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

April 5, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L040 - Tue 5 Apr 1988 / Mar 5 avr 1988

ONTARIO ATHLETES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

LONDON NORTH BY-ELECTION

ANNIVERSARY OF LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

MARTIN LUTHER KING

CANADIAN JUNIOR CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

COMMUNITY SAFETY

EDUCATION FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LEARNING SKILLS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

LEARNING SKILLS

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

LEARNING SKILLS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RENT REGULATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

NONPROFIT HOUSING PROJECT

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

COMMUNITY SAFETY

CHANGE OF NAME

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CHILD CARE

LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

RETAIL SALES TAX

PETITIONS

EDUCATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

NATUROPATHY

AVORTEMENT

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AVORTEMENT

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RECREATION TRAIL

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

ONTARIO ATHLETES

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the members of the Legislature, I would like to make a few short remarks concerning Ontario athletes in the Olympic Games and the World Figure Skating Championships. I understand that a member from each of the other two parties would also like to say a word.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I would like to express the pride that I am sure all of us feel in the achievements of Ontario athletes who competed in the Olympic Games in Calgary and at the World Figure Skating Championships in Budapest. The Olympians from Ontario accounted for six of the 18 Canadian top eight finishes.

Let me read their names: Christine Hough, Waterloo, eighth place pairs figure skating partner; Horst Bulau, Thunder Bay, seventh place, 90-metre ski jump; Michelle McKendry, Orangeville, seventh place, women’s combined Alpine skiing; Denise Benning, Windsor, sixth place, pairs figure skating partner; and Laurie Graham, Inglewood, fifth place, women’s downhill skiing.

Who will ever forget the exciting silver medal performances by Brian Orser of Penetanguishene and Ottawa’s Elizabeth Manley, who, I might add, was born in my home town of Belleville.

In Budapest, the performance by our Ontario figure skaters was equally impressive.

I congratulate all of our Ontario competitors who gave their best, because by giving their best they showed themselves to be champions. I am sure they will inspire young people in our province to get involved in sports stay involved and become the next generation of champions.

The excellent reputation of Ontario’s athletes around the world keeps growing and I am pleased to report that my ministry is helping to encourage Ontario’s increasing international leadership in winter sports. Just a few days ago, I announced that my ministry will provide $140,000 to the World Nordic Committee in the city of Thunder Bay to help in its bid to host the 1993 World Nordic Games. When Thunder Bay wins that bid, my ministry will provide nearly $4 million towards the cost of hosting the games.

Our athletes are great ambassadors whether they compete inside or outside Ontario, and hosting major sporting events is another excellent way to show the world just how incredible Ontario really is.

Mr. Farnan: As the critic for recreation on behalf of the official opposition, it gives me great pleasure to join the minister and the government in commending all our Canadian athletes, particularly those athletes from Ontario, for their fine performances in the recent winter Olympics and world championships. Furthermore, I think we would commend all those organizers and volunteers, also from Ontario, who contributed to making the Calgary Olympic Winter Games such a success.

Like most members, I have always been thrilled to see our Canadian and Ontario athletes performing in world-class competition. As I watched the medal ceremonies, with our athletes on the podium and the Canadian flag being raised, it sent a shiver down my spine.

Being something of a Walter Mitty, I know from personal experience the tremendous psychological and emotional experience it is to have that medal draped around my neck, to feel the tear run down my cheek and to be so overwhelmed that I am barely conscious of the accolades of appreciation that pour over me in my moment of triumph.

I have simultaneously achieved a shutout and scored a winning goal in the gold medal hockey game. I have astounded the experts by jumping out of the crowd to replace an injured member of our downhill slalom team and gone on to win multiple gold medals. I have, on the same day, performed the remarkable feat of winning the singles figure skating event and the bobsled pairs, and I am not even sure if there was a second member of the bobsled team. I have achieved all these remarkable feats from the comfort of my armchair.

To have to move within minutes from the winners’ podium to bathing my children is a very difficult adjustment to make, but with these athletes the difference is from imagining to the reality. They are an inspiration to us in hard work and in dedication. They are truly an example to our youth and therefore are to be commended. I think the effect they will have is not only in giving us tremendous pleasure and a tremendous sense of achievement on behalf of Ontario and Canada, but they are indeed planting the seeds for the future of Canadian victories and Canadian participation at the world level for years to come.

