; namely, the transporting of prisoners, responding to threats of violence at the courthouse and maintaining the police presence required to maintain the safety of the occupants.

The purpose of this bill is to clarify the nature of that responsibility. Anybody who has been taking the money and not providing those services and looking to others to provide them will, I am sure, be prepared to provide the service in the future.

DEATH OF PIERRE POULIOT

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Solicitor General. On June 28, 1988, Pierre Pouliot was killed at the Copper Cliff smelter of Inco, just outside of Sudbury. I asked the minister about this on Thursday of last week. Can the minister tell us if there is a date set for the inquest into the death of Pierre Pouliot?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: A date has been tentatively set for March 6.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is a tentative date, I take it. Is there any information then, or can the minister tell us if it is not a fact that in a mining death, there is to be an automatic inquest? Why have we waited from June 28 until now to get a tentative date for this inquest, when the family has been trying to get answers that the minister herself says cannot be given while we are waiting for an inquest?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Like so many other cases, this case was being investigated, as indeed the member would agree it should have been as it is this type of industrial death. Unfortunately, one of the people involved in the investigation himself became ill, which caused some delay, and some of the information was difficult to come by, further delaying it, but the date has now been set and they are proceeding as planned.

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question for the infamous Minister of the Environment; I know he will be taking his seat momentarily. My colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), who of course is the critic of his ministry --

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: I see that the Liberal backbench sheep are bleating again.

Mr. B. Rae: Can’t they open up a small claims court on Tuesday as well as on Monday?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Cureatz: The member for Mississauga South wanted to discuss with me some policies of the ministry -- and what better place to discuss the government policies than the garbage site in the minister’s own riding?

We had the opportunity of visiting the site in his riding. His ministry claims that if a garbage site is operated correctly, there should be no seagulls. Now I have a picture here that shows thousands of seagulls in the garbage site in the minister’s riding. I think it is thousands. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) could send out some Liberal backbenchers --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Did they follow you home, Sam?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Seagull Sam.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is our official bird you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Fly like a butterfly, sting like a gull.

Mr. Wildman: Where’s Dave Winfield when you need him?

Mr. Speaker: The members have certainly wasted a lot of time. We will just wait.

I hope the member has a question.

Mr. Cureatz: My question to the minister is: If the garbage site in his riding to the west of the city of St. Catharines is being operated properly, why are there so many seagulls at the dump site?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: They heard Sam was on the way.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is an excellent photograph of the member for Durham East on this location.

As the members know, there are seagulls all around Ontario. I have consulted with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on this matter, and he has indicated that at many locations in Ontario, for instance, at several of the beaches that are located in the province, the seagulls will be there if there is any item of food which may at any particular time of the day be exposed for the purposes of their consumption.

For instance, the member would know that people who walk down a beach with french fries, for example, in their hands will notice that the seagulls will come down and swoop down on them.

What I am presuming to the member, on what I consider to be a very serious question on his part, is that at a particular time of the day there might well be some exposed morsel of food or the anticipation on the part of the seagulls that there may be some food under the cover. Certainly even --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Even though there are a number of landfill sites in the province --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have already taken over five minutes.

Mr. Cureatz: As the minister well knows, Metro Toronto is planning to make a land grab in my riding of Durham East for a landfill site. I happen to have a seagull here which I call Bradley Seagull or BS for short. I want to tell the minister --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question.

Mr. Cureatz: -- that I do not want this seagull, I do not want seagulls from his riding and I do not want Metro Toronto seagulls in my riding of Durham East if they make a land grab for a garbage site.

Will the minister promise this assembly that if Metro makes a land grab, he is going to guarantee a full environmental assessment hearing so we can discuss, among other things, infestation of seagulls?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Thank you kindly. I appreciate this very much. That looks like a tie I have seen before.

I am informed by one my colleagues that there is no such thing as a seagull. He says you can have a gull, a beagle or an eagle but there is no such thing as a seagull. The member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) told me that.

The member will recall that on his visit to the site in St. Catharines, where he thought he had an issue, along with his colleagues, all he found out was that the city of St. Catharines was extremely pleased, because his leader, when he was the Minister of the Environment, granted an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for the purposes of any potential expansion.

