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

February 7, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L142 - Tue 7 Feb 1989/ Mar 7 fév 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

HEURES D’OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS

MEDIA REPORT

CABLE TELEVISION

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

DRUG ABUSE

DOCTOR’S BILLING PRACTICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GROUP HOMES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

DRUG ABUSE

GROUP HOMES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

DEGRADABLE PLASTICS

VOTING BY PRIVATE MEMBERS

IRRIGATION

CHILD CARE

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

DETROIT INCINERATOR

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

MATHER WALLS HOUSE

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO SALE TO MINORS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉÉIES DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

Mr. Allen: There is more evidence that replacing the Minors’ Protection Act to protect young people from the ravages of tobacco is urgently needed. A McMaster University 10-year study of the effects of pollution on the respiratory health of children has concluded that the big cause of respiratory disease in childhood was whether the mother smoked or not.

But more directly to the question, Dr. Pengelly and his group confidentially surveyed about 2,000 young teenagers aged 12 to 16, and his figures about the incidence of teenage smoking are a new cause for alarm, because they are clinically more reliable and show 50 per cent more teenage smokers than other, more casual, studies of recent date.

“One in three are smoking at the age of 15,” Dr. Pengelly says, and notes a clear connection to increases in respiratory disease among both teenage males and females.

“The girls’ story is especially sad.” He says, “They have a twofold likelihood of smoking if their mothers smoke, and if their mothers smoke they have an early respiratory disease and their lung growth is affected.

“Girls also tend to smoke twice as many cigarettes as boys in their early years of smoking,” according to the study.

Pengelly’s findings reinforce the need to scrap the provincial Minors’ Protection Act with its ridiculous $50 fines and institute a licensing system for tobacco retailers with stiff fines and loss of licence for sales of tobacco to minors.

HEURES D’OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS

M. Villeneuve : Aujourd’hui, l’Assemblée législative va probablement adopter le projet de loi le plus déplorable sur le magasinage le dimanche. C’est un jour triste pour l’Ontario. C’est un jour très triste lorsque le gouvernement majoritaire démontre qu’il ne peut se montrer digne de ses promesses électorales ; c’est un jour très triste lorsque le Parti libéral et ses députés ignorent leurs électeurs. Ils ont manqué de protéger les électeurs qui devront travailler le dimanche.

J’ai toujours cru que nos municipalités locales et leurs organisations devraient pouvoir s’exprimer sur la gestion du gouvernement envers le magasinage du dimanche. Le présent gouvernement a tout simplement ignoré ces municipalités et leurs organisations locales.

Il est évident que l’option municipale réclamée par le présent gouvernement est en réalité du chantage municipal. Cette loi permettra aux municipalités d’être plus vulnérables aux pressions économiques connexes. Cela s’explique par la capacité des prises de décision locales, qui sera réduite par ce projet de loi.

Dans la présente Assemblée législative, les farces du premier ministre (l’hon. M. Peterson) ont donné une fausse idée de ma position à ce sujet. Je n’exige aucune excuse. Je ne peux pas prendre au sérieux les remarques d’une personne décrite par ses propres collègues comme manquant de vision, d’imagination et d’idées nouvelles, et n’ayant aucun ordre du jour. Le présent gouvernement a fait des municipalités ontariennes des bouche-trous.

MEDIA REPORT

Mr. Cordiano: Yesterday, an

article appeared in the Toronto Sun decrying the participation of so-called ethnic Canadians in Canadian political life. The

article was written by none other than the Father of Confederation himself, McKenzie Porter. This

article comes as close to spreading hate literature as I have seen.

According to Mr. Porter, Italians “are not above paying Italian Canadians to vote for a given ethnic candidate.” Mr. Porter blatantly smears all Italian Canadians by suggesting that somehow the entire Italian Canadian community has conspired to circumvent the electoral process. Mr. Porter, on the other hand, is also benevolent enough to suggest that after white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and the French, Italians are his favourite Canadians.

Mr. Porter, where do blacks, Jews, Orientals and any other group fit on your most desirable list -- or do they? Mr. Porter further comments that the children of ethnic immigrants “despise their parents’ foreign accents and temperaments” and “ardently seek assimilation.”

I have a big surprise for Mr. Porter. My parents were both immigrants from Italy and I was born in Canada. I am proud of my parents with their foreign accents and temperaments. I am damned proud to be a Canadian and the son of Italian immigrants, and I am proud that in my country, Canada, it is possible for someone like me to be addressing someone like him from where I sit in this Legislature.

Mr. Porter even suggests it is time to take corrective measures against those ethnic groups.

Mr. Speaker: The time has expired. Thank you. The member for Cambridge.

CABLE TELEVISION

Mr. Farnan: Cable television companies are allowed to charge their customers for new channels installed without their prior knowledge or consent. The privilege of having these new channels is then absorbed in the monthly statement received by the customer. This negative option business practice is allowed to be inflicted on the unsuspecting consumers without previous knowledge or consent of what is available to them as the cable TV companies are autonomous and do not have to conform to any regulations set out by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for payment of services.

It seems to me that cable TV companies are being allowed to become a monopoly at the consumer’s expense.

I believe the Ontario government should not accept this kind of business practice and should protect its consumers. One cable company in Toronto included a waiver card with the monthly statements, advising its customers that if they did not accept the new channels already installed they would be charged an installation fee as well as increased monthly billing should they decide to have them at a later date. This is an unfair business practice to consumers, in particular to the minority groups in Ontario. It is time that the provincial government exerted pressure on the federal government to bring this practice to an end.

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

Mr. Sterling: Later today, I will be introducing a private member’s bill to provide for better enforcement of the sale of tobacco to minors. We saw very recently just how ineffective the Minors’ Protection Act really is: With fines presently ranging from $2 to $50, there is no economic incentive or sanction for retailers to comply with the law. The $25 fine to Shoppers Drug Mart will not, I am sure, cause Imasco shares to drop appreciably.

We have a 1892 act which, by its amendment in 1970 indicates its continued necessity, yet it has little consequence in today’s marketplace. The bill I am bringing forward this afternoon will not only amend the Minors’ Protection Act by substantially increasing the minimum and maximum fines to $200 and $5,000, but it will also amend the Retail Sales Tax Act to require tobacco authorization to accompany the vendor’s permit in order for a vendor to sell tobacco to consumers.

Should the vendor sell tobacco to a minor, the tobacco authorization could be suspended or revoked. The tobacco authorization will not mean more red tape for the vendor or a small business; rather it will be included as part of the vendor’s permit. It will not require a separate application.

I consider these changes to be vital if we are to continue our battle in attempting to encourage young people to stop smoking.

DRUG ABUSE

Mrs. LeBourdais: Yesterday, I was pleased to attend a press conference held by the Metropolitan Toronto Police to announce the completion of Project Fall, the most recent in a continuing series of major drug seizures across Metro.

This particular operation in the northwest corner of Metro netted $18,000 to $20,000 in crack and cocaine, as well as a plethora of knives and handguns, including a semi-automatic rifle with three clips of ammunition, all taken from juveniles with an average age of 18 to 22 years.

I commend the Metro force for its efforts and I note the words of Staff-Inspector Jim Clark, who stated that although such efforts help to stall the ongoing plague of drugs on our society, ultimately it will be education and drug treatment programs that will provide the antidote.

This only strengthens the recommendations of the Black report on the abuse of illicit drugs: to use education as the ultimate weapon to keep our children safe and to provide the necessary programs and funding to implement expanded curriculum, staff training programs and policies to drive home to people of all ages that drugs shatter dreams, shatter families and ultimately shatter the lives of young people.

As adults and as parents, we must not only educate through our schools but we must educate by example. We must say, “Do as I do, not merely as I say.” Kids do not fall for that any more. Peer pressure is too great and the availability of free crack is all too prevalent.

DOCTOR’S BILLING PRACTICES

Mr. Reville: I have in my hand a copy of a price list that is similar to one that many patients in Ontario now have in their files. It is from a doctor in Peterborough who advises his patients that because of the banning of extra billing and because of the government’s refusal to give more than a 1.75 per cent increase in Ontario health insurance plan fees, he is going to have to get his patients to pay either plan A, which is $40 annually, or plan B, which is an itemized list of charges for separate services.

The government has been saying it is going to do something about this since June 1986. It has not done anything. What else is new?

ORAL QUESTIONS

GROUP HOMES

Mr. B. Rae: I have again today some questions for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

This morning, just before question period, a member of my staff had a lengthy conversation with a former employee of Kinark Child and Family Services in Midland. This employee worked in the home until fairly recently, in fact is no longer an employee there but worked with the accused young offender in the particular home in question.

She tells us that, as a member of staff, she was not told very much about the young offender; that is to say why she was a young offender. She was not shown any records or information with respect to her treatment and care and, generally speaking, was kept in the dark with regard to who this person was and why she was there.

The minister cannot tell us who this person is, but I wonder if he can tell us, first, how it is that the young offender came to be in the Kinark home; and second, why information with respect to this person was kept from the staff

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I will share with the honourable leader the information I have. I understand that this young offender was sentenced by the courts to 18 months in secure custody.

The Young Offenders Act, as the member may know, does provide for the staff of a facility or the guardian of a young offender to come back before the court once again at a point in time and ask for the disposition to be reviewed.

This was one of the few homes that accepted adolescents. The young lady was not sent there, nor was the other young boy, the 14-year-old, because they were young offenders but rather because this home had the treatment facilities, the treatment opportunities that it was felt they needed.

I am not aware of the information the honourable leader has given us with respect to the request that has been made. I can share with him, however, that over the past two years, the total budget of Kinark province-wide--and it is a block-funded agency; it is not a per diem agency -- has been increased by approximately $2 million, and $500,000 of that was for program improvements.

I am sorry that I cannot speak to the specifics the leader spoke of, but I certainly feel that would be one of the issues that should be considered in a review of the security process.

Mr. B. Rae: I think we need a public inquiry, because the staff have told us that they were reduced to jamming wood in the windows on the ground floor in order to prevent illicit entry, that there have been several break-ins in the place during the day and that they never saw a ministry official who contacted the home in the period they were there.