Mr. McLean: I would like to associate myself with the previous two speakers in congratulating those who took

part in the 15th Olympic Winter Games. Calgary, Alberta, is certainly on the map of the world after that city hosted the 15th Olympic Winter Games in February and welcomed amateur sports people from 56 nations. The citizens of Calgary can justly be proud of the show they put on for us and for the way they represented Canada to the rest of the world.

On behalf of my party, I would like to extend warm congratulations to all of the amateur athletes who put their personal lives on hold for a number of years in order to prepare for the winter games. Whether they won or lost, they are all of the highest calibre because, just by making their country’s Olympic team, they have shown they are very dedicated and special people.

We all witnessed the exploits of these champions who demonstrated world-class excellence in their sport and conduct consistent with the ideas of amateur sport. My congratulations go out to women’s figure skating silver medallist Elizabeth Manley and Toronto’s Tony Reis, who led a team of Portuguese-Canadian bobsledders for Portugal.

My congratulations also go out to a couple of constituents of mine, men’s figure skating silver medallist Brian Orser and cross-country skier Angela Schmidt-Foster. As far as I am concerned, all of the amateur athletes who competed in Calgary turned in gold medal performances. In Budapest, the performances by our Ontario figure skaters were equally impressive.

Mr. Farnan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of -- I do not know what sort of a point it is, but I do believe there has been a medal that has not been recognized and it was my oversight. That is Bob Hunter Jr., of Cambridge, whose pigeon placed third in the pigeon race at the winter Olympics, and I think he should be justly recognized.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: The Peterson government has taken every opportunity in recent years to brag about the policy of home care rather than institutional care for seniors and disabled adults in this province. The theory is fine, but the reality can be devastating. People cannot get home care services they need and most places are turning clients away. Some areas of Hamilton, for example, have not been able to get homemakers’ services since Christmas. Waterloo has 85 people on its waiting list.

Despite government promises, it has held its funding increases to three per cent and four per cent, and the result has been that average homemakers in Ontario make $5.50 an hour, with no guarantee of hours and no benefits. Compare that to Quebec, where homemakers are government employees and make $10.81 an hour and receive benefits.

It is not surprising that half the homemaker agencies in Ontario have a turnover rate of more than 50 per cent and that 13 per cent of them have a turnover rate of more than 100 per cent. In Hamilton, it is 33 per cent. In Huron county, 23 homemakers resigned in a single month.

In August 1986, the homemaker organizations warned the government that they could not provide enough services while the government held its funding down. The government set up an interministerial committee to study the question. A draft report was issued six months ago, but there has been no word from the government since.

The question is, is the government really interested in providing first-class, vital homemaker services to seniors and disabled adults? The reality is it is creating a vulnerable service, a revolving door where the poor service the poor.

LONDON NORTH BY-ELECTION

Mr. Cureatz: I stand today on behalf of the many people in this province who were cheered by the results of the London North by-election. The results in London North send a clear message to this government, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and to the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), who is too busy trying to manipulate, once again, that back bench of the Liberal administration over there.

That message is that the government was elected to office to lead not by some whim or the results of the latest poll it has commissioned, something with which I was familiar in a past life, but to lead by listening to the concerns of the people of this great province, listening to their dreams and aspirations and then planning policies to meet those concerns and those dreams.

The message was sent by the voters of London North because in a few short months the Liberal government has forgotten why it was given its mandate.

Let me remind the government to listen to the message it has been given by the voters of London North on behalf of all Ontarians, a message that says no to out-of-control expenditures, I say to the Treasurer; a message that says no to increased taxes; a message that says no to an education policy that leaves school boards scrambling for both resources and space, and perhaps most important, a very loud no to the government’s plan to abrogate its responsibility in regulating Sunday shopping hours. I give credit to my New Democratic Party colleagues who will be bringing forward a resolution in that regard.

During the election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised the people of Ontario that the government would continue administering the Retail Business Holidays Act. The Premier promised that he would support the continuation of a common pause day. I tell the Premier that last Thursday the people of London North sent him a clear message and that message is to keep the promises he made and do his job.

ANNIVERSARY OF LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Ballinger: As the member for Durham-York, I would like to bring to the members’ attention that exactly 95 years ago yesterday there was a great celebration on the occasion of the opening of these Parliament Buildings on April 4, 1893. According to Eric Arthur, author of From Front Street to Queen’s Park, people from all across Ontario flocked to enjoy the pageantry of the occasion and to see exactly what six years and considerable tax dollars had built.

