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

June 14, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L079 - Tue 14 Jun 1988 / Mar 14 jun 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SEXUAL ASSAULT

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

RECREATION TRAIL

NORTHERN STUDIES

VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

LOTTERY TICKETS

RESPONSES

LOTTERY TICKETS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

PROPERTY SPECULATION

SKYDOME

REGULATION OF BOILERS

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

POLICE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

RETAIL SALES TAX

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

FUTURES PROGRAM

NUCLEAR SAFETY

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

ROUGE VALLEY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

POLL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms. Bryden: Last April, the Metro Action Committee on Public Violence against Women and Children hosted a forum at the Toronto city hall entitled Stopping Rape II. It was attended by a cross-section of people working in the field, including police, health care professionals, social workers and persons working in the criminal justice field and rape crisis centres.

The committee has recently produced a five-page

summary of the recommendations which emerged from this forum. The action proposals are a lot more far-reaching than the $600,000 media and educational campaign initiated in June by the government. Specifically, the

summary identifies six ministries which are asked to take action to implement the proposals. I hope the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara) will undertake to see that his ministry and others produce action programs in their fields immediately.

Those from the Liberal Party who spoke stated their commitment, but we have seen much talk and little action in the field of solving the serious problem of sexual assault across the whole province, also of helping the rape crisis centres and the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic. This is what we are looking for in the way of action from this committee.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) had great expectations for her ministry in October. However, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) obviously has had another idea in April. All school year long we heard commitment after commitment from the minister. The post-secondary education community warmed to the idea of more programs but warned that all these programs came with a big price tag.

In April, when the Treasurer tabled his budget, the university community itself was told implicitly that it was now its job to find the funds to pay for ministry programs. Right now, nearly a dozen Ontario universities are carrying out fund-raising efforts. In light of the fact that it has failed to live up to its commitment in funding for post-secondary education, it is incumbent upon the government to assist these efforts in every possible way.

At the University of Toronto, for example, the government could provide a relatively inexpensive five-year capital plan which would assist the university in raising funds from alumni and other private sector sources. As well, the university might benefit from a dollar-for-dollar fund-raising effort for certain programs.

The bottom line is that if universities are going to send out into the hustings to raise money, the government is going to have to take a proactive role in assisting them in this regard.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Daigeler: Many members of this House, as well as independent observers, were very impressed by the submission of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to the select committee on constitutional reform. I share these sentiments and I wish to congratulate the Attorney General for an excellent explanation of the benefits and limits of the Meech Lake accord.

At the same time, I feel this document is primarily addressed to the minds of people. My concern is that we also need some initiatives that would speak to the hearts of our nation. I am sure members will agree that nation-building is not only a process of the mind and of the will but equally of emotions and feelings. My hope is that a way be found that will stir our collective pride about Quebec’s place in Confederation in a way that Expo 67 did some 20 years ago.

I invite the Prime Minister and any interested provincial government to bring together some of the leading pro-Canada voices in the Quebec referendum and to invite them on a speaking tour across Canada. As I see it, such an initiative should help to dispel some of the misinformation that still exists on the Meech Lake accord and, at the same time, to strengthen our understanding of Quebec’s legitimate expectations.

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Hampton: I have before me a map, the map that has appeared in major US newspapers across midwestern United States. It was placed there by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, advertising tourism in northwestern Ontario.

The sad thing about this map is that when one looks at it, one would believe there are only three communities in northwestern Ontario: Kenora, Fort Frances and Dryden. In fact, the three communities which probably do not need tourism as much as the rest of the northwestern part of the province appear on this map, but the communities which are being told by this government to invest in tourism do not appear on the map. Quetico Provincial Park, Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Rainy River and Sioux Lookout do not appear on the map. All other communities which have been told by this government, “Invest in tourism,” do not even appear on the map.

This is disgraceful. If the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is going to invest money advertising in the United States, at least it should advertise the communities that need tourism dollars and are pursuing tourism.

RECREATION TRAIL

Mr. Pollock: Last Thursday, staff of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) contacted me in regard to an abandoned railroad line in my riding, known as the Marmora subdivision. They informed me that the minister had a commitment in eastern Ontario on Friday afternoon but would be available to tour the railroad line in the morning. We checked our schedules and agreed to meet at Canadian Forces Base Trenton at 8:30 Friday morning.

Conditions were excellent for our flight, enabling us to view this line clearly. I am sure the minister would agree with me that this line travels through mostly rough terrain. Although the minister did not make a commitment, I appreciate his taking time out of his busy

schedule to see this abandoned railroad line.

I hope the standing committee on resources development will also take the opportunity to view this abandoned line and also hear briefs from concerned citizens’ groups that would like to see this abandoned railroad line be a recreation trail.

NORTHERN STUDIES

Mr. Adams: I rise to draw the attention of this House to the importance of northern studies in our educational institutions. The north is a keystone of the heritage of Canada and of this province. Many of our colleges and universities, including those in northern Ontario, have fine records in study and research related to the north. The fields involved include native studies, health sciences, engineering, geography, biology, forestry, history and many others.

Through this work, these institutions have contributed to the proper development of northern Canada and to the proper development of the entire circumpolar world. I urge both the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to keep this important and useful area of academic work in the forefront of their minds when making decisions about education in this province.

Through northern studies, our schools, colleges and universities in this province can make an important contribution towards safeguarding the sovereignty of Canada’s north.

VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Once one has been here for nine years, one gets a sense of déjà vu about a number of things. Reading in the paper this morning that the issue around the safety of video display terminal operators is still a hot one reminded me today that it was in 1981 that I introduced

An Act for the Protection of Video Display Terminal Operators. New studies are showing that there may be a difficulty with the radiation that comes from this equipment.

My bill at that time called for total shielding and regular inspection, and the government of the day is arguing against its employees, saying that there is no problem, that we do not need to give this kind of protection.

I want the House to know that in our caucus we have now shielded all our caucus equipment. We are in the process of trying to shield the equipment in the members’ offices, because that is under the government’s authority and we are still having trouble getting it to get its inspectors in and to get us the proper shielding for our equipment that we should have.

It is time, it seems to me, that we erred on the side of caution, as I suggested we should do in 1981, that we make sure there are no emissions from these machines which are out and around, and that we do not wait for some study to show these problems are real and that the kind of problems with birth defects and with early cancellation of pregnancies do not continue.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to raise with you a question arising from some correspondence that my staff has had with the Ministry of Health. We have received a copy of a letter signed by Malcolm Walker, who is the director of the institutional operations branch, sent to the 22 hospitals that had a review done of their activities.

The letter said: “This letter is to request that the report of the consultants, following the operational review of your hospital, is available to interested individuals, in order to fulfil the requirements of the freedom-of-information legislation.

“A copy of the report should be made available in the library or reading room of your institution. Thank you for your co-operation.”

The research director for the New Democratic Party then wrote to Linda Heslegrave, of the freedom of information office at the Ontario Ministry of Health, asking for a copy of each of the reviews. Mr. Rachlis got back a letter, on May 27, saying that it would be looked at. Then, on June 8, 1988, he received a letter saying, “Further to your access request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy Act, please be advised that the estimated fee for the record you have requested is $650.” This letter then goes on to say, “You may request a review of this decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Sidney Linden.”

Mr. Speaker, I know your ruling yesterday and I obviously listened to it with considerable interest, but I would like to ask that on agreement of the three House leaders, perhaps this question could be referred to the relevant committee of the House, which could look at this question.

I can tell you, I am not prepared to see the use of an unwarranted and unjustifiable user fee prevent me and my party from having access to information which is supposed to be publicly available.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Put it on the order paper.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer says, “Put it on the order paper.”

All I know is that with this kind of unwarranted delay, if the information is publicly available in every hospital, if it is there, why jerk everybody around for weeks on end in order to get access to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully. The member has suggested that the Speaker might, as I understood it, request that the House leaders consider the matter. I believe in my ruling yesterday I made reference to this matter and stated that it would be up to the House to decide. So you have brought the matter to the attention of the House leaders.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The three House leaders did discuss this matter when the matter had originally been raised by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling). There was agreement by the three House leaders that this matter could be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Would it not be appropriate for that to be done, since both other House leaders are here now that there be agreement that this matter be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee now?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) quite rightly points out that we did discuss this matter when it was first brought to the House’s attention some time ago. Certainly, on behalf of the government, I am quite agreeable to having this matter referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly since, in addition to this particular matter or this particular aspect of freedom of information, that committee is going to be dealing with other aspects of the freedom-of-information question later this summer.

I would be more than happy, consistent with the discussions we had at the House leaders’ panel, to indicate the government’s willingness to refer this matter out to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for such consideration as that committee decides upon.

Mr. Speaker: Following that discussion, I guess I have nothing further to add, other than to indicate that on a previous occasion I did rule that matters should be referred by this House. I presume that will be taken into consideration at the appropriate time.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

LOTTERY TICKETS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am making this statement on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil). I want to inform the members of the House today that Money Match and Double Dollars Instant lottery tickets have been withdrawn from sale across the province because of a security problem. Tickets for other games, including the Lucky Match Instant game, are secure and will remain on sale.

The tickets are being recalled because the Ontario Lottery Corp. received important information this morning which allowed it to duplicate tests revealing symbols under the latex covering on the tickets. Supply of these tickets to the corporation’s distributors had been halted early yesterday morning as a precautionary measure.

Regular security testing is carried out on all OLC tickets by the official laboratory of the National Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, Barker and Herbert. The tickets for each game passed a battery of tests, including X-ray, three times. These tests did not reveal any security breach.

I am advised that the type of equipment used to reveal the security problem is specialized and used in highly sophisticated industrial applications. There are very few of these machines in Canada and they are not readily available.

The lottery corporation’s testing has always been among the most intensive on the continent. It will continue to evaluate its security testing procedures to ensure it is keeping abreast of changes in technology.