We understand there is a very real problem here. We have a situation where homes that were intended for emotionally disturbed children referred by children’s aid societies and others are now becoming a virtual dumping ground under the Young Offenders Act, which was not their original intention. Staff are not trained to deal with people, are not paid to deal with these people and do not have the security in the homes to make them appropriate places for people who are charged under the Young Offenders Act.

Just what was this young person charged with so that she would have a sentence of 18 months in a maximum security facility?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me reiterate that the young lady and the boy who were there were not there because they were young offenders. They were there because they needed treatment. This was determined by a number of people: the courts, the children’s aid society. I think both of those had some sense about the people, as did the staff who worked at Cecil Facer Youth Centre, that this was a most appropriate placement for her in order to get that kind of treatment.

I would say to the honourable leader that these two people were not dumped there. As a matter of fact, very few young offenders are sent there.

To come back to what I said earlier, it was the most appropriate placement for her particular needs.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister still has not told us the nature of the original charge against this young person. There is no reason for that information to be kept secret. There is no reason why this House should not know that information and no reason why the workers who were in that house should not have been kept fully informed why she was there.

I have a follow-up question to the minister. He will no doubt be aware, though he has not given any report to the House, of a tragic event that took place last week in Toronto at Delisle House, which is also a home operated under his ministry. He will know that there was a 16-year-old young person with a history of serious emotional disturbance who was in that house. He was upset all day. There were renovations going on in the house. The young man took a power saw from the place in the house where the renovations were going on, locked himself in the washroom for several hours and at roughly one o’clock he committed suicide by beginning to cut his neck, as I understand it, with the power saw.

It is my understanding there was one person on staff the evening of this tragic incident. I wonder if the minister can tell us what he knows about this incident and what he can tell us about the kind of supervision, the kind of staffing arrangements in place at Delisle House last week.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My understanding of the situation is that this was a 17-year-old young man who was living apart from his family. I understand that his father was living in western Canada and that he was not living with his mother, although there was some infrequent contact with the mother, and that the young man had voluntarily booked himself into Delisle House because, as the leader said, he had some emotional problems and was looking for some assistance.

While he was at Delisle House, he was working outside in the community. He had booked himself in. There was a procedure at Delisle House that when the residents went in or out, they booked themselves in and out at the front door. He booked himself in from work at 8:30 p.m. on Saturday evening.

The counsellor who was responsible for the house knew he was in the house. He had seen him going to his own room and did not discover his body until later on in the evening. I am told that the fact there were renovations going on in the house was recognized and that all of the tools of the contractors were locked away with a fairly heavy lock in a basement room, but apparently he was able to get into the room and break through the lock. At the moment, that is the information I have.

Mr. B. Rae: I asked the minister what the staffing arrangements were that would have allowed this young person, as the minister himself described to have broken into what he described as a locked place without anybody being aware of that and then gone to the washroom and locked himself into the washroom. How long was it while he was in the washroom before he was dead? Can the minister tell us what staffing arrangements were in place at Delisle House on the night in question?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I understand there was one staff on duty and that he had booked the young man in and seen him go to his room. I also understand that subsequently the young man went down into the basement, locked the basement door behind him and then broke into the storeroom in the basement and stayed in the basement.

Mr. B. Rae: Can the minister tell us whether anybody called for help? In light of the incidents we have described and he has discussed, which all the province is now aware of, does he not think it is about time, instead of waiting 90 days before he deals with the staffing question, that he now deal with the staffing question and make it clear that as far as he is concerned, and as far as all of us are concerned, having one person on staff in any one of these homes is simply not satisfactory at any time, day or night?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My understanding is that as soon as the body was discovered the counsellor immediately contacted the police. A sergeant came to the house, investigated the situation, got all of the information from the counsellor and indicated he would obviously notify the coroner, but made a judgement call on the site that he did not believe an inquest would be required. Obviously, that is the coroner’s decision, and I am not making any judgement on that. What it does say, though, is that when all of the information was made available, that was one person’s observation.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. The Premier was quoted yesterday as having indicated that those who oppose his plans to successfully pass Bill 113 and Bill 114, the bills on Sunday shopping, are engaging in “emotional hysteria.”

I would like to share with the Premier the names of some of the individuals who in fact oppose his plans: Emmett Cardinal Carter, representing the Roman Catholic Church in Canada; Most Reverend Lewis S. Garnsworthy, the Anglican Church of Canada; Reverend Hudson T. Hilsden, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada; Bishop Sotirios, the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Toronto; Reverend Dr. Raymond Hodgson, the Presbyterian Church in Canada; Reverend David Jones, the United Church of Canada.

That is only a partial list. I have not included labour leaders. I have not included virtually all municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I have not included retail workers, literally millions of people across this province, all of whom share the views expressed by this party through this leader and who do not join with the Premier in his obvious interest in having wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: Does the Premier believe that all of these people, the names of whom I have shared with him today, are engaging in emotional hysteria?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not share the member’s view about this matter, as we have discussed for the last year and a half or so. I have said I believe there is a lot of misinformation about this, about what will result here from. We have heard all those arguments in this House and I was referring to that.

Mr. Brandt: Let me tell the Premier that some of the misinformation that has been in this House and that has been debated on this particular issue, which we are apparently going to bring to a conclusion today -- if he wants to talk about mixed signals, I remind him of the signal he sent to the people of Ontario in August 1987 prior to the September 10th election. He indicated two things in particular: first, that he was quite comfortable with the status quo; and second, that he wanted to preserve a day of rest and a day of pause in this province. What happened between August and September of 1987?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have been through this question on innumerable occasions and I think my honourable friend is quite familiar with the answer to it. We have examined the flaws in the old law, the wholesale abuse of that, and the imprecision in the drafting of the first one that did not work effectively, a fact that the member will recognize, I am sure. This new act cleans all of that up and there is a very clear framework that will apply.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: It is probably too late to ask my final supplementary, but I will anyway, because we are moving down the road on this particular question. Since the Premier did in fact change his mind between August and September in connection with what we consider to be a very important question for the people of this province, will he do the right, honourable and proper thing today and simply advise his colleagues that he was misinformed about what would happen in connection with Bill 113 and Bill 114, and will he withdraw the bills?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member serious? Honestly, I have laboured many years in opposition in this House and I have laboured many years in government. I have asked many inappropriate questions and I have answered a lot of questions inappropriately, but that takes the cake.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Brandt: I anticipated that when we asked a serious question of that nature, we would get that answer. My next question –

Mr. Speaker: Question. To which minister?

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Brandt: I am sure the Premier is aware of the fact a police sweep code-named Project Fall recently took place in which 232 arrests were made with the police successfully coming to grips with some of the drug problem that has been impacting on our community, particularly here in Toronto. A great number of drug dealers involved in crack and cocaine sales were apprehended as a result of this sweep.

It is interesting to note that before the police could actually announce the details of the successful raid they were engaged in, two of the men who were involved in that sweep, who were apprehended and charged by the police, were back on the street before the police could even make an announcement. This is after, in one case, one of the individuals received a sentence of one week and the other received a sentence of some 14 days.

The crown -- Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might carry on for just a moment -- asked for 90-day sentencing in one case and six-month sentencing in the other. I would like to ask the Premier if he thinks that seven and 14 days respectively for these crack and cocaine dealers are appropriate sentences in light of the attempts we are making as a Legislature to fight the drug problem in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say that I sympathize with the question asked by my friend opposite. We, as a Legislature, as a government, all of us, try to address a number of these very serious drug and drug-related problems in our society. I do not know all the details of this particular case. I must say, in superficial terms, that I have the very same reaction as my honourable friend does.

I will ask the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to review this matter and he will make a judgement on that. He is tied up, as the member knows, defending his wonderful reputation before the bar, but I will certainly pass on the comments of my honourable friend to the Attorney General. I do not feel I am personally competent to pass judgement on this, but I have the sense my honourable friend does.

Mr. Brandt: It seems like a terribly frustrating exercise to put close to 100 police officers on the streets in Metropolitan Toronto with the specific purpose of fighting the drug problem, of apprehending these people who are engaged in this type of criminal activity, and then when you actually get them into court, they are back on the streets as quickly as these two individuals and others seem to be in terms of the leniency of the sentencing provided by our judges.

I ask the Premier not only that he review this situation with the Attorney General, of whom I would have asked the question had he been available to be here with us in this forum today -- however, because of his unavailability –

Mr. B. Rae: He’s not available.

Mr. Brandt: I understand he is not available and that is why I am directing the question to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: And the question would be?

Mr. Brandt: I would ask the Premier in the strongest possible terms, will he use his substantial influence to get the Attorney General to very carefully review these charges and see if we cannot bring the judges into step with the rest of the Ontario public?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We in this Legislature are all hoping that the Attorney General will be free in the very near future. That being said, I will refer this matter to him.

I say to my friend that I am not sure whether this is a problem of the Criminal Code or a problem in the courts. My honourable friend has a right to second-guess a sentence imposed by the independent courts in this matter, and the Attorney General and his staff obviously have the right to review that and appeal the matter. I will convey the member’s impression to the Attorney General as he reviews this matter.

Mr. Brandt: The code does allow for sentencing of up to two years, as I understand it, in the two cases I have shared with the Premier today. I join with him in wanting to free the Attorney General, so that he can come back and contribute in his own modest way to the proceedings in this House.

I would like to refer, if I might, to another member very briefly, and that is the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) who reported to this House on the problem of drugs in our society and made a series, as I recall, of some 40 recommendations, 18 of which dealt with sentencing very directly and one of which called for an increased level of sentencing in many instances as it relates to the drug problem.

The Premier indicated he agrees with the findings and the recommendations in the Black report. As he agrees with the report and as he agreed to implement some of the recommendations in that report, could the Premier share with this House which of those recommendations have been implemented, which of those recommendations he continues to support and what progress we have made on this very serious problem in our society.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think I disagree with my honourable friend in his concern on this matter. There were a number of recommendations the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay brought forward: health, education, a variety of fronts on which this issue has to be attacked. Many of those have been implemented. I can assure my honourable friend that a number more are being pursued.