At the conclusion of the opening ceremonies, the House then settled down to matters of business, but after all the excitement of the day, the members whiled away the afternoon by considering such matters as the control of drainage in swampy municipalities and the dehorning of cattle.

The newspaper headline of the day read, “Legislators in Fairyland,” and ironically, on the same page was an advertisement for Burdock’s Blood Bitters, “a positive cure for constipation, headaches, bad blood, foul humours, rheumatism and jaundice, at one cent a dose.”

I hope the members of the Legislative Assembly take the time to read Mr. Arthur’s book.

MARTIN LUTHER KING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Today marks the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, the great civil rights leader in the United States. On seeing again that great speech, “I have a dream,” I was moved on the weekend and felt that it was important to speak here in the House.

That dream has had mixed results in the United States of America. where poverty and second-class citizenship still hang around the black population of that country while, at the same time, they now have had mayors of major cities elected and now have the first bona fide candidate for the presidency of the United States brought forward in the name of Jesse Jackson.

Here in Ontario Mr. King was a role model for people such as Wilson Head, in his generation, and I think still inspires people of these times. But discrimination is still prevalent in this province. Just yesterday one of my staff looking for a nanny was told by an agency that she could have a nanny for $12 an hour; if she would take somebody coloured, she could have one for $6 an hour in Ontario.

I might ask this government on this anniversary, where is its employment equity legislation? Why has it not brought forward that basic affirmative action that the Reverend King asked for so often? Until it does that, his dreams will not be a reality for this generation of black Ontarians or future generations.

CANADIAN JUNIOR CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise with a great deal of pride today. The Canadian Junior Curling Championship has just been completed in Vancouver, British Columbia, last week. I am most proud to advise this Legislature that the rink representing our province was from Morrisburg, Ontario.

Four very fine young men, students at Seaway District High School in Iroquois, did this province very proudly indeed. After winning the right to represent this province in London, Ontario, early in March by winning seven straight games, they represented us very credibly in Vancouver during the week of March 28 to April 2. Although they did not win the Canadian Junior Curling Championship, they were the best junior rink in Ontario and represented us admirably.

On behalf of this Legislature, may I congratulate the following: skip, Daryl Morrell; third, Scott Lane; second, Gord Johnston, and lead, Chris Lane, along with their very dedicated coach, Sid Morrell. Gentlemen, we are most proud of you. Congratulations on representing this province very well in Vancouver.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Miss Roberts: As members of the House may be aware, on Thursday, March 31, 1988, it is alleged that two individuals from the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, while exercising the privilege of working in the community on a loosened Lieutenant Governor’s warrant, forcibly took a 14-year-old girl from London and, after sexually assaulting her, left her for dead.

The community is repulsed by this incident and all steps should be taken to ensure that greater safeguards are taken to protect the community. I am informed by the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital that an internal review of this situation is in progress. In the balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and protecting the public at large, we must be ever ready to review the process which may put members of our community at peril.

I call upon the government to review the process allowing certain privileges to persons on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants and also the disproportionate number of Lieutenant Governor’s warrants that are released into Elgin county.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On behalf of the much abused property taxpayers of the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto, I want to again put the lie to the Liberal commitment to educational reform in Ontario. This year, taxpayers in Toronto will be paying $37 million more of the education costs than they were last year. The government of Ontario is paying only $46 million of a total $790 million cost of education in Metropolitan Toronto today.

Why is it that this Liberal reform government is expecting senior citizens and property owners around this city, who are already having trouble making ends meet, to pay more of the cost of education, instead of all the people according to their ability to pay under a progressive tax system in Ontario?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LEARNING SKILLS

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am pleased to inform members of the House today that six school boards have been given approval in principle to proceed with the development of new school-based learning initiatives. The projects will focus on how children learn. They will develop and extend effective teaching strategies. They will design effective techniques to assess student achievement and identify better ways of reporting student achievement to parents.

Each of the six projects will receive up to $750,000 over the next three years, once formal agreement with the boards is in place. This new initiative was announced last August and school boards were invited to submit proposals. Fifty-one proposals were submitted for selection.

These projects will pursue ways of strengthening innovative small-scale programs currently in use in different parts of the province and provide information about them to teachers and school boards across Ontario.