RESPONSES

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr. Farnan: We welcome the decision of the Ontario Lottery Corp. to withdraw these tickets from the marketplace. I would like to comment, and I think it is worth reading into the record, that I think the decision is a result of some very excellent investigative journalism on the part of two Toronto Sun reporters.

I would like to point out that in tests that were demonstrated yesterday, both the Ontario Lottery Corp. and ministry officials were invited to witness the tests, which would demonstrate that with the use of X-rays you could read these numbers without scratching the tickets. Both the ministry and OLC refused to attend those tests.

Second, as late as last night, representatives of the OLC were denying the fact that it was possible to read these tickets. It has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. The public demands that if there is going to be a lottery, if must be above reproach. The public must have absolute confidence that the system cannot be cracked. I think it was proved yesterday that, indeed, these two particular tickets could be read using X-rays.

I think it is also important to point out that all scratch-and-win tickets should be removed at this stage. If you had told the ministry two weeks ago that X-rays could crack this system, it would have said no. Indeed, even after the Sun had demonstrated yesterday that the system could be cracked, OLC officials were denying that it was so.

The people of Ontario and Canada cannot have confidence because, basically, we are talking about machinery that is out there. There are a variety of factors and all it requires is some fine-tuning to break the code of those other tickets. The responsible thing for this government to do would be to act now. The reason they will act on the tickets in question is that they have been embarrassed, because it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But what they are doing now is saying: “We were embarrassed. We will withdraw these two tickets but we are not going to withdraw all of the other tickets.”

Let me tell the government that public confidence in the OLC with regard to scratch-and-win tickets is nilch. There can be no confidence among the people of Ontario and, of course, the people of Ontario just have to look at the minister right now and see that the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) does not give two whits about the people of Ontario. He can go on and have all sorts of conversations. He does not have to listen to what the opposition says. He can simply ignore what is going on in this House.

The reality of the matter is that those people who are spending one or two dollars on a system that is open to abuse will continue to do so while the Deputy Premier of Ontario does not care a whit and carries on his private conversations.

Mr. Pope: I want to say to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil), who has responsibility in the Legislature for the operation of this system, that once again he has bungled. This is the third time in a week we have seen bungling and mismanagement by this particular minister in his responsibilities. First, we have seen that the tickets posed a security leak. Second, we have seen the printing of tickets in the United States. Third, we have seen prizes offered that are not readily available to residents across this province.

This minister is responsible for it. It has gotten completely out of control. He has to be answerable to this Legislature for it. We now have large portions of northern Ontario that cannot participate equally in the awarding of prizes under the systems that have been implemented under his guidance and under his responsibility.

It is time the minister took his responsibilities seriously. It is time he redressed this blatant discrimination against people in northern Ontario and it is time he offered, as an alternative to commercial prizes in our lottery system, a system of passes or rebates on passes to the Polar Bear Express, to the mine tour, to the pulp and paper path tour and to tourism facilities, services and attractions across Ontario -- in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario -- and stop the bungling with the lottery system that the Liberal government is responsible for.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. B. Rae: In view of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to ask some questions of the Treasurer arising out of our discussions yesterday about the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. They relate, I believe, more profoundly to questions about the perceived fairness, the sense of fairness in the province about the way a ministry, which has an awful lot of power and a very large budget, uses that power and wields that power in its dealings with individual hospitals and hospital boards.

The Treasurer will have been made aware, or at least he should have been made aware, that Mr. Robertson, who is now the administrator of the board, has submitted his resignation to the board, but the board has yet to reach a decision on what to do.

Because the board has the support of the Woods Gordon study, which states very clearly that management of the hospital is not the problem and that indeed Mr. Robertson is “a highly capable individual who is well regarded by his peers,” to quote the words of the Woods Gordon report, if the board feels in its wisdom and judgement that it should not accept Mr. Robertson’s resignation, can the Treasurer give us the commitment of the government that the government will not exact any further requirements from the board other than that the board, generally speaking, comply with government policy?

In other words, do we have the assurance that the board and the hospital will not be punished by the government?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The matter was raised by a number of honourable members yesterday in question period. I said then, and I say now, that the decision as to the employment of the administrator of the hospital under consideration is a decision made by the local board.

As a matter of fact, the honourable members have expressed their concern that recent tax increases, particularly when related to growth in the economy, have increased the revenues of the province substantially. The honourable members would know, having read the budget, that 40 per cent of those additional revenues have been added to the budget of the Ministry of Health, a large proportion of that money being allocated to hospitals, so any thought that there is a cutback in hospital funding is erroneous.

But on that basis, we do believe that the hospitals, having entered into a budget for the allocation of funds for the provision of hospital services in the community, should do their best to live within that budget. If they cannot, they must apply to the Ministry of Health for the kind of assistance in planning and administration that is appropriate.

In the instance of the hospital in question, the Minister of Health sent in an inspector to assist the board and the administration in coming to some suitable disposition of their budgetary problems. If the board finds that it --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: This is very important. This is not simply a question of underfunding. What we are dealing with here is a question of the fairness of the system as it relates to individuals who work within that system.

The board had a press conference. Mr. Robertson was very vocal at that press conference in defending, from his perspective, what the board had been trying to do and what the hospital had been trying to do.

The government’s response to that was to send in Mr. Stoughton with some very specific goals in mind. What we are now dealing with is whether or not this government is prepared to recognize that it may also be wrong and that in fact the Woods Gordon report may be right.

What I am asking the Treasurer is, notwithstanding his differences of opinion with the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, can he give us an assurance today that he is not exacting or requiring or insisting on, in any way, the punishing or firing or mandatory retirement of the administrator of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital? I am asking him a very specific question. I would like a specific answer.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I can assure the honourable member that there is no such insistence, and it does not seem reasonable that he would think there would be.

Mr. B. Rae: I am glad to have that now on the record because that is going to be very important in how the Cambridge Memorial Hospital reaches its decision. If the Ministry of Health is giving the impression that this is the requirement in order for future co-operation between the ministry and the hospital, then the hospital board is in an impossible position.

I ask the Treasurer again, can he give us the categorical assurance that whatever the board does with respect to the employment of Mr. Robertson, the government will continue to co-operate in a positive way with the Cambridge Memorial Hospital in making sure that that hospital can meet its needs?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am not the Minister of Health but I am the Treasurer and I feel it is important that all hospital boards, through their own decisions and through their decisions to employ administrators, have sufficient assistance and advice so that they can live up to the requirement of operating under a balanced budget, if at all possible.

I add that as an additional phrase simply to make it clear that all hospital boards, naturally, have access to the ministry’s officials and those people who are familiar with the administration of hospitals coming under budget so that they can meet those requirements.

The decision as to whom the hospital boards employ, in Cambridge or anywhere else, is entirely theirs.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps it would be a good idea if those words could be taken directly to the Deputy Minister of Health, who would then discover that he is not responsible for appointing or firing every single person who works in the health system in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to whom?

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. B. Rae: My question, by way of an additional leader’s question, which I appreciate always, is to the Treasurer as well, because he is here and I know he will be glad to assist me.

It deals with the subject of housing. Again, I ask the Treasurer this not because I would prefer to go to him, for a variety of reasons, but because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is not here and the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) is also away today. So he gets the prize.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: Watch the neck, Treasurer; I hate to see it get too red.

The question I have for the Treasurer is this: Yesterday I raised in the House the example of the tenants at 914 Yonge Street who are living in what I described as hidden condos. I would like also now to ask the Treasurer to address another problem that tenants who are being evicted are having.

Tenants in Kitchener-Waterloo, at 24 Peppler Street, and tenants at 500, 504 and 520 Kingston Road have all been evicted in order to create an empty building which is then being converted into condominiums. I ask the Treasurer, why has he not plugged the loophole in the law which allows landlords to create empty buildings which are then exempt from any protection under our laws on conversions to condominiums? Does he not realize that in failing to close that loophole --

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

Mr. B. Rae: -- in fact he is putting these people out on the street?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member referred to my getting the prize. I am not sure what he was referring to unless he was thinking of a prize in terms of his own presence here, in which case I know it is not Christmas. Since the question had a certain degree of detail, I would be glad to bring that to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Housing on her return.

Mr. B. Rae: Just so the Treasurer will know, he persists in saying that when it comes to the matter of speculation on housing he is from Missouri and, being only the Treasurer of Ontario, he is not aware of what is going on in the marketplace.

I would like to refer him very specifically to the example of what has been going on on Kingston Road, which is not that far a drive along through the east end from Queen’s Park. Let me remind the Treasurer that there is a 102-unit apartment complex which was sold on December 30, 1986, for $1.7 million. On September 1, 1987, the building was sold again, this time for $3.6 million, which means it increased by 114 per cent in just eight months.

The question I have for the Treasurer is, how can he deny that there is speculation going on in the province when it is so visibly and palpably there for him to see, if only he would see it? If it is going on, why does he not do more to stop it by introducing a speculation tax in the province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The facts the Leader of the Opposition presents to the House I am not prepared to argue about, but he would be aware that people have made profit out of land and buildings for a long time. I did not know it was illegal to do so, but the honourable member points out areas of unconscionable profits, in his view.

The government policy, rather than moving in with the land speculation tax which he favours, is to use the strength of government and its organization to assist, with the co-operation of municipalities, and to allocate the funds in our budget year by year to strong and effective programs to improve the supply of housing, particularly in the affordable range.

While the Leader of the Opposition so far has not indicated to the House that he feels even those programs are sufficient, they do indicate one of the largest additional allocations in a budget of over $38 billion. I wish it were more effective than it is and I wish the money were larger in sum than it is, but in fact it constitutes an effective and well-administered approach to providing the housing needs in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer has a choice before him. He can turn a blind eye to what is going on in the marketplace and say: “It is just people making money. There is nothing wrong with that.” It is part of the system that he is so much in favour of. Or he can really ask himself the question: Why is this speculation in apartment buildings going on? The answer is that landlords believe they can drive a truck through the rent review law, they believe they can drive a truck through the Rental Housing Protection Act; and that is what they are doing.