What I have indicated to the people in that specific area is that if there were a major expansion that would go over a number of years, for instance, and would be of a magnitude that would call for it, there would certainly be an environmental assessment.

In regard to the issue the member brings to me in his supplementary question, I can indicate to him that there have been a number of potential proposals which have been forthcoming. Some of his colleagues suggest that something should be in one place. One day they get up and say, “Well, of course, you shouldn’t apply the Environmental Assessment Act,” or “It’s too tough,” or something like that. The next day somebody else gets up and says, “You’re not going to put it here.”

As members know, these proposals are developed by the municipality. When I receive, as the Minister of the Environment, and our ministry receives a proposal from any one of the municipalities, we will look very carefully at that and determine the regime under which it would come and determine the course of action to be followed. I would be happy to share with the member for Durham East who has a sincere interest --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. A new question.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Many are concerned about the federal government’s recent decision to impose a financial cap on the federal-provincial nonprofit housing program for 1988. In my riding there are two projects which have been put in jeopardy. One such project, the Mississauga Seniors Village, comprises 58 homes for seniors and is the first nonprofit senior housing project in the community of Meadowvale. The other project, Forum Italia, comprises 93 homes and meets critical needs not only in Mississauga but also in surrounding areas.

My question involves the current status of the minister’s discussions with the federal government on this matter.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have had several conversations with the federal minister on this, and he has indicated to me that the financial caps will remain. They will affect 19 projects, including the two the member has mentioned in his riding, despite the federal government’s promise that was made explicitly about a year ago in a press release that we released together, despite a very significant need for housing that people can afford, and despite the very significant work that has been done in this community and all over the province, by large numbers of volunteers who worked very hard to bring forward projects for nonprofit building all over the province.

Mr. Offer: By way of supplementary, these projects have taken many years of work, they have involved thousands of volunteer hours and considerable expense. Notwithstanding all of that, there are hundreds of families and individuals who have intended to move into these housing projects.

By way of supplementary, I am asking the minister whether these very important projects can be saved?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As members know, this is an issue that I have been very concerned about. I also know how hard people have worked to bring these projects to this point in their development. I am going to be calling the federal minister to fund these projects out of the 1989 allocation. What that will mean is that the projects which are named will proceed if the federal minister agrees to do that.

If we do that, and if the federal minister does that, it will still mean a significant loss because the previous commitment to the federal government was to fund about 7,000 units jointly with us every year to build nonprofit housing together.

If they go forward with what I hope they will do, which is fund these out of the 1989 allocation, it will still mean a significant decrease in 1989 from around the 7,000 units which we were preparing to do together to about 3,200 units under the federal-provincial program. That is a significant loss, but I am prepared to ask the federal minister to do this carrying forward of the funding because the projects really should go forward.

The people involved with them have done an enormous amount of work. By the time we are at this point, they represent literally hundreds of hours of work done by volunteers to bring them to this point. They have commitments in their communities and they are ready to go.

I hope the federal government will agree to do that, but let us not underestimate the impact on our future plans which would cut from 7,000 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICES / TRANSPORTS AÉRIENS DANS LE NORD DE L’ONTARIO

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development with regard to air services to northern communities now that the minister has put off his plans to sell norOntair’s Dash-8 planes to Air Ontario.

The minister must know that Air Ontario’s plans to take these planes and the jobs out of northern Ontario, with totally inadequate routing proposals, certainly would not have provided the enhanced services that the minister promised to the north last June.

Given that the government has reasserted its control over norOntair by the purchase of Air-Dale in Sault Ste. Marie, which has been operating the Dash-8 planes, what specific plans does the minister now have to maintain that operation in the north and to improve the quality and the effectiveness of that service to the north’s smaller communities?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je voudrais rappeler au député de Sault-Sainte-Marie (M. Morin-Strom) que la vente des avions Dash-8 a été remise à la fin de novembre 1989.

As the member just mentioned, we are in the process of taking over the service of the Dash-8 from Air-Dale, but that does not mean we will not sell the Dash-8.