This, however, as my friend knows, is a matter for the courts. He or I do not sit and pass judgement on these people; that is the independence of the courts. Perhaps from this Legislature should go forward a message to those who do pass judgement on others, i.e. the judges, that we feel they should he more harshly dealt with. My honourable friend also recognizes there is a history of independence of the courts. It is not politicians who sit in judgement on these people.

Obviously, should the Attorney General view it as the appropriate course of action, he can ask for an appeal in this matter. I agree with my friend that the strongest signals have to go out from all institutions and authorities in this province, be they educational, health care, community and social services, legal or otherwise, that this is behaviour that will not be tolerated. I think we have to send out strong signals through the courts as well.

GROUP HOMES

Mr. B. Rae: The Minister of Community and Social Services has not answered this question, and I have asked it of him in different ways today. I would like to ask him very directly. In my reading of

section 38 of the Young Offenders Act, he is not allowed to release the identity of the young offender, the young woman, who was at the Kinark home and has now been charge with the murder of Krista Sepp. Nothing prevents him from telling us what she was charged with so that she was sentenced to 18 months in the secure facility at Cecil Facer Youth Centre in Sudbury. Will the minister now tell us what this young woman was charged with so that she was sentenced for 18 months in a security place in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The legal counsel within my ministry has indicated that since this young girl has been charged by the police, it would be improper for me to make any comments at all about her personal background.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not know why the minister would be getting that kind of advice when surely this is information to which we are all entitled as a matter of public record. I will then, by way of supplementary, ask the minister: He has just told us that with respect to the tragic incident last week at Delisle House an inquest has not even been ordered or indeed requested by his ministry, or anything of that kind.

I am sure there will be lots more information coming from the field in terms of what happens when you only have one staff person on and in terms of what happens when you have people coming into these homes who it was never expected, when they were originally established, would be in these homes.

In light of what has taken place and in light of the information I have revealed today, why will the minister today not ask for a totally independent public inquiry into what is happening to our young people, what is happening in communities and what is happening with staff, so that we can make sure the interests of the public, of the staff and of young people are all maintained by having a full public inquiry?

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

Hon. Mr Sweeney: If I may correct the honourable leader, I did not say no inquest had been ordered. What I did say was that on the police investigation, he indicated the coroner would be notified immediately. He questioned whether an inquest might be necessary. However, as the honourable leader well knows, the coroner and only the coroner determines whether an inquest will be held. That is his decision; that is not mine. It is the coroner who determines whether an inquest will be held; that is his decision.

With respect to the second part of the honourable member’s question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, if the members wish a response.

Hon. Mr Sweeney: With respect to the second part of the question, it has been my judgement that the 90-day review which I announced yesterday will enable us to get to the difficulty as quickly as possible. We have included the two ministries involved with corrections, my own and the Ministry of Correctional Services. We have included the Ontario Provincial Police. My assistant deputy minister met with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union people this morning and asked for their assistance in this.

We are going to be contacting all of the various agencies that look after emotionally disturbed children or young offenders and ask them to participate. We think that is the most appropriate way to go at this time.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. Her government and her Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) have indicated support for a national sales tax plan. The federal Minister of State (Housing), Mr. Redway, on the job for just one week, has enough clout in his cabinet to definitely be able to say that no new federal taxation policy will impact on the cost of housing. Can the minister give us the same assurance that if the provincial government goes along with the national sales tax plan, Ontario will support a mechanism to effectively exempt housing from that plan?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: I think the question of either a federal budget or a provincial budget is in the hands of the minister of finance of the appropriate jurisdiction. What I can say to the member is that this government’s commitment to making sure that housing is as affordable as possible is what I am most concerned about and it is that kind of goal that I speak to on all the opportunities that I have.

I think it is very important to remember that our government has made some commitments to make that possible through the various programs which I have detailed to the member in the past, in particular through the requirement in the land use policy that about a quarter of new units built should be affordable.

I think that the question of tax policy is best left to the ministers of finance of both jurisdictions to decide.

Mr. Harris: The federal government obviously understands a rather simple proposition, that being that if you add more taxes to the cost of housing, housing becomes more expensive and less affordable. In the federal government, both the treasurer and the minister of housing have stood up and said, “No way will we add anything by any way of tax burden that will increase the problem of housing affordability.”

I am asking the Ontario Minister of Housing to stand up and give us that same assurance that Mr. Redway has given us, that no new taxation, whether it be lot levy or whether it be by way of her participation in the national sales tax plan, will impact negatively on the cost of housing.

The bottom line here appears to be that the federal government understands and is willing to stand up and take a position on affordable housing and the minister and her government are not willing to do that.

Hon. Ms. Hosek: The member opposite has enough experience to know that he should not prejudge any budget until it arrives. If indeed the next budget of the federal government makes recognition of the housing needs of this province I will be extremely pleased, as will everybody else in this House and everybody else in this province.

The member also knows that the discussion we are undertaking with the development industry and with municipalities about the question of how to fund the infrastructure costs of high growth are going on right now. We are pleased to listen to any suggestion he might have to make about how to meet those concerns, together with the concerns with affordable housing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and it relates to Highway 416 in eastern Ontario. As the minister knows, some 16 months ago his ministry committed $140 million to this highway project. I wonder if the minister can give an update to the House on the status of this project.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Now that you’re back in town.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I have not been travelling quite as much as I normally do, but I have been travelling under different circumstances.

I welcome the member’s question. It is a very important one; it is very important to him and his colleagues from Ottawa and area and from eastern Ontario generally. I very much appreciate the input the members have provided me with over the past while, including a meeting in my office very recently when all members of the Ottawa caucus brought forward their continued interest with respect to continuing with Highway 416, a highway we consider of paramount importance in this province.

We are spending $3 million this year, as previously committed. We will be spending additional dollars next year, culminating with $58 million in 1992. The announcement was made in 1987. We are on schedule, we are on target and we will continue with the project as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chiarelli: The minister may be aware of the fact that the Junior Chamber of Commerce in Ottawa this week is starting a lobbying venture and publicity campaign with respect to Highway 416. They are particularly interested in the link from Century Road to Highway 401. Would the minister care to comment on that particular lobbying campaign and that particular link on Highway 416?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member would be aware that when we took office the previous government, in fact, had had this project on the books for some 31 years.

Mr. Brandt: That’s just a little bit of an exaggeration. Your nose is going to grow, Ed.

Mr. Pouliot: It’s been almost four years. Minister. Where have you been?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is not order, it might take 31 years to get an answer. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am advised by one of my colleagues that, in fact, the Conservative government got four elections out of that promise.

Mr. Jackson: You’re doing the same thing with hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have a direct response?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It is such a pleasure to be back.

To answer the member’s question, we are on record. We are committed to concluding Highway 416 from Century Road to Highway 401 in the area of Prescott as soon as possible. But what we are doing now, as we promised and are committed to do and will continue to its completion, is the most difficult and most cost-intensive section, which is from the Ottawa Queensway to Century Road. We will provide funds at the earliest possible opportunity for the balance of the

section to Highway 401.

DEGRADABLE PLASTICS

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it concerns degradable plastics. During the discussion of the estimates of the ministry, the minister shared my concern about degradable plastics and said: “The great fad today is biodegradable and photodegradable. . . . If you wonder why we have not embraced it, it is because the jury is still out on it... . Our thrust there is recycling instead of biodegradable at the present time.”

I endorse that position taken by the Minister of the Environment. I would like to know if it is, in fact, still his position; and if so will he undertake to communicate with his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) who, under the guise of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, is circulating bags that say, “This bag is photodegradable to help our customers contribute to a cleaner and healthy environment”? What is the Minister of the Environment going to do about this distribution?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: How long do I have to answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I do not usually answer questions, but 48 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is quite correct in saying that for those who have advocated biodegradable or photodegradable materials as the prime solution to the problem of plastics and the disposal of plastics. I do not think, with the evidence I have seen, that it is the answer a lot of people in this world seem to think it is. There may be a place somewhere along the line when the necessary tests have been done.

I happen to believe that recycling is the very best thing to do and there are many products that can be recycled. The member will know, for instance, that I have met with the Society of the Plastics Industry of Canada in the province and have indicated very clearly, and they agree with me, that recycling is the major thrust. Whether in the future there is a role for photodegradable or biodegradable products in specific instances remains to be seen. Of course, it is a message I am happy to share with everyone including people within my own ministry. I think within my own ministry there are people who have in the past looked at photodegradable or biodegradable –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member may have a supplementary.

Mrs. Grier: I did not hear a commitment to ask his colleague to stop distributing these bags. The plastics industry itself is very concerned about degradable plastics. First Brands (Canada) Corp. who make Glad Bags have not adopted the technology. The Society of the Plastics Industry of Canada has not endorsed the process and the minister’s own recycling advisory committee recently urged the minister to place a moratorium on the use and marketing of degradable plastics until such time as sufficient research is conducted to evaluate the potential effects of their use.

The minister says and acknowledges that is what needs to happen. Can the minister accept this advice and tell us when he will prohibit the sale and distribution of degradable plastics in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I wanted to save my answer for the supplementary, because I wanted to hear the second question the member was going to ask. I would say to her, first, that the Ministry of the Environment is funding a study to see if plastics break down into harmless byproducts as some people contend. I want to assure the member that I am glad she is joining me now in this particular crusade to be very cautious about the potential use, which many environmentalists in years gone by saw as being a reasonable use, of biodegradable or photo-degradable products.

I would be happy to share with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario my point of view and the point of view the member shares with me, one which I think is being expressed far more by those in environmental groups. There are still people out there, I will say, who believe this is the answer to everything. I think she would agree that in the long term we have to look at those studies and see what they reveal. I can assure her that the major thrust I will push with the companies and with everyone in the province and North America and Canada and the world is that of –

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seemed like a very broad answer. New question.

VOTING BY PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Premier. He stated in this House on January 12 to the citizens of Ontario that he is committed to allowing a free vote on Bill 113 and Bill 114. Does he still honour this commitment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think I said that every vote in this House is a free vote.

Mrs. Cunningham: The Premier’s response is most interesting. The chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice stated just a week ago in a letter dated January 20 that there was “never a promise of a free vote.”