In this instance that I have given the Treasurer, can he tell us why there has been --

Mr. Reville: This will be a good answer.

Mr. B. Rae: He is getting advice from the former Minister of Housing, now the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), so I am just waiting for them.

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: I think he was looking for a straw and got a brick. I am not quite sure.

I will ask the Treasurer this simple question: Can he tell us why it is that people are being evicted and put out on the street? For the simple reason that the landlords have taken over. They have bought the building and they have to get that cash flow. They are getting the cash flow by evicting people and by converting buildings into condominiums. Does he not understand that this is going on? Why does he not do something to stop it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Actually, I was consulting with my colleague as to whether the New Democratic Party had voted for the rent control law. The member will be glad to know that he told me they had not. Even in those days, they voted for most of those things, as I recall.

The honourable member says, “Do you know why this is so?” I guess the reason it is so is that, as I understand it, Toronto has become -- dare I use the adjective? -- a world-class city, and I think we should say so with pride. People from all over the world are locating here.

Because of the policies of this administration in opening up the business expansion in this province and in this city, people all over the world are coming into this particular jurisdiction seeking the opportunity to live in one of the finest, cleanest, safest cities to be found anywhere. On that basis, there is bound to be substantial competition.

I point out to the honourable member, who has not travelled anywhere since he got back from Beijing, that if we were to compare the costs of housing in this city with others, they would be only a quarter of what they are in New York: only half of what it costs in London; only an eighth of what it costs in Tokyo. Of course, in Beijing, you have to be a Communist to get housing at all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SKYDOME

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Treasurer, whenever he and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) are finished.

I would like to say to the Treasurer that his humility in suggesting that Toronto has become a world-class city in the last three years is totally overwhelming; it really is. The speed with which he has developed this community is just unbelievable

-- “unbelievable” in the context of not being believable. I want him to know that.

My question is with respect to another world-class development in this community, which was started by a previous administration and, I might add, a project our party continues to endorse and support as long as that support remains reasonable and realistic. I speak, of course, of the SkyDome project.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson), as the Treasurer may recall, indicated that support for the SkyDome project would not exceed $30 million in terms of provincial participation. In light of the work stoppages which are going on at that site at the moment, can the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier indicate to this House whether the commitment for an upper limit of $30 million in provincial contributions to that project remains firm?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It does.

Mr. Brandt: I wonder how that washes, as the Treasurer is the guardian of the public purse in his position, with the Premier’s statement indicating the province will have to pay if SkyDome develops money problems. He went on to say: “If the thing goes amiss, we end up carrying the responsibility. We end up carrying the liability.” Can the Treasurer explain the contradiction between the comment he has just made, namely, that the limit for provincial contributions is $30 million, and the Premier’s indicated statements, which would lead one to believe that there is no upper limit and that the government will have to fund the liability? How did that contradiction come about?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not consider it a contradiction, mostly because nothing is going to go wrong.

Mr. Brandt: I love these quick answers to complicated questions.

Let me ask the Treasurer if he recalls, on August 15, 1985, that the standing committee on public accounts asked the Provincial Auditor to investigate the SkyDome project in order to protect the interests of the Ontario taxpayer with respect to any open-endedness in terms of the ultimate cost of that project and any potential areas for cost overruns, such as we are experiencing now.

The chief recommendation that came from the Provincial Auditor on that occasion was that we should undertake a commitment on a fixed-price basis; in other words, we would make our commitment with that $30 million as a built-in upper limit. I would like to ask the Treasurer if that step was taken, as suggested by the Provincial Auditor, in order to protect the interests of the Ontario taxpayer. If it was not taken, why was it not taken?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I find myself in the interesting situation that, as a person who is only peripherally interested in organized sports, I am the single shareholder of the Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. I inherited that from the responsibility of one of my predecessors -- in fact, the member’s predecessor -- Mr. Grossman, who now, according to the Financial Times, is employed downtown at a base salary of $500,000 a year. That is irrelevant, but it is an indication that you win by losing in this game. As I say, you win by losing in this game, but unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition loses and loses.

If there is an overrun -- and I do not believe there will be any significant one -- and this strike continues -- I go by the dome twice a day and see what is happening as I drive along and look. It is coming along very well indeed, but as the member knows, the stadium corporation has a line of credit that finances the construction based on the financing which is in place. Those additional costs, if there are any, will be taken out of the profits when it is up and running and the roof opening and closing regularly and a very good and substantial series of public programs there, including football, baseball, tractor pulls and ballet dancing. All of those things are going to be there --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

REGULATION OF BOILERS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This week the minister issued a press release ordering escalator owners to check their brakes. I wonder if the minister, the great defender of public safety, can tell us why, if he wants to appear consistent with his concern for public safety, he has not asked for a new, independent assessment of the safety of the boiler produced by Miura.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The two are not the same at all. The independent assessment has been done. It has been done by the board of review, technical experts who have indicated to me that the boiler is safe. Indeed, it not only meets but exceeds the standards. It has, as well, been done by members of the technical standards division of the ministry. In 1986, in doing that assessment, the members of that division ordered several improvements to be made in the Miura boiler which would bring it up to the very rigorous standards that we have in Ontario and would take it beyond the standards of the very safe Miura boilers that are now in operation in Japan.

Mr. Runciman: The minister mentioned the review board again. He has indicated in this House that he made his decision based on the recommendation of an inspector who accepted a substantial personal benefit -- a free trip to Japan for his wife -- from the company he was inspecting, and the minister acknowledged that.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, after the changes the minister has mentioned, says the regulatory change is an open invitation to boiler explosions and damage to life and limb. Again, following these changes, the former member of the minister’s board of review who represented the Institute of Power Engineers said, “I think there will be a safety problem.” How does the minister justify his refusal in the light of those comments and the revelations about his inspector’s conduct?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If the honourable member is making a suggestion that the judgement of the former director of the branch was compromised, then he should stand up and say so.

I say to my honourable friend that in June 1986, following the visit to Japan, technical standards officials asked for improvements in quality control programs, and they were upgraded to the same level as those required of an Ontario-based manufacturer.

As well, in order to meet our design and fabrication standards for the boilers, we required Miura to make improvements in the following areas to meet our codes in Ontario: material control, welding quality of critical joints, post-welding stress relieving by heat treating and X-rays of critical welded joints. All of those were demands that we made on Miura and all of those demands were met by Miura. I really do not understand what my friend is suggesting, when the opposite is very clearly the case. The officials went to Japan, looked at the matter of these boilers and ordered substantial improvements.

Mr. Runciman: We are not getting any really meaningful answers. There is something seriously wrong here, and the minister is declining to answer. The minister is intransigent, despite the knowledge that the advice he received was tainted and despite serious safety concerns of experts in the field. He says the board of review was going to recommend change anyway; yet the committee’s minutes show there was no resolution to this effect, and the union representative on the board says it was never agreed to.

There are a great many questions and concerns here. Is the minister prepared to request a forensic audit of the technical assessment process undertaken with respect to the Miura boiler by the Provincial Auditor or a referral of this matter to a House committee?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to say to my friend that he certainly can feel free, as can members of the third party, to get in touch with each and every member of the board of review, including those members of the board of review who represent the union in question. They came to my office in, I believe, May of this year. I could get the exact date for my friend if he wants it.

We went around the table and I asked each and every one of the six of the seven members who were there that day, including the chairman, if he considered the Miura boiler to be safe, because there had been an amount of to-ing and fro-ing in terms of the safety issue by the operating engineers union, and some concerns had been raised by one local.

Each and every member of the board of review, without exception, said that the boiler was safe. A number of them said that in their opinion that boiler was safer than other standard boilers now in use in this province.

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like to go back to the Treasurer with regard to the Massey-Varity fiasco, where hundreds of retirees have already lost their benefits in a restructuring deal to which this government was party.

The Treasurer is aware of a recent second letter from Mr. Hargrove, the assistant to the director of the Canadian Auto Workers, informing him of a purchase offer of the Massey Combines operation in Brantford. He is also, I am sure, aware that he himself has said he would like to see this property stay in production. It is one of the finest industrial sites in Canada, and a lot of people are concerned about the production and development of the rotary combine equipment which has been developed by White’s.

Can the Treasurer tell us if he is prepared to take a look at this offer, rather than allow speculators and land developers to sell this property off piece by piece and possibly renege a bit or repair the bad name of Ontario to the people and workers in Brantford?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the honourable member’s reference to the problems that Brantford has experienced over a number of years, first, with White Farm Equipment going into receivership after a number of programs which were designed to keep it operational, and now with Massey, which really means that the face of the manufacturing capability of Brantford has been totally changed, almost as if the mines had closed in Sudbury, for example. The restructuring of the town and the buoyancy in the economy which have been re-established there were really largely under the leadership of our colleague and friend, the present member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann), who was the mayor at that time.

The honourable member also indicated that he agreed with me that it is an extremely desirable industrial site. It is located right next to the Canadian National Railway main line, close to Highway 403, with one of the most beautiful cities in North America as its general environment. It has a workforce that is well-trained, competent and certainly ready to move into any manufacturing capability that is there.

It is, frankly, my hope and expectation that within the next few weeks and months somebody -- and it may very well be Park of Cleveland, which the honourable member is referring to -- will find himself in a position to begin manufacturing there, in a way which will be very much desired.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure the Treasurer is aware that the Park Corp. offer, at least at present, was not contingent on provincial funding. I do not know whether he is aware that George Merrick, vice-president of the company, was more than keen to talk to both provincial and federal people when we discussed it with him at noon today. The only real assistance he has had in the last few days seems to have come from Derek Blackburn, who is arranging a meeting with Mr. de Cotret.

Is the Treasurer prepared to meet with him to discuss what might be done to make sure that this does remain a manufacturing operation and is not subject to the profits of land speculators?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate also the fact that the honourable member has directed the question to me, but I think he would be better advised to direct it to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), under whose aegis would come any arrangements whereby assistance to any prospective employer from Cleveland or anywhere else would have to be given consideration.