I just said in French that this sale is put off until November 1989 and it will proceed as if there were no sale. We are running the two operations and I think we are running them well. I do not see any problem. I do not see any problem for the jobs either, because we are going to repair all the airplanes in Sault Ste. Marie. I do not know what the member is talking about.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am talking about a service which is vitally important to smaller communities in northern Ontario, and that is the norOntair operations, which are under the auspices of the ministry.

Last June the minister made promises to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of its services to the north’s smaller communities. He has gone around the province making promises with regard to new Dash-8 services and new routes that were going to be added in northern Ontario.

The minister knows that the Dash-8 operation has not been fully utilized because of planes being out of commission for long periods of time. Those planes are now available to the minister and his ministry in the north. Is he going to live up to his commitment to add routes and to provide services to more communities with those Dash-8 planes now that they are fully under his control, owned and operated by Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I would like to tell the honourable member for Sault Ste. Marie that he is not a mechanic. He should know that at times we have to repair the planes if we want to fly them safely. That is what we are doing. Sometimes there is one missing. I can assure the member for Sault Ste. Marie that we are applying to fly from Winnipeg to Fort Frances and Thunder Bay. This will be done in the next few weeks.

As to the other planes that we are flying, I think we are trying to fly what we have. We have some planes that are 20 years old and we have to repair them at times. That is what we are doing. If I can sell those Dash-8s, I will take that money to buy new planes, but that will come at the end of this year. Right now I have no money to buy new planes and we will keep operating as we are. I do not think there are too many people talking about our service, norOntair. They are talking about other services, not norOntair.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions and it is related to the decision of more insurance companies to pull out of the auto insurance business in Ontario. I wonder if the minister can tell us the approximate percentage of drivers in Ontario required to secure insurance through the Facility Association and whether it has been increasing over the past 10 months.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not have an accurate answer for him at the moment, but I will get back to the honourable gentleman with that number.

Mr. Runciman: That is a similar answer to the one I received yesterday. I want to remind the minister that we brought to his attention and to the attention of his government some time ago the striking similarities between the Massachusetts program and the program that this government has initiated in Ontario.

What is happening in Massachusetts is that 60 per cent are in Facility versus what we used to have in Ontario, two to three per cent in Facility. Premiums are $77 higher than the national average, there is very poor availability and companies are simply abandoning the market. I would like to know if the government has made this decision to take the Massachusetts route. I am sure consumers in this province would like to know what the minister is doing to ensure that we do not repeat the Massachusetts mess.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to thank the honourable gentleman and remind him that I gave him a very direct answer yesterday with respect to his questions about the types of things that he wanted to know. I have gone back and said that we were getting public input from all around the province. The member knows that.

Although the specific numbers were not available on exactly how many presentations were made in front of the board, I can tell the member that I have looked at a number of pieces of information that show there has been input from right around the province, from Flesherton, from Navan in eastern Ontario, from Kenora, from Fort Frances and from other places. From all over the province people have had access to the board and its hearings processes.

I said to the honourable gentleman yesterday, just so he does not leave the mistaken impression with the people of the province that I did not answer his question, that the public of Ontario has had access to these hearings, they do have and they will continue to have.

The interesting thing is that I have to remind him day after day of the answers just so he does not forget. His memory is very good, except that it is very short.

I can tell members that I answered his question yesterday, and I will answer his question today, that the study and analysis which we are doing in Ontario with respect to the setting of rates for auto insurance is the type of thing that ensures two things: (1) it will give the consumers of this province the information they need to make intelligent choices about which company they access for rates and (2) the companies which are participating in the market will understand what they have to do to be competitive and the work they have to do to be continuing players in this particular province.

I will tell the member that there is in this province the basis on which sound automobile insurance coverage can be obtained now and in the future. We will continue to work towards that as a goal.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES D’OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS

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

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. Pouliot: 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:

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

La pétition est adressée au « lieutenant gouverneur de la province de l’Ontario.

« Je/Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour leur famille dans la province de l’Ontario. »

J’ai apposé ma signature a cette pétition. Merci.

M. R. F. Johnston: J’ai une pétition.

« À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour toute leur famille en Ontario. »

Mr. Philip: I have a petition from constituents in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale which reads as follows:

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This is signed by some 13 petitioners, and I have attached my name to same.