The projects are co-operative ventures bringing together the selected school boards with their partners in education, such as faculties of education, members of the community, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, teachers’ federations and community colleges. Selection criteria were formulated by an advisory committee which includes representatives from the teachers’ federations, consultants’ associations, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, superintendents, trustee and parent organizations, colleges of applied arts, faculties of education, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the private sector.

The committee will review the progress of the projects on receiving the annual reports that will be provided by the boards. The six projects will be monitored and supported by my ministry’s regional office personnel in conjunction with representatives from the Centre for Early Childhood and Elementary Education.

Through the emphasis on sharing strategies to promote excellence in learning skills, new communication networks will be established and educators, children and their parents will benefit.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As Minister of Citizenship and minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a key aspect of my mandate is to promote equity and access for all Ontarians.

Our Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination on various listed grounds, is one of the most important means we have to promote and enforce equality. I am very pleased, therefore, to announce the proclamation on April 18 of three important Human Rights Code amendments dealing with access, specifically sections 10, 16 and 23. These changes were originally introduced as part of the package of amendments contained in Bill 7.

The amendments will ensure that the special needs of persons resulting from handicap or other prohibited grounds of discrimination will be reasonably accommodated by employers, landlords and others who provide goods and services to the public. The proclamation of these sections represents a significant step forward in our efforts to promote equal access, particularly for members of the disabled community.

Under previous provisions of the code, it was not considered discriminatory to fail to provide access to a building or facility which lacked the necessary physical features to allow such access. For example, a mobility-impaired person denied entry to a building solely because of the absence of a wheelchair ramp could not bring a complaint of discrimination on the ground of handicap to the human rights commission.

Under the sections that we will be proclaiming later in the month, such a denial of access will be illegal. The special needs of the person must be accommodated unless to do so would impose an undue hardship on the provider. Courts and boards of inquiry will determine what constitutes undue hardship, having regard to the factors of cost, outside sources of funding and health and safety requirements.

Once in force, these sections will help grant to the disabled persons access to goods and services fundamental to independence and dignity, goods and services which many of us now take for granted.

The proclamation will take place on April 18, 1988. It will celebrate the third anniversary of the coming into force of

section 15 of our Canadian charter, which declares that every individual is equal before and under the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical handicap.

We have considered fully the question of regulations to sections 10, 16 and 23. We believe the boards of inquiry and courts will provide the most practical determination consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions in Canada.

The coming into force of the access provision addresses many concerns raised by disabled persons and other community activists and advocates, some of whom are present here today. You were involved in the discussions leading up to the introduction of these amendments and you have worked tirelessly to see them brought into force. I thank you all for your very important contribution.

I join with my colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to reaffirm today this government’s pledge and the pledge of our ministries to assure the right of reasonable access and accommodation for all Ontarians.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am pleased today to table the report of the Ontario Task Force on Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The task force was chaired by Maria Minna and Wally Majesky and was commissioned by this government in May 1986. Its mandate was to undertake an extensive review of the rehabilitation services provided by the Workers’ Compensation Board and to report its findings to the minister.

The recommendations contained in this report are currently under active review by both the Ministry of Labour and the board. In general, the task force recommends advancing the concept of early intervention and a client-centred approach to the rehabilitation of injured workers. The government underlined its commitment to this process in last fall’s speech from the throne.

As a step towards this goal, the WCB recently announced a three-tiered proposal for ensuring that high quality medical rehabilitation is made available as close as possible to the workers’ own communities. The board is also phasing in its integrated service units, which are designed to promote faster and more efficient delivery of the basic claims service. The board is also reforming its administrative procedures and has created self-contained regional offices to serve injured workers in their communities.

The underlying objective, which is shared by the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Labour, as well as the WCB, is a workers’ compensation system which is, above all, sensitive, humane, rational and efficient. While much more needs to be done to achieve this goal, I believe the board is now moving firmly in this direction.

RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Mr. Allen: I would like to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission with regard to the proclamation to come on the 18th of this month of the right to reasonable accommodation by the disabled community under Bill 7.

One sits back and wonders why it took this government so long to do this. It has been long in the promise. Our party was active in campaigning for its proclamation originally when the bill was itself presented to this Legislature. Still, the ministry and the government withheld their support.