POLICE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Mr. Cureatz: We have a question to the Solicitor General. I would like to point out to her the fact that --

Mr. Sorbara: Who’s “we?”

Mr. Cureatz: My new colleague and I have a question.

Mrs. Cunningham: A joint question.

Mr. Cureatz: We worked on it together. We noticed in the Toronto Star, Mr. Speaker, if I might continue?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable member, when he said “we,” meant he was going to place his question through the Speaker to the minister.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right. I knew that is what I meant.

It is reported in the Toronto Star that Todd Clarke attended his Ontario Provincial Police academy graduation ceremony. At that time, he fainted, had a seizure and was taken to hospital. Eighteen days later, the OPP fired Mr. Clarke because he was thought to be an epileptic and considered a high risk.

This insensitive approach, I feel, sets a very discouraging atmosphere for all officers of our very fine provincial police force. I am wondering if the Solicitor General might consider bringing in her own investigative report with regard to the incidents surrounding the firing, in conjunction with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Let me assure the member that I share his concern if there is any problem here with the force and have already been looking into it.

I can tell the member this. We cannot discuss the individual case because it is before a court and its decision will be rendered. At that time, we will study the decision and study our own role in it.

However, I want to assure the member that the force, as a matter of policy, is indeed making every effort to employ people with different degrees of disability and to make sure they are employed in a way that is safe both to them and those with whom they work. This covers the broad range of all the jobs within the OPP. I have been assured by the top people, the commissioner, that this indeed is the philosophy and is being followed.

I would like to add, however, that there is a human element in this. I was on the board of directors of Epilepsy Ontario, southwestern Ontario division, being London. I think there is probably no disease more misunderstood by the general public and even by the so-called informed general public than epilepsy. It could well be that, somewhere down the chain of command within the OPP, there is someone who does not properly understand the nature of the disease and, therefore, has made a decision that did not reflect the true medical facts.

I will be looking into this and will be glad to report back to the member on it.

Mr. Cureatz: To the minister, through the Speaker again, we have another question. I can appreciate the minister’s concerns about not wanting to get too specific about the case at this point.

In that regard, we have a general question about some police officers in the Metropolitan Toronto area. The force has been using, it has been reported, female officers for entrapment of men buying sex. I can say that I personally find this use of female officers unbecoming to the dignity of and, hence, the respect for police officers generally.

I can say to the minister that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. The point is that I was hoping the Solicitor General might give a commitment to this House to approach one June Rowlands, with whom the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) has a passing kinship, I am sure, to suggest to her that this method of police enforcement is below the dignity of police officers --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat? Order.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris).

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member for Nipissing raised a question about the use of Ministry of Natural Resources aircraft. There was a presumption in the question, which I certainly do not agree with, that back-bench Liberal members could requisition an aircraft, which is not true.

I was very careful about this and I want the member to know I examined this carefully. I am pleased to inform him that the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash) joined the MNR district manager and the operations manager on a routine flight to discuss winter roads and other local issues with the native communities.

[Laughter]

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not find that so laughable. I am relating the facts to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The response?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member cannot be laughing about something from yesterday, because he was not here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a response?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The requisition is very clear. The requisition was by J. K. Young, the district manager in Sioux Lookout. It was a routine flight examining winter roads and issues that were important to native Ontarians, if they are not important to members opposite. I think the member was well within his rights to go on the flight.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I would indicate to the minister that nothing he has said today jibes with the press release that was put out by the member for Kenora. The release that was put out to the Northern Miner indicated it was his trip. Two of the minister’s officials accompanied him and it was a ministry aircraft.

I would ask the minister to go back to the original question I asked.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I might say to the minister that it does not jibe either with what the member told the media after, that he contacted Ministry of Natural Resources staff and said, “I would like to go when you are going.” That is what he said.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you place your supplementary?

Mr. Harris: I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to table the request from the ministry, which has been cooked up over the week he has had, as to why this aircraft and three-day trip were set up, if he would table that information along with the flight log and the request that went in and if he would answer the original question, which is: When did he change his policy and allow back-bench members of the Liberal Party to be able to request government aircraft at any time they want?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is obvious the member is not willing to accept an answer that was well researched to be absolutely certain there was no requisitioning by a member. Let me share something with the member that is very important. He should listen carefully, and now that the man with the horse laugh is gone maybe I could put the answer. This is very important.

Northern members -- members representing the electoral districts of Cochrane North, Kenora, Rainy River and Lake Nipigon -- are reimbursed the cost of unlimited travel by airplane within their constituencies by the most economical means. I have to tell the member that this man should not be criticized but given credit for going when there was a flight that was already going to take place and not requisitioning an aircraft, which he is entitled to do.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: What the minister has just said is inaccurate, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is your point of order?

Mr. Pouliot: A standing order deals with provocation and getting an inaccurate statement from the minister. The people for those four ridings have a budget of $7,500.

Mr. Harris: That’s right. It is not unlimited.

Mr. Pouliot: It is not unlimited. It has been changed recently. I happened to be one not treated equally.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears to have become an administrative matter.

The member for Guelph.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We will just wait a few minutes. If the members wish to waste the time this way, we will just wait for them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Treasurer. The question pertains to a problem brought to my attention by a constituent of mine, and indeed I must admit I have a lot of sympathy with her concern. Specifically, the problem arises as a result of the May 2 budget changes and the calculation of provincial tax, more specifically with the calculation of Bell Canada telephone bills.

By way of example, my own bill on chargeable calls for this month was $6.59. The federal tax on it, 10 per cent, is 66 cents. The provincial tax is then calculated on the basis of that aggregate. Subsequently, in reality, the amount of provincial tax is closer to nine per cent than eight per cent, and while in isolation it is not much -- it is 60 cents here -- if one took millions of households and businesses it would result in millions of dollars.

My question to the Treasurer specifically is in relation to the fact that, certainly from my standpoint, there is lacking some logic in justifying a provincial tax on the chargeable calls and the aggregate of those calls with the federal tax -- in other words, a tax on tax. Could he comment on that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the member for giving me notice of the question because, frankly, I have been expecting such a sensible question to come from a member of the opposition but it never came. I waited and waited.

Actually the honourable member is right that it will add about $20 million to the revenue of the province this year and the reason the taxpayers know about it is because, as the member pointed out, it is specifically put on an individual’s telephone bill. The Bell corporation was good enough to include a special little folder the first time the bill included that additional tax so that everybody would know about it.

On that basis I think that, like sales tax in general, it is healthy if a tax can be up front. People understand that they are paying it in support of provincial government programs. On that basis it was levied for the same reason that other taxes were levied.

We felt that it was as fair and equitable as a tax can be and we had to have the money to pay for hospital services, for roads, for schools, for new research facilities for the opposition parties and a wide variety of funding adding up to $38 billion.

Mr. Ferraro: I appreciate what the Treasurer says. It is still not too palatable, to be quite honest; but having said that, could he indicate to the House whether it is his intention to carry on with this practice? Could he also enlighten us as to the procedure in other provinces in Canada?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Every province that taxes telecommunications, except Quebec, taxes it in this way.

As the member knows, the sales tax at the federal level is put on at the manufacturing level at this particular time. Our sales tax of eight per cent goes on on top of that, so there is the concept of tax on tax. While the phrase itself is not a nice one and, as the honourable member points out he does not like the idea, still he pays a tax on tax almost every time he buys an item, because the federal tax is hidden; it is not up front. Most taxpayers do not believe or understand that they even pay it.

I understand that this policy may very well change, according to the Minister of Finance for Canada as he contemplates a federal sales tax.

I should also say that this change will be a

section in the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) has already introduced. We will certainly get to debating that, and I hope approving it, at an early time.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Attorney General. Last week the Attorney General appealed a Supreme Court decision that held the province of Ontario liable because it had sold homes on McClure Crescent in Scarborough to people who were living on that radioactive soil. It was in July 1987 that the court found the province liable and since then the residents have had to hire appraisers and actuaries to determine the amount of damages.

The actual filing of the order for damages was last May, but the decision that the Attorney General is appealing is the finding of liability and not the damages themselves. Can the Attorney General explain why he did not file an appeal last August after the Supreme Court decision came down? Why has he waited until now to make that appeal?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question. It would not be usual, although possible, to file an appeal until the judicial determination as to liability and damages has been made.

While the determination as to liability was made some time ago and the determination as to damages was made more recently, the damages have not, as yet, been quantified, and we are now in the process of doing that.

The issue of an appeal was always present. We determined, I think last week or the week before, that this was an appropriate case to take such an appeal.

Mrs. Grier: I am sure the Attorney General will forgive us if we voice the suspicion that it was not convenient, perhaps, to appeal last August because of events which were due to transpire last September. In other words, during an election campaign they wanted the people in that area to feel that they were going to be compensated by Ontario.

The Attorney General’s appeal says nothing about the quantity of damages, merely about the fact of liability. Why has the Attorney General put the people on McClure Crescent through yet another delay and additional expense in trying to determine what their damages might be? Why is he refusing to let somebody get on with dealing with a problem that has been around for 20 years?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member approaches the merits of the matter. She will want to understand that, when this government came into office, we offered to purchase these houses, and 30 of the 40 people to whom offers were made accepted the proposition.

Some people elected, as they were perfectly entitled to do, to sue the government for their loss of profit. If they had lost their cases, they would feel perfectly entitled, and I would indeed encourage them, to appeal. It is an important issue. We lost the case, acting for the taxpayers of the province, and we have the right to appeal.

My honourable friend, in a cynicism that was not typical of her when she was in municipal politics, assumes that there is some connection between the judgement as to liability and the election date, and the judgement for damages, which was later, and the appeal date. That is completely unwarranted.

It would not have been practical to take an appeal if the court had decided, for example, that there was liability but no basis to award damages. In that case, we would have won the case and no appeal would have been necessary.