Mr. Wildman: 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:

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Ontario, and I have also signed it.

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

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

That is signed by two constituents who reside in the provincial riding of Nickel Belt. I agree with them and I have affixed my signature to their petition.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I support this petition and I literally have thousands more of these to present over the next several months.

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

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I support this petition and have affixed my signature thereto.

Mr. Reville: I have a petition, which reads:

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition has been signed by 14 residents of Essex South. I have affixed my name thereto and I agree with this petition.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This petition is signed by 26 residents of my own city, the great city of Hamilton, and I am pleased to add my name to it.

Mr. Philip: I have petitions from some 35 petitioners:

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

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour leur famille en Ontario. »

Mr. Speaker: I believe the honourable member was here when I made a comment earlier.

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercialization of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by seven residents of the Windsor area, and I have affixed my signature to the petition as well.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition:

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

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

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Ontario. I have added my name to it and I support it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition as well; it reads:

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I support this petition. I have affixed my name to it as well.

Mrs. Grier: 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This is signed by residents of Belle River, Tilbury, Amherstburg and Windsor, and I have also fixed my signature thereto.

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I agree with this petition and I have attached my name to it.

M. Allen: J’ai une pétition de Mme et M. Caron de Chelmsford (Ontario).

« Pétition à l’honorable lieutenant gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour leur famille en Ontario. »

C’est un plaisir de vous soumettre cette pétition, à laquelle j’ai apposé ma signature.

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This has been signed by 19 people and I have affixed my signature to it as well.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is 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:

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

It is signed by several people and I will now affix my signature as well.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition as well, addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Bowmanville, Almonte, London, Toronto and Belleville. I support the petition and have signed my name to it.

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health.

We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by seven citizens of the province from the Windsor area, and I am happy to sign it as well.

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

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

M. Reville: « A l’honorable lieutenant gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’ Ontario,

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour leur famille en Ontario. »

Mr. Wildman: I, again, have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by six residents of Toronto, St. Catharines, Ottawa, Burlington and Espanola, and I support the petition and have signed it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mrs. Grier: 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition has been signed by a number of residents of Windsor, Ontario, and I am happy to sign it in support.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This is signed by 12 residents of the county of Essex, Ontario. I affix my signature to it and I support it.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition, signed by nine people in the Windsor area, and it reads as follows:

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have affixed my signature.

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by nine residents of the Windsor area and I have affixed my signature as well.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them by reducing their ability to spend time together, we urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I support the intent of this petition. I will affix my name to it.

Mr. Farnan: 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 it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them by reducing their ability to spend time together, we urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead we urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipalities on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by 12 individuals and I have affixed my name, agreeing with their intent.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity, as I have on previous occasions, to remind members that petitions are certainly in order, and of course, generally, as the standing order suggests, the material allegations may be put forth; in other words, more simply put. It is maybe not necessary to put all the whereases but the “therefore” is very important.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I think this petition will delight your heart. It simply reads:

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

It is signed by several hundred people from the Kingston area, including Cataraqui, Kingston, Amherstview, Iroquois, Woodbridge, Napanee, Odessa and the various surrounding communities of that region.

I have affixed my signature to it and I certainly support the petition in its simplicity and in its force.

M. R. F. Johnston: Merci. J’ai une pétition.

« À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de I’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour toutes les familles en Ontario. »

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition and I will be very brief. It is directed 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:

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Chesterville, Vankleek Hill and Scarborough. I am in favour of this petition and I will add my name to it.

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This is signed by a good friend of mine, Ron Tranchemontagne of Chelmsford, and I have affixed my name to his petition as well.

Mrs. Grier: 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition has been signed by a number of residents of the province and I am happy to affix my signature thereto.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE / COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L’ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

Mr. Chiarelli from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted?

Mr. B. Rae: I was standing to speak on the report as the motion was moved, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the rules would be that if someone moves a motion, that motion is debatable and we are entitled to debate it, and I intended to launch the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: You are perfectly correct, and I just wanted to put the question, “Shall the report be received and adopted?” We can certainly debate it if the Leader of the Opposition so desires.