There is no evidence in this document what the long struggle was all about that made it necessary to delay and delay that announcement. We raised it in estimates and we raised it in the House with some of the ministers responsible. All one can say is that when they finally happen, one is glad these things happen, but it seems to have taken a long time. One would not want to think the government was awaiting the opportunity for a suitable ceremonial occasion, such as the third anniversary of the equal rights

section of the charter, to provide some accommodation for our disabled community.

I simply hope that under the boards of inquiry undue hardship will be looked at pretty rigorously, that those agencies, public services and private providers will not have an easy time of it in skipping out on what constitutes undue hardship and that the disabled community, which has lobbied for a long time for integrated transportation services, for example, will not be put off longer by those agencies.

We consider this kind of an instrument in the marketplace in the hands of the disabled community is worth virtually anything else that this government could do for it by providing it single and special services of one kind or another. They will be able to make their demands and get them satisfied, and that satisfies us.

LEARNING SKILLS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the Minister of Education’s (Mr.

Ward) latest pilot-project, picayune announcement by saying that although it is welcome, I wonder why he does not use the time of this House to explain why he is increasing the tax burden on people in Toronto and Ottawa for the educational costs of this province; why he is not talking about why he has failed to assist communities such as Metro Toronto and Hamilton to adjust to the needs of Bill 30 that we have imposed on those communities; why he is not talking here about what he is going to do about the estimated $1.7 billion of capital need that the school systems have brought forward to him; why he is not talking today about the election promises he and the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) have broken around the lowering of class size; and why, instead of wasting our time with a $750,000 announcement today, he has not narrowed the gap between the legislative grants for the elementary panel and the secondary panel.

Those are things of substance in terms of education that he could have been talking about today.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. B. Rae: In response to the comment of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), I think it can only be described as astonishing that a government would be releasing in April a report the rest of the world had in August; that it would take the government this long to put together the final copy of a report that has been in the public domain, that has been discussed, that has been talked about, that has been seen and that has been reported in the media; and that it says this is somehow a new document.

Then the minister says that all the report really is about, in his words, is that it “recommends advancing the concept of early intervention and a client-centred approach to the rehabilitation of injured workers.”

This report was the most devastating, compelling indictment of the Workers’ Compensation Board and its failure to deal with the problem of rehabilitation that we have seen in our generation. It was a report sponsored by the government of Ontario. They denied its existence. They treated the report like some kind of bastard son whom they did want to see or take responsibility for. Then the minister has the gall to come into this House and say that somehow it is merely an administrative report.

Listen to the words of the report: “The experience of the task force in the past year was long, painful and emotionally wrenching. The tales of injustice, neglect and rejection recounted by the injured workers throughout the province were so harrowing as to leave the task force members disgusted and frustrated.”

It is a pity that some of that human reality of the situation of injured workers did not find its way into the words, the heart and the statements of the Minister of Labour. We still have bureaucratic gobbledegook from the Minister of Labour and no response to what the report is saying.

Change the act. Make rehabilitation just as important as paying people a pension, and make sure that when people are injured they get a fair chance at getting a job.

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

Mr. B. Rae: That is the message of Majesky-Minna and that is the message that has been rejected by the government of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

LEARNING SKILLS

Mr. Jackson: Our party wishes to comment on the Minister of Education’s (Mr. Ward) announcement today in the House. For the last three months educators, students and taxpayers have been waiting for something substantive to emerge from his ministry. What do we get from the minister? We get an announcement today, and it is highlighted by several key points which I might share with the House.

The minister’s long-awaited announcement states this new initiative was announced last August. He actually has the nerve to come into this House and tell us about a project that he has already announced. He is going to start the spring session -- with a litany of problems in education across this province -- he is going to start with this announcement.

He indicates that the programs currently in use in different parts of the province are already operational. What is new? When the minister and I were to going to Hamilton and district schools as boys, he will recall that these kinds of programs were ongoing. I thought that is what school boards were expected to do; yet the minister comes into this House and announces that this is some sort of major commitment on the part of his government.

Surely to God the minister can come up with six more projects to assist, to correspond with the excellent programs that are going on in Ontario schools. The minister is the advocate for 1.9 million young people in this province, and if this is all he is going to start off the session with, he is in for a lot of trouble.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Mr. Sterling: I would like briefly to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) on the proclamation of these very important sections in the Human Rights Code. We will not be snarky about the timing of the announcement because we do not think that is important. We want to thank the people who have been involved in the drive towards these sections and to congratulate the government on proclaiming them now.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Harris: I too want to comment on the very late release of the report of the Ontario Task Force on the Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers’ Compensation Board. I am intrigued, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has stated, with some of the statements in the light of what has been said and what has been reported on this over the last nine months.