It was not that there was only one course open to us to postpone the matter. It was an important matter to postpone because, until a decision as to the basis of damage was given, it might have been that we would have won the case.

So I encourage the honourable member to do what I try to do every day, and I am sure what other new members of the House try to do every day, which is to persuade ourselves that not all decisions are made cynically and in the interests of a private purpose but that some of them are made in our best efforts to take the interests of the public and the taxpayer to heart.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. The Futures program in the colleges across this province has been slashed by $43 million, according to recent announcements by his ministry. Would the minister explain to the House what criteria he used to justify this cutback?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Thank you. I was feeling a bit neglected over the week that I have not had any questions addressed to me. I am very pleased that I got a question to respond to.

I gather too that, yesterday in the House, the honourable member stated that my budget was cut by $500 million. I immediately want to have a talk with the Management Board because I do not think even the entire government was cut by that much. I am glad, though, that she stood in the House today to correct that, without referring to the mistake she made yesterday.

I also want to correct her that the Futures program was not cut by $43 million. Of course, there was a reduction in the amount of money that was allocated to the Futures program. As the member knows, the economy is booming and employment is buoyant here. Because of that, the client group we are dealing with has less demand to be served.

Mrs. Cunningham: I am happy that the minister took the opportunity to not answer the question. If I have made a mistake, it is because I cannot get answers to the questions. If I am using incorrect numbers, it is because I cannot get the answers.

I will ask the question again then; perhaps he can answer it specifically. How much money was cut from the Skills Development program in the last few weeks across this province? Where did it happen and what is the minister doing with that money to help programs across this province to help young people and adults become more skilled and employable?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Of course, if the question is asked properly, then we can respond properly.

I will state it again, and I know the great interest the honourable member has in this program. I thank her very much for recognizing the fact that it is a very important program, a program that has seen tremendous success. Of course, we were dealing with those youths who had difficulty in transition from school to work. That rate was pretty high. As a matter of fact, youth unemployment has dropped almost to a third. About 25 per cent of the youth now find jobs in other areas. Therefore, we were not serving that client group of people who now have work, so there is no necessity for us to have that type of budget.

On the second part of the question, of course, if there is a reduction in the amount of money given to any budget, we do not keep that money. We give it back to the Treasury and then it is redistributed. It was $30 million that was cut from that area.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The Atomic Energy Control Board, the federal regulatory agency, has ordered a study of the incidence of leukaemia among children born near the four nuclear facilities in this province, including Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating station in Pickering. Dr. Rosalie Bertell of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health has identified potential health effects of long-term exposure to low-level radiation, including depressed white blood cell counts, asthma and allergies in children, mild mutations in newborns, miscarriages and still births.

I would like to know what the minister’s views of the AECB study are, whether the province will be participating and whether AECB will be encouraged by this government to expand the study to look at other potential health problems such as I have just outlined.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I would like to thank the honourable member for her question. The Ontario government ministries and agencies will certainly be available to offer whatever assistance is available to the study.

As all members of the House know, Dr. Kenneth Hare recently released his report on nuclear safety in Ontario. He looked at the evidence as to whether the operation of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear reactors had any discernible effect on health. None was noted, but he did caution that it is perhaps a little too early to be sure that latent cancers would not appear in some workers at some later date.

In addition, Professor Hare commented on the basis of a thorough study done in the United Kingdom in 1987, on pre-1955 nuclear establishments, I believe, that there was a significant increase in leukaemia among young persons living close to some nuclear establishments. It was on the basis of this study in the UK that Professor Hare supported, and the Ontario government will assist, the recently announced study of the AECB of the incidence of leukaemia in children born within 15 kilometres --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems like a fairly comprehensive response.

Mrs. Stoner: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is the government doing or planning any further study to look specifically at the potential health effects of the exposure to low-level radiation?

Hon. Mr. Wong: AECB, Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. have conducted studies for approximately 30 years. These ongoing studies have been linked with international scientific and nuclear studies within the world-at-large community. We will await the results of the AECB study before contemplating any further studies.

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation. The minister will know that the Ontario Advisory Council for Disabled Persons and the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens have put two major recommendations before him with respect to transportation for the disabled, namely, that the provincial government make a commitment to develop a fully integrated transportation system to meet the needs of all Ontario residents and that the provision of all provincial funding for transportation be contingent on criteria for a fully integrated transportation system being met.

To date, those recommendations have been entirely ignored by the minister and his ministry. His recent announcement of $50 million for a special, separate transportation system for the disabled was in an entirely other category.

The minister may remember the promise of the government in the election was for $84.1 million for accessible transit for the disabled. Will he stand today and tell us that he will shortly be offering the balance of the $84.1 million for major projects to make conventional transit accessible for the disabled in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not think there is a government in the history of this province that has ever done as much as we have for the disabled community. I have worked very closely with my colleagues, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) and others in providing a number of transportation initiatives to assist the disabled and the frail elderly, as my colleague would know. He would also know that the $50 million is only part of the $84 million announced last August.

Mr. Allen: If the $84 million is there, it is interesting that the minister asked for only $59.3 million from the Treasurer to cover a promise of some $84 million.

It would take $3 million a year for five years to make the major interchange stations in the TTC system elevator-accessible for the disabled.

Mr. Speaker: Place your question.

Mr. Allen: Will the minister now commit himself to begin that program immediately, starting with the Yonge-Bloor station, which is currently under renovation? That is a perfect time to do it.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the member is wrong on a number of points. We have initiated some of those very studies with respect to elevators and so on. He would also realize that mine is not the only ministry that spends part of that $84.1 million. There are others which have other responsibilities with respect to the disabled.

In fact, we have put on the road 30 per cent more buses than previously existed in this province. We have accessible taxis now available for the disabled, starting in the city of Sudbury earlier this year -- another promise kept. We are expanding the guidelines for eligibility and access and we are expanding funding to towns under 10,000 that were never considered in the past.

I think this government has a very good record of working with the disabled, a record we can be proud of.

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. Harris: My question is to that bane of all Ontario taxpayers, the Treasurer, and concerns that woeful and sorry document, his budget. As a result of this budget, the city of London will pay an additional $607,000 a year in provincial taxes; the city of Windsor, an additional $744,000; the region of Sudbury, an additional $135,000; Waterloo region, $355,000 extra; Durham region, about $250,000 more; and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, an additional $100,000.

The Treasurer knows his last budget increases to provincial taxpayers the provincial tax bill for Ontario municipalities anywhere from $100,000 to $480,000 and that annualized cost of additional taxes can run as high as $600,000. Can the Treasurer tell us, in line with his Premier’s 1982 commitment and letter of how he felt about how municipalities should be treated when the sales tax base was broadened --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Harris: Can he tell us by how much he intends to enrich the 1988 unconditional grants to compensate municipal taxpayers?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I was just looking in my book here, which has all the answers, and notice that I left my budget-on-a-page somewhere else.

Mr. Harris: Here is the letter from David Peterson. I can send this letter over to the Treasurer if he wants to know his position.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Very good. I will refer to that in the supplementary, if I may; but with respect to the actual amount of increased funding for municipalities, while I do not have the exact number just in my mind, the honourable member who has read the budget and perhaps remembers it more clearly than I knows it is a very large expansion of funding for the municipalities.

Mr. Harris: Inadequate.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member interjects the word “inadequate,” which seems surprising to me because he must also have read that above and beyond that, the revenue from the additional one cent per litre gasoline tax is shared between provincial highways at about $60 million and municipal roads at an additional $40 million.

While I am aware that putting sales tax on cement and asphalt products particularly, plus the one per cent increase in sales tax, means the municipalities are paying more, I believe that this is compensated for and then some by the enrichment of the grants on a wide spectrum of areas of assistance, which includes, of course, school boards.

Mr. Harris: I see time has expired. I will carry my supplementary over to tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is very nice of you.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Adams: I have a petition, which is addressed 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:

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if I could have the attention of all members. There are many private conversations. They may be necessary, but they are very noisy and other members wish to present petitions.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Miller: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario concerning Sunday shopping as follows:

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, residing in the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, support the intent and recommendations of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need of a common pause day for family nurture.”

It is signed by 27 constituents, members of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Hagersville, and was brought to me by the Reverend Frank DeVries.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, there are many private conversations that make it difficult to hear.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

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

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

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

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

I have signed the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Campbell: I have a petition, 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 are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

The petition is signed by a number of residents of the Sudbury district.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Furlong: I have a petition, 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:

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

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

It is signed by 200 Ontario residents.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition as follows:

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

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

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system contains an abundance of natural beauty and sites of historical importance and archaeological significance; and

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system is a unique oasis of nature found within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto; and

“Whereas the Ontario government has indicated its continuing commitment to the environment through its generous support programs towards preserving the Rouge Valley system and the Carolinian forest, and the historic and archeological sites contained within;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to give every consideration to the various alternatives available to them to ensure that the Rouge Valley system be preserved so that future generations may have the opportunity to enjoy them; these alternatives include a provincial park or a national heritage park.”

The petition is signed by 49 Ontario residents. I have signed the same and I present it for the consideration and positive action by the government.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by an individual opposed to Sunday shopping, Barbara LePage of Walden Circle. I have another petition on the same subject, to use the words of the petitioner, in “vehement opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping.” I will not read the rest of the petition. It is signed by Robert G. M. Kelly, MD, who is also in Mississauga.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I would remind members that it is not necessary to refer to the people who have signed the petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Polsinelli moved first reading of Bill Pr58,

An Act respecting the city of North York.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I wish to indicate that I have laid on the table the answers to questions 272, 273, 274 and the response to sessional paper P-17 standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, June 20].

POLL

Hon. Mr. Conway: As well, I have placed on the table a public opinion poll relating to Foodland Ontario’s operations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Cousens: I have had a chance to think about what I was saying yesterday, with a small, 20-hour break from this place, and I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am as convinced now as I ever was that this government is absolutely wrong to be bringing in these changes which will affect the future of Ontario by opening up Sundays wide open for shopping and work and will change the fabric and the family life of this province in a way I oppose strongly.