Mr. B. Rae: I realize that it is not necessarily the case that reports from committees are discussed and debated in the House, but we in our party feel and have felt for so many months that this is a very important issue and an important question and I wanted to put some views of mine on the record, even at this early date in these discussions, and make it very clear to the government and the people of this province why the members of the New Democratic Party, together with hundreds of thousands of people across this province, have been so angry and annoyed with the government for what it has done and why we are going to continue this battle on this question in the Legislature.

De la part des membres de mon caucus et de mon parti, j’aimerais vous expliquer pourquoi nous sommes toujours opposés au Gouvernement; pourquoi nous sommes toujours opposés au projet de loi qui a été présenté par le Gouvernement; et pourquoi nous continuons de penser qu’il n’est pas trop tard pour le Gouvernement de changer d’avis. En effet, il n’est pas trop tard pour le Gouvernement de changer de prise de position et d’accepter la réalité qu’une majorité de la population de cette province a le droit non seulement d’être entendue de façon formelle par le Gouvernement, mais encore d’être considérée sérieusement par le Gouvernement.

C’est pourquoi nous pensons qu’il faut apporter des changements au projet de loi, pour garantir que les gens de cette province auront l’occasion de passer leur temps le dimanche avec leur famille, sans avoir à travailler comme ils le font en semaine.

Eh bien, c’est une question fondamentale, M. le Président. Vous voyant occuper le fauteuil, je tiens à vous rappeler personnellement qu’au cours de la dernière élection, c’était le chef du Parti libéral (Mr. Peterson) qui disait aux journalistes, le 5 août 1987, qu’il était prêt à accepter le compromis de l’ancien parlement, du parlement minoritaire. En vertu de ce compromis -- les gens l’ont dit clairement, avec quelques exceptions, naturellement, exceptions qui sont importantes pour des raisons de convenance pour la majorité des travailleurs, pour la majorité des gens, le dimanche resterait un jour de congé.

Comme je le disais au député de Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger): « Un élément essentiel des élections, c’est l’intégrité. »

Naturellement, nous savons très bien que la parole des politiciens n’est pas toujours prise au sérieux. Mais nous avons tout de même le droit d’insister sur le fait que, quand le chef d’un parti dit, le 5 août 1987: « Oui, j’accepte la nécessité d’un jour commun de repos dans la province », alors, si cet homme change d’opinion, d’avis et de position, et si la position du Parti libéral change d’une façon si claire et nette quelques jours à peine après l’élection du 10 septembre, eh bien, la population de notre province a le droit de dire: « Non, ça, nous ne l’acceptons pas.

Nous n’acceptons pas un tel changement, une telle rupture de confiance, une telle rupture d’intégrité entre le chef du Parti libéral et la population de cette province. »

M. Pouliot: Le mensonge, le mensonge....

M. B. Rae: On se pose des questions sur l’intégrité de ce Gouvernement. On se pose des questions sur l’intégrité du Parti libéral en ce qui concerne cette question de travailler le dimanche. Ce sont là des questions qui ne vont pas disparaître. Ce sont là des questions qui resteront avec ce Gouvernement.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No problem with a French leaders’ debate for this national campaign.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say to the House today that if the government House leader is saying that he intends to propose a French-language debate in the next provincial election, I accept and look forward to that.

The simple reason we are on our feet today is that this is first and foremost a question of principle for members of the New Democratic Party. We believe that members’ time with their families, that workers’ time with their families, should be growing and not diminishing in this province as we head into the 21st century.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Have you read Dave Cooke’s speeches on this subject?

Mr. B. Rae: I am fascinated to hear the comments of the government House leader, but I would say to the House leader and I would say to you, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Conway: You’d never guess who shops in Port Huron, Michigan on Sunday.

Mr. Pouliot: You can’t do that to our leader.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Pouliot: What about the government House leader, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Dave Cooke’s speeches do it to me.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, these interruptions are part of the give and take, what shall I say, the cut and thrust of parliamentary life. I enjoy it. If the government House leader wants to take up valuable time in this House by heckling members with far less experience than himself, let him do that if that is what he chooses to do. I do not mind it.