He further stated that the Premier’s commitment on January 12 “did not constitute a freedom of members to vote their own views.” Will the Premier allow his members to vote their own views on Bill 113 and Bill 114?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a point of order here.

Mr. Callahan: A point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry: I cannot accept a point of privilege during question period.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This member very nicely presented a press release to the press gallery this afternoon which represented only one half of a letter that I sent in response to her leader and she is about to ask a question based on that. In fairness, I think when one is going to quote a letter, one should quote the entire letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On many occasions, many members have their own points of view. I believe the Premier was ready to respond to that supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) responded far more ably than I could ever do.

IRRIGATION

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will recall that on July 27, 1988 and again in September, he met with a group of farmers on the irrigation committee from the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. We are now in the advertising stages of presenting a private bill entitled the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake Irrigation Act, concerning the conversion of drainage ditches to irrigation ditches during the dry season, which will considerably improve the crop quality and the productivity for farmers who participate.

Will the minister please relate to this House his comments regarding this very worthwhile project in St. Catharines-Brock?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I know of the member’s continuing interest in this matter, particularly after last summer’s drought, and the support he is lending to the producers in the Niagara region. I will say to the member that the conversion of drainage ditches into irrigation channels impacts on a wide range of statutes and the common law, and any act that proposes to address the situation will have to be carefully drafted to accommodate the existing legislation and protect the rights of all the property owners who may be affected by the conversion. My ministry will be reviewing the private member’s bill with these thoughts in mind.

Mr. Dietsch: The minister is certainly well aware of the benefits accrued from these types of co-operative projects and the need to be more innovative in the agricultural industry today. More particularly, I am asking if he would lend his support to this type of project, which I believe will be an innovative approach that will help against droughts and improve agricultural productivity throughout the whole of the province.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: For farmers wishing to use municipal drains for irrigation, a bill such as the one the member is proposing may be the best solution, given the local situation and the complexity of provincial, federal and international laws affecting water.

I do commend the member for his initiative in bringing local farmers and municipal officials together behind this bill in order to meet the needs of his area.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Allen: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: The minister cannot but be struck by the fact that the 1,600 inspection reports reviewed by the Globe and Mail abundantly confirm Sharon West’s study of last May that was presented to him on child care in Toronto, which concluded that commercial day care centres were less likely to meet the requirements of the Day Nurseries Act or more likely to have a complaint lodged against them than any other type of operator, and required more visits than any other type of day care centre.

In light of the growing evidence before us, why has the minister not put in place a time-limited program for the conversion of commercial centres to nonprofit status?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would point out to the honourable member that of the 22 centres that were identified in the Friday and Saturday versions of the Globe and Mail report, 10 were nonprofit and 12 were commercial. That is pretty close to a 50-50 split. In each case, the reporters identified a particular problem and in each case, as I recollect it, that problem was cleared up very quickly afterwards.

The honourable member is aware of the fact that exactly the same inspection procedures apply to both nonprofit and commercial centres. The honourable member is also aware of the fact that if any of our inspectors find a particular problem, they will go back to that centre, regardless of whether it is nonprofit or commercial, as many times as necessary to get the problem fixed or to close it.

Mr. Allen: The reply ignores the fact that the number of infractions per child care centre and return visits by inspectors to commercial centres in order to monitor compliance far exceeds those of the nonprofit sector.

The select committee on health of this Legislature recommended a conversion program to the minister regarding incentives, parent representation and time-limited implementation. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care is now calling for a similar program to be announced by the minister within the next 30 days, if he can possibly meet that deadline.

Does the minister agree that the proposals of the child care coalition and of the committee of this Legislature provide a framework that will ensure better child care in Ontario, and will he put such a plan in place in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is very clear that all the new initiatives for the past two or three years in Ontario in terms of government funding have been for noncommercial centres. As a matter of fact, the member may be aware of the fact that when I became minister, the ratio of commercial to nonprofit was almost 50-50. I think it was 48 per cent to 52 per cent. Today, the percentage of commercial centres in Ontario is less than 40 per cent. It is down to about 38 per cent or 39 per cent. Therefore, there is obviously a very significant shift taking place.

The second point is that New Directions in Child Care clearly said that was something we would be prepared to initiate and encourage. The new legislation that is being drawn up at the present time will certainly require parent representation on all boards, whether they are commercial or nonprofit. As the honourable member well knows, even all nonprofit centres do not have parent representation on their boards.

However, the one thing I am not prepared to do, as I have already answered, is to buy out commercial centres and turn them over to nonprofit organizations. Quite frankly, with the dollars I have available to me now in that budget, every one of them –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. I would like to read him a brief quote from the Toronto Sun: “Wheel-Trans is in a mess and Metro’s disabled people are missing exams, job opportunities and appointments,” says Mona Winberg, columnist for this leading Metro newspaper.

She is not the only spokesperson for the disabled who has spoken out recently about the poor service disabled persons are getting when it comes to their transportation needs. When is the minister going to take a leadership role and remedy the transportation problems facing the disabled in Metro today?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: As the Legislature will know, this year Wheel-Trans has been taken over by the Toronto Transit Commission, which I believe is a good solution in the long term to the problems that existed at Wheel-Trans in the past.

I want to say to the honourable member that I have been well aware of the difficulties that the transition has caused. I have personally been on the phone to the most senior officials at the TFC to find out exactly what the problems were. They explained to me that the majority of the problems were caused by the transition. They felt that within a short period of time the transition would be over and they could restore service to an acceptable level. I am continuing to monitor the situation and I am hopeful that the acceptable level of transportation that we would want to give the disabled will in fact be in place in the very near future.

Mrs. Marland: In the fall of 1986, which is now two and a half years ago, this Liberal government established an interministerial committee to review transportation policies and programs for people across this province with disabilities. We have asked the minister on many occasions for the report of this committee, including last November during estimates at which time he promised it would be released very soon.

It is now February and we have not seen or heard a word about this interministerial committee report. When is the minister going to release the report, and will he act upon it or will it just sit on the shelf along with all the other reports that his ministry has commissioned?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I do not know what the honourable member is talking about when she refers to reports which have been commissioned by the Office for Disabled Persons that are sitting on the shelf. That is absolutely not the case.

I want to say to the honourable member, as I told her in estimates -- we had quite a pleasant exchange during the estimates procedure, and I believe that I gave the members of the committee as much information, or at least all the information that I had -- the interministerial committee was working on this report, the report was near conclusion and as soon as the report was available for public consumption the report would be made available to all concerned. We have not in any way backtracked from our view that the report should be made public as soon as it is available.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Mr. McGuinty: In response to concerns from constituents of Ottawa South, and indeed on behalf of people in other parts of Ontario, I wish to ask the following of the Minister of Education:

Because of the growth of alternative and independent schools in Ontario, 205 schools with over 55,000 students, can the minister tell the Legislature when these schools will get a clear definition of their legal right to exist by changing the requirement for an annual intention to operate, which is now left to the minister’s discretion?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to assure the member for Ottawa South that there is no question whatsoever as to the continuing right for private schools to exist in this province. I think this province has long recognized the fundamental right of parents to choose alternative forms of education, albeit at their own expense if they choose a school outside of one of the two publicly funded systems.

The member is correct in pointing out that the submission of a notice of intention to operate is a requirement of the Education Act, but far from being a vehicle for the exercise of ministerial discretion, I think the member should note that indeed it does serve a very useful administrative purpose in terms of the reporting and collection of data that are necessary to my ministry.

The member will also recognize that the province does have a constitutional obligation in terms of the provision of elementary and secondary education for each and every one of those children of school age in this province, that we do in fact have an obligation to make a determination as to a satisfactory level of instruction, and frankly we have an obligation to provide inspection. All of this is, I believe, part and parcel of the need for a notice of intent under the act.

Mr. McGuinty: In view of the fact that British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec now provide from 30 to 80 per cent of operating funds for alternative and independent schools, is Ontario contemplating doing the same thing?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member will know that some two or two and a half years ago a report was undertaken, initiated by the former government, the Shapiro report on private schools, which provided us with a very excellent analysis of the many issues surrounding the provision of alternative or independent education in this province. I will say that I do not believe the approach taken by other jurisdictions in Canada is necessarily the most appropriate approach for this particular province.

As I have stated on many occasions, our first priority is in terms of the funding of the publicly funded systems in this province, and beyond that we have no intentions at this time to provide funding to alternative schools.

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure the minister is aware that Greenpeace had a press conference this morning in Detroit, at which time it released statistics and information about the world’s largest incinerator, which is about to start up in Detroit. Is the minister aware that their statistics and analysis indicate that the ash at this incinerator exceeds levels set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency standards by six to eight times?

In view of the fact that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the minister himself have met with officials in Michigan and received assurances from Governor Blanchard that if this incinerator proved to be unsafe -- the governor of Michigan promised that he would enforce the rules and make sure that there were scrubbers put on this incinerator. Is the minister prepared to ask the Premier to contact the governor of Michigan to make sure that this promise and this special relationship is fulfilled?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I know the member did not have time to indicate that the government of Ontario has been in the courts of the United States, and at a lower level of court, the judge –

Mr. B. Rae: You had Ian Scott there.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, we did not in that case. The judge ruled against us. The judge who was appointed at that time ruled against us. In fact, yesterday in the US circuit court of appeals in Cincinnati we made our case to the United States courts. We are the only ones in that court as far as a government is concerned, the member will know. No other government is involved in that particular court case. We hope to defend the people of Ontario and in fact probably the people of that area as well.

We have been in the forefront of fighting against the Detroit incinerator. Leading the way, we have not accepted any of the excuses. I have personally met with the mayor of Detroit to indicate very strongly the position of the province. There have been meetings between the Michigan and Ontario officials. I tell the member that such an incinerator could not be constructed in Ontario with the kind of pollution controls they are suggesting, and I tell him that we intend to pursue all of the commitments which have been made. Those commitments relate to contacts between the province of Ontario and the state of Michigan to ensure that the state fulfils the promises made to Ontario.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Miclash: I have a petition which reads:

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

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

“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 on the present seven or 10 years.

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

This has been signed by 231 people. I have attached my name as well.