This is all the minister has to say now, nine months later, after they have reported. The minister hid the report for that period of time to try to come out with a response, and now he says it is under active review by both the Ministry of Labour and the board. He has had nine months to go through this glaring indictment of what is happening.

I am also intrigued with the words on page 3, where the minister says, “The underlying objective which is shared by the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Labour, as well as by the WCB, is a workers’ compensation system which is, above all, sensitive, humane, rational and efficient.”

With respect, there is not a legislator, other than the minister perhaps, there is not an injured worker, there is not an employer and there is no one who is in the slightest way an objective observer of what is going on in the WCB system who would say that it is in any way sensitive, humane, rational or efficient. Saying these words, trying to put them in writing and trying to pretend that this is what is occurring in the whole system is truly a sham.

Surely that is the objective, and we all acknowledge that; but to give a statement on a report and not acknowledge that the report goes through each of these four items and points out how it is not sensitive, how it is not humane, how it is not rational and surely how it is not efficient; and that is the essence of what the minister’s statement should be on this report and what he is tabling in the Legislature today?

Let us have the facts out there as opposed to some supposed rationale as to what the minister has done in the last nine months.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier about Sunday shopping and Sunday working.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), together with the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), attended a rally in Toronto a short time ago, at which I was present and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was present. I heard with my own ears the Minister of Labour say the following, “I do not care if every single store in this province is open on Sunday.” I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether that is now the official position of the government of the province with respect to Sunday shopping.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure of the context the honourable member is quoting. Let me say, in response to my honourable friend’s question, the official position of this government is that we respect the local option to make a decision with respect to Sunday shopping. As I have said to my honourable friend before, if Sault Ste. Marie or Point Edward wants to be open, that should be, in our view, their choice. If Niagara Falls wants to be open, why should it not be able to? If Toronto or Kingston wants to close, why should they not be able to?

After all, this province is bigger than most countries in the world. I think there is a sufficient diversity here. I have sufficient faith in the local leadership to make decisions appropriate to that community. That is the position. I think it respects freedom of choice and local sensitivities and is a very sensitive and democratic way to approach the question.

Mr. B. Rae: We have the views expressed to the Premier, not only by over two thirds of the voters in the only constituency that has had an opportunity to discuss this question since he flip-flopped and changed his mind from the commitment he made on August 5, 1987, with respect to this question, we have the decision that has been taken by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which has said it does not want to have the local option. They do not want to exercise it. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said he was surprised by their reaction, which shows how out of touch the Attorney General is with respect to public opinion.

How does the Premier respond when he receives letters such as the one that my party has received from Janice Rothwell in Hamilton, who tells us: “I am presently going to night school in order to complete my education.” She is a part-time worker in the retail trade. “It is difficult to get the evenings off work for school. If I refuse to work on Sundays, I will be forced to give up night school. Tell me, what bill will prevent that blackmail?”

She then goes on to say: “The need for stores to open on Sundays is supposedly because of a lack of time throughout the week. Well then, why does this not mean that there must also be a need for city hall, banks, insurance companies, gas companies, hydro, telephone offices, lawyers and all business and services to remain open seven days a week?”

Mr. Speaker: What was your question?

Mr. B. Rae: Can the Premier tell us why the right of Janice Rothwell to be with her family on a Sunday should not be a basic right contained in the law of this province and why she has to go on her knees to Hamilton city council instead of being able to count on the provincial government to speak up for her?

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind to my friend opposite, but I think he is being a little overly dramatic about this. There are police officers and hospital people who work on Sundays now. I think roughly a third of the retail force now works on some Sundays or others. Other people do that.

I am persuaded that systems can be worked out where there will be a lot of flexibility and individual choice in the situation. I have not seen the letter from Miss Rothwell, but the member can tell her I do not believe it is going to be the problem the member or she believes it will be.

Mr. B. Rae: The fact of the matter is that there are workers who are with their families on Sunday who will not be able to be there, thanks to the Premier’s government having changed its mind and broken its specific promise. Sure, the Premier has a big majority -- we all recognize that -- but just what does it take to get him to recognize that he is making a mistake?