I want to say there are really two issues here. There is first and foremost, of course, the issue itself. That is a question which, to us, has been fundamental. Many times people say to me: “Mr. Rae, surely you realize this is basically kind of a 19th-century issue. This is tied up with visions of a province that was tied to a particular religion or group of religions. It is essentially a question of observance of the Lord’s day. Surely as we approach the end of the 20th century, you yourself as a member of a progressive party would take the view of asking: “What is so special or different about Sunday?

Why should we have any particular laws protecting the rights of people to stay home on Sunday and the rights of people in the retail trades not to have to work and making sure that people are with their families on Sunday?”

I would say the answer to that is quite simple. This is not a 19th-century issue; this is very much a 20th-century issue. It is of course for a great many Ontarians, and this needs to be said, first and foremost a question of religious values. All of us in this House should respect that. But it is also for all the citizens of this province a basic question of how we organize our time together as families and how we organize our time together in the workplace.

I am delighted to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) here. I say to him that if he looks at this from the perspective of working time and working hours, it makes no sense to me and no sense to the members of our caucus that we would have a bill that would extend the time when people are working, that would extend the time when people have to get up early in the morning and catch the bus, if indeed there is a bus service that operates on Sunday where they live. They would have to spend the time arranging child care and spend the time figuring out what kinds of arrangements can be made for their family, instead of being able to spend time with their family.

That is why I say this issue is first and foremost a question of family time, of leisure time, of time off. It is definitely a step in the wrong direction, a step backwards and not a step forwards. That is the question of principle on the policy itself, but there is also another issue and that is the issue I now want to address very directly with the members.

That issue is the question of the integrity of this government in its approach to this entire issue. We had, as I said in French on August 5, a Premier (Mr. Peterson) who said to the press during the election campaign -- obviously, I was following what the Premier had to say on a daily basis with considerable interest and I had heard, as one always does in this business, not always directly, that there had been for some time a movement afoot within the Liberal Party to abandon the traditional approach to Sunday shopping and in fact to take the view that there should be open Sundays.

There were many comments and asides. We all know in this business that, for example, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) many times in this House when debating this issue, and I do not want to be unfair to my colleagues in the Conservative Party, the third party, but I do recall --

Mr. Brandt: Which party?

Mr. B. Rae: I do not get to say that very often about somebody else, so he will forgive me if I say it occasionally.

I can remember that when the former Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Grossman, floated a kind of balloon saying perhaps the Conservative Party would change its position on the question of Sunday opening, the Attorney General was heard to make some comments across the floor of the House -- I am speaking of the 1985-86 period -- saying: “Why shouldn’t it be a matter for local option? Why should we be making these decisions? Why shouldn’t it be left to the municipalities?”

The Attorney General is a persistent man, if nothing else, and this idea had obviously taken hold of him. I had heard that after the compromise of 1987 had been worked out, there was still the possibility that in the middle of an election campaign the Premier might -- because he would think it would be the yuppie and trendy thing to do and there were those urging him to make those kinds of decisions -- listen to the advice of those in his party who were looking to an issue that would be the equivalent of beer and wine in the corner store, which we all remember with such affection from the 1985 campaign.

Instead of beer and wine in the corner store, we thought we were going to have a sort of shop-till-you-drop kind of presentation from the Premier in the election.

So it was with considerable interest that I noted personally on the campaign trail when the Premier obviously said to those advisers: “No, I don’t want to shake the foundation of the province to that extent. I want to keep up with the compromise that was maintained and I don’t want that to be an issue and I don’t want to make that an issue.”

Therefore, the Premier told the voters of Ontario this: “Look, don’t worry. There is no other Liberal agenda out there on this question of Sunday opening. If you support the position that I am taking” -- I am trying to get my colleagues to listen here. It is not always easy, I might add. The leader of the third party knows how difficult that can be.

Mr. Brandt: The which party?

Mr. B. Rae: The third party.

What happened? The Premier told the voters in August that there would continue to be, in this province, a common pause day. That was the Liberal Party position in the election campaign, not of 1887 but of 1987, the one a little over a year and a half ago.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine not my surprise because --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Nothing surprises you.