MATHER WALLS HOUSE

Mr. Miclash: I have a petition which reads:

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

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

“We wish to support the Lake of the Woods Historical Society in their endeavour to operate the Mather Walls House as a historical exhibit activity centre. We feel to use the Mather Walls House as a bed and breakfast outlet is a very serious misuse of a beautiful heritage building. It would be of much more benefit to all of northwestern Ontario as a historical period exhibit.”

This has been signed by 241 people, and I have attached my name as well.

Mr. Speaker: I find that with all the private conversations, I have to turn my hearing aid up. Perhaps I could have the attention of all members. The member for Markham with a petition.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: This is in proper format, unlike some of the other ones we receive.

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

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

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

These come from people in Markham, Unionville, Thornhill and even some from Richmond Hill and King City from the riding of York Centre.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO SALE TO MINORS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill 215,

An Act to amend Certain Acts Concerning the Sale of Tobacco to Minors.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: This bill puts some bite into a toothless law we now have in Ontario. It increases fines from a range of $2 to $50 to $200 to $5,000 for an offence in selling tobacco to a minor. It also introduces a measure of controlling the sale of tobacco to minors through the utilization of our vendor permit system under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved first reading of Bill 216,

An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Subsection 18(1) of the act provides that, “Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the employer to manage.. .” and that the employer has the right to determine specified matters as part of that function.

The purpose of the bill is to remove superannuation from that list of specified matters which would then give the union the right to negotiate pension benefits.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: The order of the day is that last item of business consequent upon the passage of government motion 20, the allocation of time for the consideration of the two bills, 113 and 114.

As I call the third order, I want to indicate that I believe the whips have been discussing this matter, and the Clerk and I were chatting as well. I want to be clear as we now proceed this afternoon to this item of business that we are all agreed, because I think there is a general sense of understanding as to how we might do this. As I call the third order let me be clear, and then I will call the fourth order. Perhaps my friends opposite want to make some comment as we try to arrange the time this afternoon in a way that will be satisfactory.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am not exactly clear on what the government House leader is doing, but if I understand him correctly he is calling the third order now. I would suggest that he call the fourth order at 5:30 and we can adjourn the debate on the third order at 5:30, but I do not think we should be doing two bills on third reading at the same time in the House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, I simply want to remind everyone that the order that governs this particular business at the present time says, and I quote from the order that was passed in the House a week ago yesterday, I believe, on January 30, “Further, that there shall be one sessional day allocated to the consideration of Bill 113,

An Act to Amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114” –

Mr. Wildman: That’s why it was out of order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to be clear that the order indicates that we shall do the third reading of the two bills together on the fourth sessional day that is set out in this motion. We had had some discussions. Quite frankly, the reason I am doing it this way is that I thought there was an accommodation. I do not think there is a problem here. I just want to make it easy for everyone.

Perhaps in interpreting this, Mr. Speaker, you can be helpful. It seems to me we have two choices within that possibility. My thought was that we would move the two bills together for third reading, because that is certainly the way the order is written, and then by an agreement among whips we would divide the debate accordingly. That would allow the two ministers to rise in their places and move the respective bills, resume their places and the third reading debate, which is quite clearly indicated in the order, could then take place.

I know my friends opposite have been talking about perhaps another way to facilitate something of the same end, which is what the government wishes in this respect, and I want to be clear. We want to be able to take the votes on the third reading of these two bills at 5:45 this afternoon. I really would like some comment, if my friends opposite want to speak to that.

Mr. Harris: I will be very brief. I think the situation we are in, and the point was raised by both of our parties, indicates the great difficulty in trying to do two bills in one time allocation motion. I understand, though, that motion has been passed and in fact ruled in order by you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have a great hangup one way or the other. I am a little concerned about the precedent of actually debating two bills at one time; and I will be agreeable here, I think it is clear that we have passed a motion that there are going to be votes today and I do not see any way that I can precipitate anything that is going to change that.

I would offer as a suggestion as well that I would not be opposed, if Bill 113 were called, if there was some degree of latitude in the Speaker’s calling people to order if they are sensed to be straying into Bill 114 in their comments on Bill 113. I suspect that might be less of a transgression on the rules than doing both bills at one time.

Unfortunately, we just started to talk about this a few minutes ago. We would like to facilitate the time as best we can, and I do not think we particularly want two individual wrapups on two individual bills.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It will take the wisdom of Solomon, I think, to sort this out, but it strikes me that the difficulty in trying to do both at once is that the language of the motion, as read by the House leader, does not say that these things shall be done at the same time, but rather that during that time period these things will be accomplished.

Inasmuch as, for instance, we did not deal with the two bills concurrently in committee of the whole dealing with amendments to each of those bills, at this time it would be very wise, it seems to me, to do what we have done in the past; that is to have the bulk of the debate here on Bill 113, on which it has all centred up to this point, and to have that end at a certain time; and then in a very perfunctory way have the second bill dealt with; and as the Conservative House leader has said, allow members some latitude in their statements making their case around the two bills.

That would be the easiest way of dealing with it, unless in your infinite wisdom and with the great assistance of the table you have an easier solution to it, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a sense of this meeting and I would be quite prepared to simply recommend that the way we interpret the orders this afternoon is that we proceed with the third reading debate of Bill 113 along the line suggested by my friends the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), and agree now to conclude that not later than 5:30 p.m. In that way, we can at least have 15 minutes in which the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Sorbara) can move third reading of Bill 114 and have at least a 15-minute debate so that we can conclude at least a short debate on Bill 114 and take, as the motion clearly indicates, all votes regarding the disposition of both bills for third reading at 5:45.

If that is agreeable, I would seek unanimous consent for that

interpretation of this motion for today’s purposes.

Mr. Speaker: If I may just read the order as set out by the House:

“Further, that there shall be one sessional day allocated to the consideration of Bill 113,

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

an Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, together at the third reading stage and that on that sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at 5:45 p.m.”

That is the wish of the House. In order to maintain that wish, the Speaker feels that it would be best to handle them together. However, the request has been made for unanimous consent to deal with Bill 113 from now till 5:30 and with Bill 114 from 5:30 to 5:45.

Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL

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

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I will reserve those for the concluding remarks.

Mrs. Cunningham: I guess this debate this afternoon will bring discussions to a close and I am certainly pleased on behalf of the opposition parties in the House to debate a bill that will go down in history in this province as a bill, we think, that will change the way of life and the quality of life for families in Ontario in a way that has never happened before.

I think that Bill 113, over a period of time -- slowly, for certain -- will definitely allow Sunday shopping to a much greater extent than we already have it in this province. It is one that will impact on families and on the way we live in this province in a way we will not be proud of.

For most of us who I think have been very happy with the way we have been allowed to manage our time in a very busy and changing world, it has been really wonderful to live in Ontario where we can be assured that only people in professions or in the workplaces who are very necessary to the management of our lives on a daily basis right now have to work on Sundays.

We do have in our province a Retail Business Holidays Act that does allow, for economic reasons more than anything else, certain retail stores to open on Sundays. Those retail stores that are open now are there in areas that are defined as tourist areas. They are somewhat controversial, but certainly governments of the past have thought it extremely necessary during the history of this province, for business purposes, for Ontario to be competitive and for us to support what we think is probably one of the larger, more important industries in our province, and that is tourism.

I do not really think that the public understands the far-reaching effects of this particular piece of legislation, because it is complicated and it is one that the public will not really understand until it affects it in its own neighbourhoods and backyards. But people who were involved in the tourist industry came to us and were well represented by their own groups and individuals, both large organizations and very small family businesses, and told us: “We just do not know where we stand.

We have been put into a position now so that we cannot plan for our future, because this particular piece of legislation will allow municipalities to open, or close, retail businesses and any other kind of business that is open on a Sunday.”

When it comes to openings on Sundays in the retail business world, our province truly now is in a state of chaos because people are not quite certain what the implications of this legislation will be. We know it will not be simple to solve the problems that will be brought forth with this particular piece of legislation.

I suppose the greatest disappointment today is that the position in which we find ourselves in Ontario could have been avoided. No longer will a common day of pause be entrenched in the legislation of our province, and that is why this particular bill is so historic. No longer will we be able to tell the citizens of Ontario that they can be assured of a common day of pause, of no more working than what we have now on Sundays, because of Bill 113, which of course is an amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

If we take a look at the history of this particular piece of legislation, it is even more disappointing to have to stand here today and talk about democracy: a democracy that we have always taken for granted and have been very proud of. That is why we choose to live and work in this province. We are admired by people around the world because we have been, I think, an open government in the past.

We in this province have been proud to be part of the workings of the Legislature of this province. The one thing we did not expect at this particular point in our history was to be speaking to a bill that was one that was not expected and was promised would never be presented before this House, because during the election in September 1987, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) did state that he would be supporting a common day of pause in Ontario and that he would not be looking at a municipal option as opposed to legislation that supported that common day of pause.

It is true that the Retail Business Holidays Act, as it is presently written, does have a few minor flaws. Those flaws have been taken care of by the amendments to the bill as presented on the very first day of the introduction and through the deliberations of this bill before the standing committee on administration of justice. Very quickly we had a consensus among the members that one of the three problems could be dealt with, and that was, of course, the problem of enforcement. We know right now that there is power within the existing legislation that we are not taking advantage of. We know at this particular point in time that fines are not being levied to the extent that they could be.

We have a case in court in southwestern Ontario right now where a judge is being challenged on the amount of fines that were given to a particular business that flouted the law over a period of some months on nine different occasions. I stand to be corrected, but I think that particular business was levied some $900 worth of fines, if that. We do have the clout within the existing legislation, but we simply did not use it.

The government advised us that we had a real problem, and it also told us it wanted to increase the fines. We agreed with them, so that particular point was dealt with very quickly in the committee hearings.

Before we went out for public input across the province, we also talked about the problem of enforcement. The government advised us it would want a clause in the amendments that gave the government the power of injuncture. We agreed immediately to that. Therefore, over a period of a couple of days we agreed on two of what the government advised us were rather significant problems with the present legislation.