If I was strong yesterday, I want to be stronger today, and I think that is going to be the spirit of the people of Ontario if this government continues to ram through its stupid, backwards legislation. It is undermining the family; it is undermining the home; it is undermining the values that make this province strong. I think it is time the government went back and reviewed it in the light of what is being said in this House.

There have been petitions. Today, members of the government presented petitions. Are they reading them themselves or are they just words that come out of their mouths? I know the people of Ontario, not just from my riding and the ridings that are represented by our party but from ridings right across the province, condemn this government for so singlehandedly reversing the trends and the roles that the province has had versus the municipalities. They are shoving the problem over to the municipalities. In the municipalities, there is going to be a domino effect, and soon this province will be wide open on Sundays.

Why is there not one person across the floor who will stand up on his own two feet and go against the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on this issue? Are they all just following the leader? Why do they not stand up and think for themselves? The fact of the matter is that there has been some comment that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) might all have a different opinion from the government; and also that the members for Peterborough (Mr. Adams), Guelph (Mr. Ferraro), St. Catharines-Brock (Mr.

Dietsch), Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), Cornwall (Mr. Cleary) and Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) are all not in favour of this. Why do they not stand up and come forward like men and ladies and say they are not in favour of it?

Mrs. Marland: It is because they are weak in the knee.

Mr. Cousens: Are they weak somewhere? Why is there not going to be another group from within the Liberal Party that comes forward and says, “We represent the people of Ontario?”

Mr. Black: Quit misleading the public and tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Black: I withdraw the comment.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cousens: At least the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay was awake. It worries me that all the words that we have to offer on this bill in this House are not having any impact at all on the government. That is the regrettable part. Its mind is made up, and it almost makes a mockery of the committee hearings that are going to be held for eight weeks this summer.

What good is it going to be for the people of Ontario to come to that committee when the government has already determined its agenda? Why have those public meetings? I think it is a good idea. It would be a better idea if the government were prepared to amend this bill, to amend its thinking, to change its ways, to allow itself to be confronted with the feelings and the thoughts that the people of Ontario have.

I have so many letters and so many statements from people that should be part of the record of this House as to the feelings and the thinking of people who are opposed to Bill 113 and to the thrust of this government in imposing this wide-open Sunday working capability on the people of Ontario. “What Peterson’s government is proposing” according to Henry Frietag, “is a disgrace. It will destroy the principles of our free democracy. It will make a mockery of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will promote distrust between municipalities.”

I would like to quote further from another. It is from an architectural firm, and I would like to put on record some of this person’s thinking.

Mr. Ballinger: Read the bill first.

Mr. Cousens: I have read the bill and I wish this honourable member over here, who has so much to say but so little to think, would come along and do a little bit of reading as well.

This constituent of mine said: “For what it is worth --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. it might be an appropriate time to remind all members of standing order 24(b): “When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt him, except on a question of order.” I am certain the member will direct his remarks through the chair.

Mr. Cousens: It is a good idea, Mr. Speaker.

I am quoting from my constituent. He says: “For what it is worth, this is one constituent who does not believe we have to bow to pressure exerted by the lobbyists for large store chains and merchandisers. I believe in Canada what we have is a very unique situation, in that we have a day of rest for everyone, excluding, of course, essential services such as police, firemen, nurses, etc.

“To change the present laws, as I see it, will only further corrode the fact that Sunday to many people is a day of worship. But more than that, it is a day in which families can get together. We have had enough corrosion of the family unit without adding to it by supporting such a negative policy as open Sundays.

“The people who will have to work on Sundays or lose their jobs are not in a position to speak for themselves, and I think the politicians have to stand up and be counted.”

I am prepared, and I am prepared to be counted. I believe that this constituent is speaking for far more of the people of this province than the David Peterson government.

I would like to make one more comment because yesterday, as I was closing off my remarks, I was commenting on free trade and how the people here want to keep Canada and Ontario different from the United States. This is a point made by one of my constituents. I do not have his permission to quote his name, so I will not, but from his letter to me, he says:

“In North America, in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, we desperately need some sign that commercial activity has not become our institutionalized religion. Allowing retail activity to go on virtually nonstop would give a priority to commerce that it does not deserve.

“Indeed, I find shopping every day more of a threat to our culture, our sense of ourselves, than any free trade agreement.”

What we are faced with in this province is a confusion of ideas where people say, “We don’t want to be like the United States.” Yet by bringing in this whole business of wide-open Sunday working, it is going to make us more like the neighbours of ours to the south of the border than ever before.

There is something being maintained in our cultural values when we, as a province, can have a unique, special day for families, a day of rest, a day just to recreate ourselves and get ready for another week.

I have other letters; I have other correspondence. I could go on much longer and expound on the views of the people from my riding who have strongly supported the position I have endorsed in this House. I have brought these points forward in the spirit that, in this Legislature, we have an opportunity to speak and we have an opportunity to be heard.

I am sorry that, in fact, by virtue of the lack of movement by this government, it is highly unlikely that the people who should have heard have actually listened, and that in fact the government is just going to go ahead and shove this through. I would be delighted if one, two or three back-benchers of this Liberal government could stand up and have the courage of their convictions, have the courage to be able to set themselves apart from their party and from the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and say: “We do not support this.

Our constituents do not want us to support it and, therefore, we will not vote for the bill.” They can also do what some obviously do: They slip away and they are not around on the day the vote is taken. Maybe that is one way of identifying what they really think about this bill.

I would rather see these people come forward now, speak up and make their minds known so that the people of Ontario will know that it is not just a pack voting together as a block, whipped up by their very strong whip and House leader, but that in fact they are coming out here with their sense of obligation to the people of Ontario.

This is a most important bill. It has taken a great deal of time for this Legislature to be working on it when in fact we could have been dealing with other things that have to do with the economy, that have to do with our school system, that have to do with our housing in the province. There are many, many issues that are at stake in this province. Here we have had the Premier set this forward as his number one item on the agenda.

It is not necessarily the number one item when we could be dealing with other things, but because he has put it on the floor I will say this much: Here is one member who is prepared to stand up and be counted. I oppose this bill. I oppose this government. I will do everything I can to continue to fight it.

Mr. Kanter: I listened with interest to the comments and the outrage, feigned or otherwise, of the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) on the subject of Sunday shopping. It reminds me a bit of his position on housing, where he is extremely upset in this House but not always quite so consistent in his riding.

I note with interest his rhetoric that Sunday shopping is an attack on the family, that it is worse than free trade and that he is totally opposed to Sunday shopping. But I am rather curious about something that happens in his own riding.

It is my understanding that there are a number of stores in the old town of Markham that are open on Sunday. I would like to ask the member for Markham, if he is so opposed to Sunday shopping here in this House, what measures he has taken to close down the stores that are open in his very own riding of Markham?

Mr. Pouliot: I seldom have the opportunity to agree fully with the remarks made by the distinguished member for Markham, but today is one of those occasions. We have heard the member for Markham, standing like a soldier at his post, like a sentry at his post and, while he was reminding this House of the need for Ontarians to prepare themselves physically and mentally for the task ahead, some members, among them the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black), choosing to make a mockery, nothing short of a mockery, of standing order 24(b).

I would like to remind the member that if decorum and good manners are to be the order of the day, that is the very opposite of this kind of style, method and approach when words of wisdom, nothing short of this, were favouring the colleagues of the House.

The member for Markham has chosen, in a fashion better than I know 94 members of this House would have been able or would have chosen to have the courage to do, to share with us, through the consensus, through the spiritual leadership of the many Christian and other well-intended people in Ontario; he has reminded us with eloquence that this kind of opposition from the members of the government represents, indeed, government at its worst. He did not stand alone; his kind remarks did not go unnoticed, and I share with him in condemning the government for not having the courage to stand up and represent the constituents.

Mrs. Marland: I take note at this point that not only is the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay violating standing order 24(b); he is violating the other rule which says that no member can speak except from his own seat. This member is interjecting and he is not even in his own seat.

I feel very strongly as I rise in support of the comments of my colleague the member for Markham. It is very interesting to hear, of course, as one cannot avoid hearing, the interjections that go on in this House in spite of the rules for order and procedure, but to hear from the new member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) --

Mr. Ballinger: As if you’ve never done that, Margaret.

Mrs. Marland: As a matter of fact, I would tell the members who are still interjecting that I do not interject, if they observe. I wait until the two minutes, and that is the appropriate time when I use my opportunity to interject

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, in rising to comment on my colleague’s speech, I suppose, is rising in his new position as journalist for the Toronto Star.

I want to recognize the fact that it is unfortunate that in the comments of my colleague the member for Markham he was as generous as he was to those members of the government who have indeed presented petitions on the floor of this House, as they were requested to do by people whom they represent. Those same people they represent now will be horrified, I am sure, to find that they will indeed be voting with their government bill, which is completely opposite to the intent of those residents and citizens of Ontario whom they represent.

Mr. Pollock: I want to compliment the member for Markham on an excellent address. He expressed himself extremely well and put his points across in a very admirable manner. He read different letters from his constituents, as I think practically every member in this House has got letters from his constituents, concerned about Sunday shopping.

Let’s face it: I feel that Sunday shopping should be left in the hands of the province. It has the police, the capability to enforce it. It should not be turned over to the municipalities. The member for Markham expressed that extremely well and he is very concerned about this particular piece of legislation.

As I say, the member for Markham put his point across extremely well. He is a credit to this assembly; there is no question about that. I just want to join my colleague from Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) in stating what an honourable job he did in speaking on this particular Bill 113.

The Deputy Speaker: I believe there is a bit more time left for those who may want to ask questions and make comments. If not, does the member from Markham wish to speak?