He has the views that have been expressed by the workers themselves, by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and, quite decisively and clearly, in a by-election in his own backyard with respect to his position. Just what does it take for him to recognize that he is making a mistake, that there is nothing wrong in recognizing that he is making a mistake and that we can find a better solution by sitting down, all three parties, to find a better solution than the one he intends to impose on the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the way my honourable friend feels about this issue, but it is not shared by all. His colleague immediately to his right, as I pointed out some time ago, has expressed the view that it may create job employment for some people, that the New Democratic Party should want to reassess its position, which it has not done in 15 or so years. In fact, it may be time to reassess it.

That was the member’s view at the time. Perhaps his honourable friend has changed his view. But I do not think it leads to those dramatic consequences that my honourable friend points out.

Let me just give my honourable friend a quotation, because I think it sums up very well what we are dealing with here. It is a quotation from the House. It says:

“I do not think, Mr. Speaker, anything could be more flexible than that to meet the great requirements of the varying conditions in this province. It is strictly democratic. The matter is placed in the hands of the people themselves and the absolute control of their elected council. There is nothing wide open about this act. It does nothing to induce any community to change its pattern of life. It enables the people to settle their own affairs in their own way.”

Mr. Speaker, that was Premier Leslie Frost on March 23, 1950. I think it says it all and says it very effectively. We respect local democracy.

Mr. B. Rae: After 44 years of Tory government, that is what the Premier is telling us, that that is what we have, a government, a majority government, that is not prepared to listen to the will of the people. That is precisely what the Premier is giving us today.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is to whom?

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to the rent review legislation which I think everybody who is living with it recognizes as a complete and utter disaster.

What is the minister’s response to this fact? As of March 4, 1988, the latest figures from the commission show that there were 3,417 applications resolved as of the end of February, that the average increase in maximum rent for pre-1976 buildings was 13.4 per cent and that the average increase for post-1976 buildings is 13.6 per cent, which gives an average of 13.5 per cent.

The minister is on record in this House as telling us on November 17, “To the best of our experience in the past, the vast majority of tenants in Ontario will receive rent increases of 4.7 per cent or less in 1988.”

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. B. Rae: Does the minister not realize that people are now paying three times as much as she told them they would be paying and that the system of rent review, which she has created and is responsible for in this House, is a system that simply is not working?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The vast majority of tenants in this province do not come under rent review in any given year.

Mr. Wildman: Why?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Because they do not apply for rent review. The vast majority of tenants in this province will receive rents around the guideline, and that is the way that rent review protects a large number of the tenants in the province.

For those tenants who are subject to rent review because an application has come up because of the place in which they happen to live, the increases they face go through a due process. Some of those results are higher than I would like. I have been talking with the tenants who are affected by those results, and I take those very seriously. That is the reason we are monitoring the effects of the legislation very closely, in order to get a very clear sense of the direction in which it is going.

Mr. B. Rae: We know precisely in which direction it is going, and that is through the roof. That is what tenants know. What the minister is telling the House is that the only tenants who are getting shafted are the ones whose landlords apply to the rent review commission. What kind of statement is that by the minister? The only tenants who are being shafted are the ones who are being affected by the law which was drafted by the party of which she is now a member.

The Royal LePage market survey of Canadian real estate in 1988 states:

“Royal LePage research has demonstrated that owners of residential buildings tend to trade among themselves because they understand the complexities of both the market and rent review legislation. Bill 51 will intensify this trading, says the team, because it has created an atmosphere in which a new owner is permitted to recover a variety of specified costs, including the cost of financing.”