The third problem with the legislation was a problem for the government. This particular problem had to do, in their view, with the definition of tourism. I think we were misled in some ways on the very first day of the hearings, because the government advised us that this particular piece of legislation could not be upheld in the courts. Over a period of weeks and upon doing our homework and asking the question on a number of occasions, we were convinced that the present legislation could be upheld in the courts; the only real problem was that the definition of tourism had to be expanded and improved upon.

Most members of the public who came before the committee advised us that they would be more than happy to assist us in a definition of tourism. They were not asked to assist at any time and they have not been asked as a result of the committee hearings.

There are those of us who gave up a number of weeks to hear the public because we seriously thought in the beginning that the government would listen if we did get a very loud response from the public on these different issues. I am sad to say, as a fairly new member to this Legislative Assembly, that I was very much disappointed, because of 500-plus presentations both oral and written, we saw the vast majority of people suggesting they did not want what we have commonly referred to as the local option.

The local option really means that instead of the province and this government taking a very strong stand on which additional retail establishments can be open on Sunday, it will delegate that responsibility to the municipalities. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what

section 4 means. The province has decided that any additional openings or closings should be decided by the municipalities. That is the only part of the legislation we had a great deal of objection to.

In fact, the Premier stated on the third day of the public hearings that the local option was not negotiable. It was very disappointing to those of us who thought we were playing a big role in a democratic process to know that the Liberal members of the justice committee had been given their marching orders. In fact, they were given a document of questions and answers; all of us are aware of the document. I think that was an insult to the elected Liberal members of that committee who were there prepared to listen and to take a stand on their own. I would say quite frankly that they were not allowed to do so.

A little bit about the process, because the public should know that some tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars -- we do not really know -- were spent on this process. People’s expectations were raised.

That is a very real concern because when we take a committee out across Ontario, we ourselves are committing our time. That is what we have agreed to do as elected members of this Legislative Assembly. It is part of our job to listen to the public, to formulate our views and to take a stand, frequently based on what our constituents want.

As we travelled the province, the other part of this particular picture was the intensity and commitment to appearing before us of members of the public, sometimes on very hot summer days, sometimes travelling hundreds of miles, sometimes giving up their own days at work and holiday time because they felt so strongly about this issue.

I was truly amazed at the response we got. I was told that the only other bill that received more response was Bill 30. That was the act that extended funding to the separate schools in this province. I think that says something on behalf of the people in Ontario.

I should state that I said on a number of occasions as we travelled the province that the public is serious about this. They have been serious about important legislation in the past. Elected members will just have to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That is historical. It has been proved. This party knows that better than any other party, I suggest, and I think this strong, very large Liberal majority government will know how that feels after the next election. That is not my observation, but the observation of hundreds of members of the public who came and spoke to us and wrote this point of view to us in their correspondence.

I think the petitions that were read in this House represented the views of what the Premier would refer to as the little guy: the person who walked through a shopping mall and took the time to put his name to a petition, the worker who worked in a retail establishment who felt very strongly about the hours of work he was already prepared to perform on behalf of the public and in the public service as he works in a very large industry, the retail establishment.

I should go on to say that there were church groups, business groups, unions, small businesses, automobile dealerships, retail workers, students and teachers’ federations. I do not think there could be a larger cross-section of society represented in this debate. Without exception, they told us they liked the way things are now. They think we work and live in a different world, one that works more quickly and one that is more challenging. The challenge to the family in these times is enormous, it is intense.

In my role as the critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I see almost on an hourly basis the concerns of families because of the challenges of today’s society, and I know the government hears them as well.

What have we done as we have tried to solve the problems we have been facing just this past weekend? We have been looking at the problems of families. We have been looking at young people who because of their troubled lives are no longer welcome to live in their own homes. We were looking at young people who in fact are in trouble and are put into locked institutions. We are looking at young people who are crying out for help.

We are looking at people who are being pressured, right at this very time, into making decisions for their own lives and trying to balance their school work around their studies. We are looking at young people who are struggling in young families to put food on the table and to buy homes. Because of that, we have families where two people are choosing to work so that they can buy that home.

The challenges to this government are significant. We should be spending our time today debating the cost of housing. We should be talking about building schools for our young children and families. The issues of the environment are overwhelming. Should I end by saying we should be talking about health care?

Most of us are representing the public. The public has put this forth on its agenda as being extremely important. We have received literally hundreds of thousands of names on petitions and hundreds of people chose to speak to our committee as it travelled across this province. We have had the kind of response to an amendment to a piece of legislation that we did not expect, quite frankly. We did not expect to get this loud, vocal response. This very small opposition caucus and our colleagues in the New Democratic Party opposition caucus have had to make it our business to represent the public in a way that we probably never have had to do in the past.

For some reason, during the reading of the petitions, we saw very few Liberal members reading their own petitions. In fact, on four or five occasions, I checked with Liberal members and read petitions from their own ridings. I am sure that is not something those particular members are proud of. We do not know what has happened to this government. We have no idea where the push for this amendment is coming from. We have no idea. As recently as yesterday the Premier, as he was speaking to a group of secondary school students in the town of Picton in southwestern Ontario, talked about opposition to this bill.

Mr. Campbell: In southwestern Ontario? You better tell her where it is. Did you guys move it?

Mrs. Cunningham: In southeastern Ontario; I stand corrected. I certainly know where Picton is. I spent many days there in my childhood.

At the same time, the members of the public who felt very strongly about their quality of life and their common pause day were referred to as participating in “emotional hysteria.” Those were the words of the Premier. That is not a very positive description of a very concerned public, the people whom we are here to represent and sometimes protect.

That is what this bill is all about. It is protecting people from having to work even more on Sundays. That is what this bill is all about and that is why we are speaking as strongly as we are today.

I should tell members there is a precedent for this amendment. The precedent for this amendment is in New Brunswick. We have been in constant touch with that province because we were very serious during the public hearings and during the deliberations of the standing committee on administration of justice to put forth amendments that would make a difference, amendments we could support and amendments we thought could work.

During that process, we in the Conservative Party put forth an amendment that would put the responsibility for more Sunday openings back on the province. That amendment allowed for public hearings and for an appeal process. It was an amendment that had been carefully thought out and changed over a period of time in consultation with other provinces, and in particular with the province of New Brunswick. It was an amendment that would have met the needs of the people of Ontario and that I think would have assisted the government in polishing and making better a piece of legislation it thought was not working.

We thought we were extremely responsible in coming forth with that amendment, which in fact was spoken to by one member of the justice committee. The debate took less than 15 minutes. I should tell the members, as the author of that amendment, that it took us literally weeks to put it together. There was no serious deliberation in that committee on some very important amendments put by both the New Democratic Party and by the Conservative Party, absolutely none.

For many members -- I am glad to say it is not so today -- this legislation is one that has been joked about, one that has been spoken about in derogatory terms, one that has been treated extremely lightly and one that has no place on the public agenda of the Liberal government.

Happily, I think the Liberal members are having to think seriously about the way they are going to vote today. We tried earlier this afternoon to ask the Premier again, because we were confused, in all honesty, about what he meant by a free vote. We did have reason to believe certain Liberal members were not feeling comfortable in standing up and giving their point of view freely and representing the public that elected them. As we tried for clarification, which I think we got, the Premier certainly stated a free vote was in order. We are hoping we will see representation in this House of the people in Ontario as the Liberals place their votes.

It is a grass-roots fight. It is one the people feel very strongly about and one they will remember for a long time, not only politically but because of the fact we will see extended Sunday shopping. People refer to the effect of this bill as the domino effect. It is very sad to think right now that people are so tremendously unable to plan their own businesses and their own personal lives.

Interjections.

Mrs. Cunningham: When I say that, I think that is indicative of the way the government has been operating more recently. They continue to joke as I speak now about what we are calling management. I think they are having difficulty getting their particular management skills together in many of their portfolios, but why would they pass that problem on to the retail businesses across this province? The tourist industry is in an absolute uproar. They have no idea how long their industries will be allowed to operate in the way they are operating now.

There are other parts of this legislation we could be discussing today. We do not want to confuse the public any more than this bill confuses them by raising the issue of the size of drugstores, by raising the issue of the municipal option, by raising the issue of democracy itself. The public has spoken. They certainly spoke in London North in a very strong vote during a by-election recently. I am very grateful for this issue, one we did not expect.

Interjections.

Mrs. Cunningham: As we are constantly being interrupted this afternoon, I should say with regard to the interjections that if I were as uncertain about the way I were going to vote this afternoon, that is the stand I would take too. I should also say we will be looking with interest at the way the Liberal members vote as they represent the public. We certainly are expecting a full house.

I am not happy to be part of this debate this afternoon. It is a historic change for Ontario. I will close by saying we will no longer have the luxury, we will no longer have what I think is a very real need for families in this province and we will no longer have a common day of pause supported by this Liberal government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there comments or questions arising out of the speech by the member for London North?

Mr. Miller: I would like to rise and give a couple of comments on the statement by the member for London North. There is nothing in this bill that states anything about Sunday shopping. The bill clearly indicates it is to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. I think the opposition has done a fantastic job of going around this province and not giving the proper information. I think the bill is clearly redoing legislation that should have been updated. It all came about because Boxing Day came on a Sunday about two years ago.

I think we are just relaying it. There is no possibility of change unless they want it changed. It goes back. If there are going to be changes, they can be made at the local level where the decision, in my view, can be the most effective.

In my lifetime, the businesses in the small communities have all organized their hours of shopping over the years. I can recall when Saturday night was a shopping night and they would stay open until 10:30, 11 o’clock and even 12 midnight. But the business people got together and decided they did not want to keep those kind of hours as things changed and unfolded. Nobody is pressuring stores to be open on Sunday if a community does not want it.

Again, the member has gone on for many months now promoting this and it is not really factual. I believe the bill is just upgrading the act and I am only too pleased to support it. It is going to fit into today’s society and make it more effective and efficient for the general public of Ontario.

Mr. Philip: I have some comments on the statement of the member for London North. The member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) seems to take the same theme the other Liberals have been taking recently, namely, that the two opposition parties are so competent we are able to hoodwink the public into thinking this is wide-open Sunday shopping.