Mr. Cousens: I am honoured to have received such kind words from people from at least our party and the New Democratic Party. I have to say the member from Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) is a very honourable man. I have to say I appreciate most of all the kind words he had to say very, very much. The member for Mississauga South and the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) reaffirmed the sense of importance that this bill has and the reason we in this House have to stand strong.

This is a very small group, but we have a very large and important point to express. In spite of the fact that there is this huge majority that would try to suppress the truth and try to keep people down, there is nothing that is going to stop us from doing what we believe to be right. We are operating on principle and we are operating with a sense of mission in that we believe in what we are doing.

I would like to comment briefly on the member from the Toronto Star, the member from St. Andrew-St. Patrick and some of his comments. They are ill-founded. I would like to have a considerable period of time to go into the fact that the province presently gives rights to different municipalities to do certain things. The province is in charge and those municipalities can operate within the law. I am in favour of that principle. I am in favour of the province running things, not passing the buck over to the municipalities, which is what Bill 113 does. That is a fundamental rule.

What we are seeing is a sloughing off of responsibility. Maybe that member is one of the chief sloughers. He has not been shown to be that in other things he is doing, but here is a chance for him to give leadership, and he is not doing it. He should stand up and be the leader he is capable of being. The people of St. Andrew-St. Patrick had a great man representing them before the member. Let them have that same kind of greatness in the member. It is there, but it has not come to flower.

This is not an issue that is going to go away. It is an issue that is just starting to get us riled. The people of Ontario do not want the people of our party or the people of Lake Nipigon or the rest of Ontario to go to sleep on this. We are going to continue to fight and fight and we will win.

Mr. Ballinger: I am very pleased, as the member for Durham-York, to rise and join in this debate on Bill 113. I have always been amused since September in coming here to -- I really enjoy the bantering back and forth between all three parties, but in this particular case I am quite pleased to stand in support of this bill.

Mr. Cousens: “Quite.” Not completely.

Mr. Ballinger: I am 100 per cent in support of this bill. Unlike the previous speaker, the member for Markham, I will try to discuss the issue as I see it without going off in about 45 different tangents in every other direction to make a point that I think is bizarre in many examples that were used by the member for Markham. This issue to me, quite honestly, is one of accountability.

I am quite pleased to represent the riding of Durham-York. I think my riding represents a good cross-section of Ontario. My riding is made up of five municipalities, four of which are not open on Sunday, one of which is.

The interesting point I want to make about that is that there is no domino effect in my municipalities. The one that is open does not affect the other four which are not. The opposition has been arguing since the introduction of this bill about this so-called fear of the domino effect: that if one municipality opens, then they all must open or else they will lose market share. There are many examples in this province where that is simply just not true. My riding is one where it is not true.

Mr. Wiseman: Are you a retailer?

Mr. Ballinger: Yes, I am a retailer and a former municipal politician, and I think I understand both areas very well.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Standing order 24(b), please; and the member shall address his comments through only the Speaker, of course.

Mr. Ballinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During my short time in this Legislature, I have found it very interesting that the members of the opposition have a tendency to want to speak on behalf of all of Ontario. I would like to remind the opposition that I represent a constituency of about 80,000 people and I happen to believe that I speak on their behalf, because I am the elected member of the riding of Durham-York.

There was a by-election held not too long ago, and it seems to me that the third party has been bantering about as the reason it elected a member there that the issue was Sunday shopping. I do not happen to believe that was true at all. There are many variables involved in an election. No one issue elects or defeats a candidate or a government. There are many issues that make up whether you get elected or you do not.

When I stand here as a new member of the government, it appears to me that if you closed your eyes and listened you would hear the same response from the opposition on every piece of legislation that the government introduces. There does not seem to be any sort of individuality at all. The name of the game is, “If the government is for it, we’re opposed to it.”

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It seems that because of the heat in the place everyone is having a hard time, I expect, remembering standing order 24(b), all of you collectively.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You may resume, please.

Mr. Ballinger: Since the debate started about two to three weeks ago, I guess, we have been discussing this off and on. I want to sort of recite a few of the words I have heard in here from certain members of the opposition. We have been accused of being cowardly, insensitive, arrogant and gutless. The term “passing the buck” -- what an old cliché that one is.

Mr. Pouliot: Bill, whose side are you on?

Mr. Ballinger: No, I was going to make the point that the opposition uses terminology to instil a fear and a misunderstanding in the general public out there.

This bill, compared to the previous bill and what is happening in this province, makes all kinds of sense. In fact, it is so logical that members over there obviously do not understand the logic behind it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If the members collectively insist upon having this kind of afternoon, it is not going to be interesting in the House whatsoever.

Mr. Ballinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite honestly, as a former municipal politician --

Mr. Cousens: Go back to it.

Mr. Ballinger: Well, you may want to say that, my friend, but I can assure you I am here for at least four years.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Ballinger: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.

In the four years I will be here, I want to assure the honourable members on the other side that I will speak when I believe I should speak on issues that affect not only my riding but Ontario. I am speaking today because I believe the bill that is being proposed by the government, with its amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act, is logical, fair and really does give an indication of the diversification of this province.

The concern I have is that, unfortunately, the opposition members are not even willing to take a look at the proposed amendments objectively. It is really interesting about the municipal option. In the riding of the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), in his own riding, one of the municipalities is open illegally and has been for a number of years.

They have been taken to court consistently and they keep opening. The reason they keep opening is that that part of Ontario and that part of the riding really reflect the market and the conditions that evolve around it. That particular municipality should be open. They are open now. They cannot be open from a legal point of view. This new bill will allow that opportunity to reflect the wants and needs of that particular community.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the opposition would not support the concept of local option. It makes all kinds of sense. Ontario is not a block. It is made up of all kinds of different people in communities and this bill reflects, I believe, the opportunity for the government to express and support those communities.

There was never a better opportunity than now to reflect, going into the 1990s, how we are going to support those communities. The easiest thing we can do, on this side, as a government, is just close our eyes, put our heads in the sand, sit down, be quiet and do absolutely nothing. I do not know about those guys over there, but I was not elected to come here and do nothing. I came here hopefully to contribute to a better society. I believe this bill --

Mr. Pouliot: Then change the bill.

Mr. Ballinger: Yes. I absolutely believe that. Again, by comparison, when I look at my own riding, what I see is five municipalities completely different, all working in harmony together with one of the municipalities open seven days a week, which does not and will not have any effect on the other municipalities in relation to the domino effect.

When I was on regional council in Durham with the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) many, many years ago, we had discussion back in those days on the tourist option, whether or not municipalities within the region could or should be exempted under the provisions of the tourist bylaw. One of those municipalities applied and it was denied. That is the same municipality in Durham East that is open today. Regardless of the current law, they just decided they wanted it and needed it and they opened illegally. This bill will not only help us, it will also help them to decide.

Mr. Cureatz: What municipality is that again in Durham East?

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order, order.

Mr. Ballinger: Scugog, for the record. I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

Again, from my point of view, as a member representing the government side, I am very honoured to have the opportunity to be in this Legislature to begin with. I am very pleased to be the member. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support a piece of legislation that I know will, in the long run, be good for Ontario and good for the majority of constituents I represent.

Mr. Philip: I want to say that that is the best speech I ever heard the member give. I must say I always enjoy his delivery, if not the content. I am sorry he was heckled so much, because I know he never does that to anyone else.

He mentioned that the opposition had said the government was weak-kneed, cowards and buck-passers. I do not remember using the first two, but being on the standing committee on public accounts, I may have used the last one of buck-passing, which is a monetary term.

I want to ask the member if those three words are similar to using the chicken option, which is what the minister in fact called the municipal option.

Mr. Cousens: I would enjoy hearing the speaker continue his speech, especially if he were to give us some of the logic behind this bill.

He referred several times in his eloquence to the logic of this and the logic of that, but he never touched on it. Maybe he does not know; maybe no one has told him. It would be very good for all of us if this very good friend of mine the member for Durham-York -- and he is, in spite of the heckling -- could do us the favour, the honour and the service of telling us what the logic of this bill is. I do not think he knows it. I really do not think he does.

I do not want to call him something he is not, but I challenge him to give us any form of logic for this bill right now. If he is only proud to be here because of this bill, that is not a lot to be proud of.

Mr. Mahoney: I think one can always measure the impact a speech has in this House by the rancour and excitement it causes on the opposite side. In the case of the previous speaker, the member -- where is he from? Durham South?

Mr. Ballinger: Durham-York.

Mr. Cureatz: Near me.

Mr. Mahoney: He is from somewhere down by the member for Durham East.

When one generates that kind of comment and reaction from the opposition, obviously one is striking a chord. I think the sensitivity, understanding and knowledge the honourable member has of this particular bill have struck a chord in making the members opposite realize that he, for a change in this House, with all the other speeches which have been going on and which we are likely to hear -- the member for Durham East is on deck, I believe.

Mr. Cureatz: I’ve changed my mind.

Mr. Mahoney: Hi, Sam, how are you? When he comes out of the bullpen, I think we are going to hear more of the nonsense we have been listening to about how this bill is going to destroy the family and erode the way of life of Ontario’s citizens.

The honourable member here has spoken very clearly and put forward the government position, which very clearly says this is not wide-open Sunday shopping and this is not buck-passing. He has analysed the bill from the proper perspective instead of standing up and throwing scare tactics forward to the citizens of Ontario and trying to really buffalo the people of this province by telling them this is a bill which would allow wide-open shopping.

The opposition members should be ashamed of themselves for leading the people of Ontario down the garden path. This government is putting forward a bill, as the honourable member clearly outlined in his speech, which will be enforceable, which is understandable, which will allow the municipalities to determine their own fate. He did it clearly, succinctly, without buffoonery and without the nonsense we have been hearing from the other side of the House. I congratulate him on a great speech.

Mr. Pouliot: I wish to congratulate the member for Durham-York on his tone. Unfortunately, I also have to say that the member missed a golden opportunity to address the substance, the reason for the bill being presented and its rationale.