Mr. B. Rae: The Minister of Labour said nothing surprises me. I can tell him nothing surprises me about the Liberal Party. Having watched it in its federal incarnation and now its provincial incarnation, nothing would surprise me about what the Liberal Party will do in order to maintain its hold on power.

What I was hit with was a sense of profound disappointment that the government would have so deceived the voters into believing they could still vote for the Liberal Party and maintain that common pause day which is, I suspect, the view of the vast majority of people of this province.

Mr. Ballinger: Amen.

Mr. B. Rae: Thank you, brother. If you want to come up here, if you have something to say, just come here.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Kneel down. I will give you my blessing.

Mr. B. Rae: If I had a ring, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) would not have come close to it, I am sure.

I want to say that this question of integrity lies at the heart of why this issue has aroused the population the way it has. It is basically a question that has not been dealt with in a straightforward fashion by the Liberal Party of this province. They promised something during an election campaign and they did the exact opposite.

The reason I am speaking to this motion now is because we had to fight very hard indeed to get the Liberals to recognize that this issue had to go to committee, that it had to have province-wide hearings and that people had the right to be heard. The Liberal Party wanted to get this thing through last year and hoped everybody would forget about it.

We know full well that is not what happened, but we also know the Liberal Party did not really listen to the people who presented their views. My colleagues who were on the committee are going to be speaking very directly about why they cannot support this reporting of the committee’s report for the simple reason that the Liberal Party said it would listen to people and it did not listen to people.

There were over 400 people presenting briefs to the committee who said: “You have to get rid of

section 4 at least or change

section 4 or amend

section 4. Do something to deal with the incredible powers you have given to municipalities.”

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) has been such a loyal servant of the administration. I am sure his efforts on behalf of the administration will not be overlooked. In fact, I suspect that if there are ever rumours of a shuffle taking place on that side, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick will be walking around with a portable telephone in his briefcase, waiting for that call. Any call will be answered. I know that and I can see it in his eyes.

This government did not listen to the people who presented briefs. It did not listen to all the groups whose views have been so effectively summarized by the legislative research service and whose views are contained in this brief. We have a list of the organizations and individuals appearing before the committee. That list is 20 pages long. It contains over 400 briefs of which only 26 were, in substance, in favour of the government’s approach to this legislation. If that is not an overwhelming condemnation of a piece of legislation by the people of this province, I do not know what is.

Many people ask me: “What is your approach going to be to this bill? What is the approach going to be from the New Democratic Party?” I can only tell the government this: I said to them when they brought in this bill on first reading that we would fight it. We have fought every step of the way, using the one tool we have in the parliamentary repertoire, and that is time.

We are going to use whatever method we can in terms of time to get this government to change its mind on the issue of substance. The matter of substance has to be listened to. The people of Ontario did not vote in 1987 for a party that said, “Vote for us and you will get wide-open shopping on Sunday.” They did not vote for that kind of party. They voted for a party that said, “Vote for us and we will keep things exactly as they are when it comes to Sunday.”

That is the party they voted for and that is not the party they got. They got a party that changed its colours, changed its tune, changed its policy and changed its commitment to suit the louder voices, to suit the bigger commercial interests that have been pressing back on this government to do what it is doing.

I say this government does not deserve the co-operation of the opposition. Frequently it is asked, “Why don’t you co-operate?” I say this: They will not get any co-operation from the New Democratic Party when it comes to bringing in a bill to open up Sunday shopping across this province. They will not get that co-operation.

We intend to use every opportunity for discussion that is presented to us in this House to put forward our view and to try to persuade, if we possibly can, the government to listen, not to us but to those thousands of people out there who presented their views to the committee and who were ignored by an arrogant, big, fat Liberal Party sitting on a 94-seat majority.

It is on behalf of those people that we are speaking. It is on behalf of the people in my riding, who I know, in the majority, are opposed to this legislation. It is on behalf of the people who we know who have written us, who have petitioned us, who have talked to us, who have come to us and who have said, “Look, Mr. Rae, I work six days a week; I don’t want to have to go to work on a Sunday,” who say to us: “We don’t want to have t