I ask the member for London North, does she not think we must be really brilliant when we were able to hoodwink the Archdiocese of Toronto? In their recent letter, they said this will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping from their studies of what happened in British Columbia.

Does she not think that we, both opposition parties, must be terribly good in being able to convince all the small business groups, the auto dealers, the major church groups, the workers in Ontario, the community organizations that have appeared before us, and indeed the municipalities that this will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping?

Are we not great communicators when we can put over this colossal hoax on all of these people, or is it possible in her opinion that perhaps all of these groups are quite intelligent, can make up their own minds, can read the legislation and have concluded for themselves that this will lead to wide-open Sunday shopping and that the hoax is by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), not the opposition?

Mr. Runciman: I simply want to put on the record my thoughts with respect to the efforts undertaken by the member for London North on behalf of our party and the people of this province on this piece of legislation. Indeed, there has been a very serious evasion of responsibility on the part of the Liberal government in this province.

I want to say with respect to the member that she is a relatively new member of this House, but she has acted like a veteran. She does simply an outstanding job on behalf of consumers and people right across this province in representing their interests and concerns with respect to this piece of legislation. I want to say, as a member of the Conservative caucus, how proud I am and how proud all of our colleagues are with respect to the performance and the job she has done on our behalf.

Mr. Neumann: I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief comments in regard to the remarks we just heard from the member for London North. It seems to me the issue has been placed where it should be: at the provincial level. This is a bill to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, not to abolish it. The member should realize, and I am sure she does, that it was her party in 1975 which introduced the principle of municipalities having the local option through the tourism provision in the existing legislation.

She should realize that the present legislation is fraught with problems and was crying out for reform and change and that this government undertook courageous action in stepping forward to reform this particular piece of legislation.

I would like to ask the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) why her leader has not responded to a letter which I sent to him. He sent me a letter suggesting how I should represent my constituents. I am quite capable of doing that myself and I do communicate with them. I answered his letter and I posed three questions to him, but I never received a response. My questions, which I posed to her leader, asked what the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is, because while they have been very critical, they have never stated what they do if they were in office with respect to defining tourism at the provincial level.

Would they remove the local option which they put into the present legislation? Do they still believe in municipal decision-making, which they introduced, or would they abolish that and handle it province-wide with a tourism definition? What is the wording of this tourism reform in the province-wide legislation? They have not put forward the position of their party. To be constructive critics, they should do that.

The Acting Speaker: We have about a minute left. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: It really continues to be very interesting and almost, I suppose to a degree, appalling to hear the members of the Liberal government on this issue talk about responsibility being where it needs to be. If that were true on this issue, then why would it not be true on very many more issues? The fact that we have government members today saying that the municipal option will make it work is unbelievable to me. It just reinforces the fact that the Liberal government is dumping this issue on the municipalities which loudly and clearly have said they do not want it because it will not work.

I must say it is particularly interesting to hear the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) talk about his viewpoint in terms of where he thinks we should be and what we should do. The truth of the matter is that all parties in this Legislature signed an all-party report. We know what we would do if we were the government. If the member were being completely frank, he would support the committee report that the Solicitor General supported as a member of that committee.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Next, the member for London North. Do you wish to reply?

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a couple of observations. I think the remarks we have heard today are just indicative of the nonlistening capabilities of the Liberals.

The member for Norfolk talks about being misleading. We went into the committee hearings with the Liberal government saying that the common day of pause was part of the framework of the legislation. I can tell the member that after four days of hearings, they no longer said that was part of the framework. They were the ones who were trying to mislead the government. I am very proud that over the period of months we have had we have been able to straighten this issue out and tell the public exactly what it means. It means extended Sunday shopping and it does not mean a common day of pause.

On the point that the member made about being naïve, I should just say I was naïve in the beginning, but I listened and I learned and I am no longer naïve about this bill. I know it and I understand it and we are right.

The member talks about the local level. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario does not want this responsibility for very good reasons: first, it is extremely expensive; and second, it is extremely divisive. It has been shown in provinces across this country how divisive this legislation is. Why do the Liberals not learn from other governments’ mistakes? It is because they are not listening.

On that very same point, the real problem with members of this government is that they are afraid to bite the bullet on leadership because this is tough. I will tell them something else. Hundreds of people were prepared to help them with the definition of tourism and that is the only problem with the existing bill now. Did the Liberals want their help? They did not want their help. They do not want anybody’s help, because somebody has told them that they have to vote in favour of this piece of crap, because that is what it is, and they are not prepared to stand up for what they believe in.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Are there any other participants in the debate? The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: I will be sharing the half hour allocated with my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), who has done such an excellent job on this committee and who has served his constituents well in presenting their views. I therefore ask that the eight minutes of questions and comments be directed after the member for Cambridge speaks, and they can be addressed to either myself or the member for Cambridge.

The Acting Speaker: I am not privy to any agreements between House leaders with respect to this and I will enforce the standing orders.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: He is asking that there be an agreement.

The Acting Speaker: There is not a House leader here with whom there can be agreement.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Ask the people in the House. It is not up to the House leader for the government; it is up to the people in the House.

Mr. Breaugh: If I can help out, perhaps we can ask for unanimous consent to do it that way. I think the members are agreeable that we could do it that way and, if we have unanimous consent, that would assist us.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are dividing our time for our half hour, so we would like the two-minute responses to be held until our two people have spoken or else we will be able to have time for only one person to speak.

Mr. Reycraft: Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement between the three party whips that each party will have 25 minutes and that the 25 minutes will include the time for questions and comments, so I do not have any objection to the request being made by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

The Acting Speaker: Let me get it straight. I understand that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Cambridge are going to speak for a total of 25 minutes.

Mr. Philip: And then we will have five minutes of questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker: And thereafter there will be comments and questions on the two speeches. Fine. Thank you.

Mr. Philip: It is rare indeed in the five terms that I have served the people of Etobicoke and Etobicoke-Rexdale in this House that legislation has been opposed by so many different groups in the community. This legislation is opposed by women’s groups which see it as an attack on many of the single parents, most of whom are women who are not going to be with their families now on Sundays as a result of this legislation. They are not with their families on Saturdays and now they will not be with their families on Sundays.

It is opposed by small business owners who recognize that in many jurisdictions where this kind of legislation has happened those small businesses have been forced out of business or have lost large amounts of money. Indeed, I spent some time with Mr. Shin this afternoon, who is the editor of the Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association News and who expressed that very grave concern.

The auto dealers are opposed to it. They have said that it will increase the price of a new car by between $150 and $300 and that this has happened elsewhere. All major church groups are opposed to this legislation and have appeared and told the members of the committee so. All workers who appeared before the committee said that they were against both this and the subsequent bill, Bill 114.

Community organizations and leaders came forward and said that they were opposed to this legislation. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, representing a majority of the municipal leaders in this province, has said it does not want this legislation and it is opposed to

section 4, which is the principle of the bill.

This legislation has a long history. First, the Premier could not make up his mind about what to do about it. Then he set up a select committee -- a select committee costs some $90,000 -- that went around the province. It cited as its first principle, “The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario.”

During the last election campaign, the Premier stated that he was in acceptance of both the committee- recommendations and the principle of a common pause day. Six months later, his Solicitor General introduced this legislation. Then the government said it wanted the legislation passed in two weeks. We forced public hearings by introducing petition after petition, and finally the government agreed to at least have hearings so that the public could speak.

Then the Peterson government said it would listen to the public now that we were going to have public hearings. But before they did that, before the hearings, the Solicitor General sent out a package to each and every Liberal backbencher which included such information as a typical letter they can use to respond to their constituents. All of this defends the legislation or attempts to defend the legislation. This package even went so far as to quote a nonexistent research report. That is how desperate the Liberals were to justify this.

The Liberals said that they would listen and we saw how they listened. Of the presentations dealing with

section 4, which is the municipal option, 402 were against the municipal option as compared to 26 in favour. In other words, 93.9 per cent of the presentations made to the committee asked that

section 4 be withdrawn, but the government refused to withdraw it. While saying that they were listening to the public, the Solicitor General again sent Liberal members the portfolio saying that the municipal option was not negotiable.

The public demanded some changes in the bill in addition to the withdrawal of

section 4. They demanded that minimum fines be included. We moved that in committee, and the Liberals used their majority in the committee to quash it.

The public demanded that criteria be contained in the bill so that, if there was a municipal option, at least there would be some standards. We moved that in committee, and the Liberals used their majority in committee to defeat that.

The public asked for a provision for an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of decisions by municipalities affecting store hours. We moved that, and the Liberals used their majority in committee and in the House to defeat it.

The auto dealers asked for an exemption for themselves similar to exemptions in other wide-open Sunday shopping areas of the United States where at least auto dealers would be exempt. We moved that in committee, and again the Liberals used their majority to defeat it.

They defeated a simple review that we moved, which would be held in 1990, so that we could see the effect of this legislation. The Liberals were so afraid of their legislation that they defeated that as well.

The Solicitor General rationalized this flip-flop on Sunday shopping by stating that the tourist exemption was a problem, yet when AMO offered to meet with the minister and to work on a better definition for the tourist exemption, she refused its help. Indeed, as late as last Thursday, when I asked the minister in this House the municipalities in which a problem exists with the tourist exemption, she was not able to name them.

This legislation was brought in with very little forethought. It is fairly clear that there were no impact studies done. There were no impact studies to find out the effect of this type of legislation in other provinces, such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where after two years the governments saw that it created such anarchy, such a mess, that they had to rescind the legislation. There were no impact studies on British Columbia to see what had happened there, where the municipal option in fact resulted in wide-open Sunday shopping, where 55 municipalities are now wide-open on Sunday despite the fact that many of those municipalities were not in favour of it in the first place.

There was no effort, in relation to the companion bill, to consult with the trade unionists or the businesses that would be affected by it. In essence, this is an ill-thought-out bill which is opposed by a majority of the citizens in this province, and the government does not have the courage to admit that it made a mistake and withdraw

section 4 of the bill.