Instead, by way of a tactic or strategy, he adhered to one of the oldest methods -- it lacks class, to say the least -- which is that if you cannot talk philosophically on the rationale of the bill, you blame the opposition, the 35 humble people here who are doing their job; as opposed, on the other hand, to making a positive contribution to the House.

Look at the mandate. He reminded the House of the reason he was elected, the mandate, the terms of reference: to represent the aspirations, the will of the people “back home.” This is the seriousness that this kind of legislation deserves. “What are the people back home saying? They are not concerned about the members of the opposition. They are concerned about my response, as the member for Durham-York, to their aspirations. Am I representing them well?”

I am always pleased, like others, to listen to the member for Durham-York. Unfortunately, the member could not resist the temptation to go for show as opposed to substance. That leaves us with, certainly, less than a passing mark in terms of the seriousness of what is being addressed here today.

Mrs. Marland: I would like to comment on the member for Durham-York’s speech. Fortunately, it was brief, because he is obviously not representing the people in his constituency; nor is the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) who made comment on that speech. It is very interesting. In particular, it is interesting because the member for Mississauga West was a member of the executive of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at the time that --

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would love to enter into a debate with the member for Mississauga South, but I believe her comments are to be directed towards the member for Durham-York’s remarks.

Mr. Cousens: Can’t take it, eh, Steve?

Mr. Mahoney: If I could have an opportunity to come back, I would be happy to take it and give it.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member for Mississauga South please continue with her comments upon the remarks of the member for Durham-York.

Mrs. Marland: Yes, Madam Speaker, and I am commenting on the remarks of the member for Durham-York because, in fact, when comments were made on his speech, they were made by someone who was on the board of the executive of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at the time that AMO told this provincial government, by a vote of something like 17 to 2, that it did not want the jurisdiction to regulate retail store hours in this province and that that jurisdiction must indeed stay with the provincial government.

It is particularly significant when the member for Durham-York gives us his own curriculum vitae and emphasizes the fact that he was a member of municipal council in the past. Even more so, I find it hard to understand why he would be so unsympathetic and uncaring of the wishes of those elected officials, as is the member for Mississauga West.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired. That is all the time there is in reply.

Mr. Ballinger: It is really interesting to participate in a debate, elicit some comments from members on the other side and then only have a couple of moments to respond.

I would like to remind the member for Lake Nipigon and the member for Mississauga South that, as an individual, I have never adopted a holier-than-thou attitude in anything that I do. I suggest to both of the honourable members over there that I did not come in here today for a lecture, but I appreciate their comments anyway.

As far as the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) is concerned, I do enjoy fencing with the member, but it has always been a point of mine in life never to exaggerate to make a point and I try awful hard not to do that. I will make a suggestion in the short time that I have left concerning the discussion that centres around the logic behind this legislation. Sometimes, when it is as plain as the nose on your face, you just cannot see the logic. In my humble opinion, this proposed legislation is logical.

Ongoing in this province currently are many abuses to the current act. There are people deliberately taking advantage. As a province and as a government we have constantly been in court, and then somebody gets a small fine or a slap on the wrist. The act currently does not reflect Ontario, the nature of the province that it is and the people in the communities that it represents. When this proposed bill is passed and in place, and everything is said and done, they will realize the logic of it and Ontario will settle back to being a nice, even, easygoing place to live.

Mr. Farnan: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this topic. I just preface my remarks by talking a little bit about the recognition factor for politicians. The recognition factor for politicians is something we are all familiar with. Whether you are walking down the street or going to a football game, how many people will recognize your picture in a newspaper or recognize you in a grocery store? That is the recognition factor.

However, the recognition factor goes beyond that; there is a positive recognition and a negative recognition. I am sure all of the honourable members will have experienced the kind of situation where it is a lot easier to accept, for example, meeting somebody who says, “Hi, Mike, you’re doing a good job,” than “You’re a jerk.” That is a reasonable situation. As politicians, very often the recognition factor is centred around issues and the type of stands we take on issues.

It is not surprising then that people will meet us and say, “You know, I like the kind of stand you’re taking on this issue” or “Overall, you’re doing a good job, but I can’t live with you on this particular issue.” Politicians generally, I suppose, know they are in trouble when people recognize them, know the issues they are standing on and say, “You know, I can’t support you on this issue.”

I want to say to the House today that, in relation to this issue, I would like to express my own personal experience among the constituents in Cambridge. When I meet people on this issue, they like the stand that I have taken, they like the stand that my party has taken and they like the stand that the Conservative Party has taken.

They say to me: “You know, we really appreciate the fact that the opposition parties fought hard and got this bill into committee. We really appreciate the fact that there is going to be another series of hearings through the summer and we really hope that, as a result of these hearings, the people of Ontario will have another opportunity to express their views.”

They really hope that the government will listen to their views, reflect upon their views and then say: “Maybe we read this wrong. Maybe we should look at this again and perhaps our earlier decision should be changed. Perhaps we should try to work with all of the parties in the Legislature.”

Would it not be marvellous for the people of Ontario if the government showed the kind of leadership that said: “Look, the people appear to be pretty much in the majority in opposition to this. Let’s work with the opposition parties. Let’s sit down with the New Democrats and the Conservatives. We know the present system has flaws, but let’s really sit down and try to iron these flaws out. Let’s improve the system, let’s make it work, but let’s not go contrary to the will of the people.”

That public recognition factor, as I said, reflects around issues. When I sent out a householder on this particular issue, I had over 7,000 replies from the people of Cambridge. Out of 32,000 residents’ homes that the householder went into, there were over 7,000 replies. The response of the people of Cambridge to that householder was over 80 per cent to say that they disapproved of the course of action that the government was taking.

I had a public meeting to which representatives of every sector of the community were invited -- the chamber of commerce, the business associations, local labour unions, church groups and consumers -- and all these groups represented said that they were opposed to this particular option.

All Liberal members in the Waterloo region and in Guelph say they are personally opposed to the Sunday shopping option, and I know there are many Liberal members who share the view of those colleagues in the Waterloo and Guelph areas. I know it is difficult for them. For discipline the government says, “Look, we expect everybody on side on this issue.” I know there can be denials of this, but the actual manner in which these individuals are behaving in their community is evident.

There is either a silence on the issue or there is a kind of assurance to the people, “Well, you know that personally I am opposed to it, and I hope that all municipalities will refuse the option; but you know, we have to give everybody the option.”

I know people are in trouble personally, in terms of party loyalty, doing what they think is right and doing what reflects the will of their community. If the government were to say, “We will rethink our situation,” I think it would free up those members of the government who are having that difficulty, because it is always a very difficult thing to go against the wishes of the party when it sets down a decision like that.

I do not wish to reiterate much of the argument in opposition to the municipal option, but I would like to put it in the context in which I opened my remarks and in the context of how people will perceive us. All church groups in Ontario are on record as saying to the government: “Please stop. Don’t go through with this.” I am going to read very briefly from the policy statement of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, March 23, 1988:

“Sunday for Christians is the weekly celebration of the resurrection of the triumph of life over death, of peace and reconciliation. Not all Ontario citizens share this perspective, but all participate in an ordered rhythm of life which consecrates Sunday to rest and family sharing.”

When I meet my constituents, they will say to me: We support your position because we really feel we would like to keep Sunday as a day of pause. We would like to keep Sunday as a special day. We would like it to be different. We know that society is changing. We know that there are more people working on Sunday. But why must we hurry up the process? Why must we make more people work on Sunday?”

I think there is a positive recognition factor there, and I think all members of the government and all members of the opposition parties will know what I am talking about. When they meet people, the people say to them: “On the issue of Sunday shopping, I agree with you. I like what you are doing.” Sometimes, because they like or respect the member personally -- and I am sure that is true of many members of the government -- a lot of people who would disagree do not say it to the member face to face.

They might say it in their home, at work or in a social setting, but they will not say it to a member; sometimes, I believe, because they like and respect the member personally, for that reason they do not bring up the issue.

But I can tell members, when they know that they are on side, when they know that you are standing up to the protect that common pause day, when they know that you are fighting this municipal option, which we all know will ultimately lead to a greater amount of shopping on Sunday -- whether or not it is going to be wide-open Sunday shopping, which is my belief, I think every thinking member of this House will agree that under the municipal option there is going to be an increase in shopping, a great increase in shopping, much greater than exists at the present time.

My friends, I think people will say to us, “I like your stand because your stand is going to save me from increased taxes.” We know that it is not just the opening of the stores. We know that other services will be affected, for example, whether it is transit or police. We know that the equipment in these stores, whether it is fans or cash registers, all has to be serviced. If it breaks down, you cannot simply wait; you have to have a technician come out on call. We know that we are not just talking about the workers in the stores; we are talking about all the support services.

What is happening then is that the number of people involved, the number of people who are being affected, is spreading out more and more. These people are saying to me: “Mike, I like your stand. I like the stand of your party, because you’re going to save me from increased taxes.”

I think they are also saying, in terms of the quality of life: “Mike, I like your stand because it gives me that extra day with my family. I am a single mother. I have a child. That child is a latchkey child six days a week.”

Under this law there is the possibility, there is the potential that there will be additional pressures put on those families, and they are saying: “We like your stand. We like the stand of your party. We want the government to listen.”

My friends, the store owners themselves are saying to the government, “We don’t want this law.” The municipal politicians are saying, “We don’t want this law.” But I put it in the other framework again, because I want to stay with the theme I developed from the very beginning.

Municipal politicians are saying: “Mike, we like your stand. We’re opposed to the option. We’ve made it clear to the government.” The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has made it clear to the government. Workers say: “We like your stand. We like the stand of your party.”

There is no need to increase the amount of time that people have to spend at work. Let’s also understand that it is not just convenience, because we know that in other jurisdictions where this option has been applied, while the stores may be open on Saturday and Sunday, they have closed during the evening during the week. In that circumstance, people who, say, traditionally work from nine o’clock to five o’clock are now being forced to do their shopping on Saturday or Sunday, where they previously coul