Tom Harpur tells the story of Albert Einstein, who once delivered a lecture at Harvard. When the applause at the end had died down, a bright young woman who was doing post-graduate studies rose and asked, “Dr. Einstein, I heard you speak at Yale some months ago, and what you said there seems to contradict what you have said here today.” Einstein said, “When I spoke there, I was wrong.” Albert Einstein had the courage, the conviction and the ethics to admit that he was wrong. This government, despite all the opposition and despite all the information it received in the hearings, does not have the courage to admit it is wrong.

It is a sad day for Ontario, but the fight will go on. It will go on in the municipalities and it will be carried on by the four million people who are represented by the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping and it will go on in the next election campaign. This government will suffer in the next election for not listening to the people and forgoing directly contrary to what they asked for.

The Acting Speaker: As agreed, the next speaker is the member for Cambridge.

Mr. Farnan: It is indeed a sad day. It is a sad day for democracy, a sad day for the traditional values that many of us hold so dear and a sad day for politics. It is a sad day for democracy because these bills represent legislation for which this government had no mandate. It is a sad day for the traditional values of home, family and worship that form the backbone of our society. In time, this legislation will affect the quality of life of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Ontarians. In time, more people will work on Sundays; many will have less quality time with their families.

It is a sad day for politics and politicians because the Peterson government has cheapened our coinage. Surely the people of Ontario have the right to expect a government to implement after it is elected what the government promised before it was elected. Surely the people of Ontario have a right to some honesty and integrity in government.

When the Premier in those lazy hazy days of summer went to the people of Ontario in 1987, he did say he supported a common pause day. My friends, that is the tragedy. The tragedy of this particular day is the tragedy of the breakdown of democracy, because the people of Ontario brought in the Liberal government based on a premise that this government was going to be open and accessible. What they found out was that having been given a huge majority, this government then proceeded to put aside the promises to the people and take a route it had not discussed with the people and for which it had no mandate. My friends, that is not democracy.

Following that, we did go out to the people in public hearings and we did say to the people of Ontario, “Let’s hear what the people have to say,” and in an extraordinary manner, something like 529 submissions or briefs were made. These briefs did not represent individuals; they represented large church groups, trade unions, business associations, etc., many of the petitions representing tens of thousands, literally hundreds of thousands, of Ontarians. Did the government listen?

Let me tell the viewers watching today what happened. The Solicitor General said, “The key clause of this bill,

section 4, the municipal option, is non-negotiable.” The Premier said it would not be watered down. This is when the hearings were going on. When the committee went to London, the government whip, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), said that no responsible member of the Legislature would comment on the outcome of the committee hearings while the committee was still deliberating the issue. The Premier commented; he prejudged the committee. The Solicitor General prejudged the committee.

Of course, when I introduced a motion to the committee that we report back to the House that the Premier and the Solicitor General be censured for prejudging the work of the committee, the Liberals on the committee voted against that motion of censure. How could they possibly support a motion of censure against the Premier and the Solicitor General, who are telling them exactly what to do? Tonight they will follow those instructions.

That is what democracy is about: going out to the public and listening to the people.

The United Food and Commercial International Workers Union, Local 1977, perhaps summed it up best in its brief: “The Liberals were elected to represent the people in their ridings. The people are saying ‘no’ to the local option. It seems that everybody is wrong except the Liberal Party.”

We know for a fact that these bills were never discussed by the Liberal Party. We know there was no policy position taken by the Liberal Party. We know there was no convention where these issues were discussed. The Premier is not listening to the people of Ontario. He is not listening to the Liberal Party. The Premier, as is quite obvious, is listening to a small group of very powerful people, a very powerful moneyed group that represents large business in this province.

I say to all of the Liberal members out there that the small businessmen in their communities, the retail workers in their communities, the church groups in their communities, all of these people are saying to them: “We want a common pause day. We don’t want this legislation.” That is part of democracy. An essential ingredient of democracy is listening to the people and responding to the people. But the Premier is not responding to the people.

There is an arrogance now, Mr. Speaker, which you will not dispute. The Premier is saying: “I don’t care what the people of Ontario say. I don’t care what the businesses, church groups, labour groups and the municipalities who do not want this legislation say. We’re going to introduce this legislation whether they like it or not.”

That is not democracy; that is dictatorship. The people of Ontario recognize that for what it is. They also recognize all of those Liberal backbenchers who were sent here to represent the ridings, who have been told very clearly where their people stand on the issue and are not going to respond.

Perhaps one of the key moments for me was when I introduced a private member’s bill in this House requesting that for a period of some six to eight weeks this House would sit on Sunday so we could experience what it would be like to work a regularly scheduled Sunday shift; not forever but for a period of six to eight weeks. That bill was defeated by 67 votes to 23. It was defeated at first reading. Debate on the issue was not allowed because the government was basically embarrassed. It wants to legislate retail workers to work on Sundays while provincial members of parliament do not have to work on Sundays.

Obviously, the people of Ontario have to be very cynical about politicians who want to legislate them to work while they are not even prepared to work on a trial basis to see how it affects them. I want the people of Ontario who are watching these proceedings tonight to know that every vote cast which would not allow MPPs to work on Sunday was cast by a Liberal, and every vote that said, “Let’s work on Sunday for a trial basis,” was voted by the New Democratic Party with support from our Conservative colleagues. The people of Ontario can see through this.

The Rev. Derwyn Jones, bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Huron writes, “At the very least, it would seem to us that on a matter which affects the private lifestyles of so many people, the vote in the provincial Legislature should not be governed by party politics but rather by a free vote of conscience.”

The reality of the matter is that, although the Premier has suggested there will be a free vote, the people of Ontario know that the Premier was not, in this case, reflecting accurately what will happen in this House tonight. The people of Ontario know what a free vote is. They experienced such a vote in the federal House when there was a vote on capital punishment. This is not a free vote. The Premier knows it is not a free vote and the people of Ontario know it is not a free vote. It is an insult to the people of Ontario to suggest that what will take place in this House tonight is a free vote.

The Liberal members will come in and do exactly what they have been told. They have received the package that my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) referred to: (

a) the speech they are to give, (

b) the correspondence they are to write, and (

c) how they are to answer questions. We should not expect any more courage from the Liberals tonight than they have displayed throughout the process.

The Acting Speaker: As agreed, we will have comments and questions on both the speech by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and the member for Cambridge.

Mr. Owen: The Ontario government’s amendments to Sunday shopping continue to be misunderstood by many. Some say we are trying to give responsibility for Sunday shopping to the municipalities. In fact, they have had that responsibility –

Mr. Mackenzie: Total baloney.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We are entertaining comments and questions on the two speeches that I made reference to. Does the member have a comment or a question with respect to those two speeches?

Are there any members who do?

Mr. Sola: I would just like to respond to some of the allegations made by both previous speakers and by the Conservative speaker.

They say the present legislation is somewhat controversial; there were a few minor flaws. I wish they would try to convince five members of the present Conservative caucus who were sent on a chase around the province to “report on extended shopping hours.” This is the Ontario Progressive Conservative Task Force on Extended Shopping Hours.

The reason for sending them on this chase after the somewhat controversial legislation with a few minor flaws was that, in their words, “The widespread and flagrant violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act by numerous retailers, primarily in the Metropolitan Toronto area and particularly on Boxing Day, 1985, has brought to the fore the need for amending this statute.”

I see the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) is here. Either she was under the delusion that there was flagrant and widespread violation of the act or, as the member for London North says, it was somewhat controversial with a few minor flaws.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Last week you said it’s the local option and you’re not changing anything.

Mr. Sola: As far as the New Democratic Party members have said –

Mr. Breaugh: You should go back to your notes, John.

Mr. B. Rae: The core speech is right here.

Mr. Sola: Yes, both parties. This is replying to the members’ statements. They have such responsibility that they want to claim responsibility for the committee and yet they do not want to claim responsibility for the money spent on the committee. If they forced the committee, then the money spent should be on their shoulders.

Mr. Pouliot: In answer to the addresses from both the member for Cambridge and the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I would like to reiterate what has been said for the past month, that when we talk in terms of the local option, the people responsible for that local option have said emphatically, “No.”

There are some 800 to 850 municipalities in Ontario, represented by reeves and mayors and their councils, and 90 per cent of them, by virtue of resolutions at the last Association of Municipalities of Ontario convention, are saying, “We won’t have it.” How can the Liberals believe for even an instant –

Mr. Sola: And they used it 110 times.

Mr. Pouliot: Under standing order 24(b), Mr. Speaker, will you please cap the bottle across there, please? We have just about had enough.

What those people have said almost unanimously -- 93 per cent of the presenters, representing mainstream Ontario, representing the great majority of the business community, representing spiritual leaders from all denominations, representing small business -- the taxpayers again and again have said, “We won’t have it; you’ve gone too far.”

But the government is determined to push it down the throats of Ontarians. What Ontarians have said time and time again as a last resort is, “Conservatives and New Democrats, try to amend, try to salvage what is indeed a bad piece of legislation.”

This afternoon, as a grand finale, the Liberal government is determined to go to the wall with this legislation. My friends will literally go to the wall in terms of the electoral process. They will pay very harshly and very dearly –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member for Lake Nipigon has run out of time.

Mrs. Marland: I just want to say that I agree with most of the comments made by the previous two speakers for the official opposition party, but I think it is also important to place on the record, for the benefit of the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Sola), that I am under no delusions whatsoever. In fact, I am feeling that in the vote the Progressive Conservative Party will take this afternoon, we will be the only people in this Legislature who will represent the wishes of the people who elected them to be here in the first place.

It would serve the member for Mississauga East, who thought that I was under some delusion, to perhaps look at the petitions from the people from the riding that he represents who have asked him to vote against this legislation. I have not received a number of calls and requests, in letters or any other form, from people in Mississauga South asking me to vote in favour of this legislation, so I serve very seriously the responsibility that I have.

I also want to refer to a letter dated January 17, written by Cardinal Carter, the archbishop of Toronto, where he has written stating his concern to all his parishioners in this province about the fact that they are quite sure that this legislation will inevitably lead to wide-open Sunday shopping. What a terrible thing that this gentleman, in his position, has to get into a political issue between one government and its opposition.

The Liberal government of Ontario has now truly betrayed the people of this province by introducing this legislation and allowing it to continue thr