The minister was warned by us and by tenants --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: -- as to the effect of Bill 51. Will the minister not now admit that Bill 51 is encouraging flipping, trading among landlords, and that is what is shafting the tenants of this province when it comes to rent review legislation?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review legislation that we have is a package. It offers protection for tenants in a variety of ways. Through the Residential Rental Standards Board, it offers protection for tenants in association with the standards of their buildings. It also offers protection for tenants who are concerned with the question of conversion to suite hotels. There is a variety of facets of the legislation; it offers protection for tenants in a variety of ways.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa would like to ask a final supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: How does the minister explain the process to tenants of a building on Ambleside Drive in Ottawa, owned by Osgoode Developments? The landlord asked for 30 per cent, the rent review board gave him 37 per cent and the landlord is now looking for a further seven per cent. How does one arrive at a 44 per cent increase when the minister stands in the House and says it will be 4.7 per cent?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have met with the tenants of Ambleside and I have listened to their concerns, which I share. I understand the concern and I know that the effect of a significant rent increase on people of fixed incomes is a very serious one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Rent review is successful in providing protection for tenants across the province, but it can never be the only response by this government to the concerns of tenants. That is the reason we know we must increase the options of tenants in this province and increase our access to various forms of housing which suit their income needs. That is the reason this government has provided more housing that is affordable for people of a variety of incomes, and will continue to do so.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. I hesitate to raise a question that relates to a certain activity that went on in a certain riding recently.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: All right. Since I am being provoked, I will simply identify the riding by saying that it is adjacent to the Premier’s and point out to him that in a recent discussion with the people of that riding it was made very clear that the people of that particular area do not want the legislation he intends to bring in related to Sunday shopping. They do not want, and they have said no in a very clear and unequivocal manner, the municipal option that the Premier touts as being the answer to everyone’s problems. They have also said very clearly that they want a common day of rest.

I would just simply like to appeal to the Premier on the basis of what the people of this province have indicated they want and ask him, first, why he is not listening, and will he bring in legislation that will protect Sundays for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to the honourable member that I appreciate his

interpretation of the events of Thursday last. I congratulate him and Mrs. Cunningham on their victory in that regard. He has every right to draw his own

interpretation of that. Others may have different views of the situation. I am not sure; perhaps we have to take the message more effectively about the nature of the local option, because certainly if the people of London do not want to shop on Sundays no one is forcing them to have it and they will make that decision at the appropriate time.

My honourable friend must surely understand the local option when in his own constituency, the community of Point Edward is open, yet Sarnia is not. As a member of a party that has on and off supported local option, would he not agree that this is reasonable in the circumstances and would he not want to stand in this House and say just because they have a local option does not mean that London or any other community will necessarily be open?

Mr. Brandt: I would like to remind the Premier that there are a number of very competent, able and, I think, credible spokesmen who do not share his view with respect to what happened in London North.

If I might, I would like to quote a former colleague of his, the former member of London North, who in commenting on the results of that election said: “The community is feeling very strongly about certain issues and they are saying they want to be heard on certain issues like Sunday shopping. The Liberals are just going to have to start listening a little more attentively.”

My question to the Premier is, I think, a very simple one. I relate this to him on behalf of a former colleague who sat not more than 10 seats away from the Premier and who says why doesn’t he start listening to what the people of Ontario are saying?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me thank my honourable colleague for that interesting piece of research. Indeed, I am interested in the news and the views of a former colleague of mine. The member may be interested in the views of a former colleague of his, who I will quote: “The Progressive Conservatives are prepared to stand up and be counted, to say we must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Who said that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Larry Grossman on January 9, 1986.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate the quote the Premier has shared with me, and I will see that Mr. Grossman at Richardson Greenshields is given that quote. I am sure he can use it in his new occupation.

I would like to say to the Premier that probably never in the history of this province have so many groups come together with the intent of giving a message to the Premier of this province as clearly as they have. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, many organized labour groups, church groups and a number of spokesmen have come before the Premier, and petitions by the thousands have come in, indicating that the Premier is fundamentally changing the way of life of this province by bringing in the kind of legislation he proposes.

When will the Premier simply listen to what the people are saying, not only in London North but in London Centre and throughout this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do listen to the people and indeed on any initiative that a government undertakes there are people on both sides of the issue, and I respect that, but democratically elected members ultimately have to make decisions. My honourable friend, as a former minister of the crown, will recognize there are very few things that he did then that were not fraught with some controversy, and I am sure he understands that. Presumably he is not asking me just to follow where the loudest objections come from in government, because he is aware that many people have objections to lots of things done by this government or any former or other government.

As I said, I have to respect the views of former colleagues of his -- he quoted mine, and I quoted his -- Leslie Frost, one of his spiritual leaders; but let me quote a current colleague:

“The current legislation is quite obviously not meeting the needs and requirements of the people. What I would like to see is some broad new guidelines out of Queen’s Park based on local wishes. I think local municipalities should and must have a good deal of say on this matter because they are where the action is.”

That was the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). I appreciate the advice I am getting from everybody.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier’s campaign slogan obviously is changing from “We did what we said we were going to do” to “We did what we bloody well want to do.” That is the kind of attitude his government has. Let us take a look, if we might--

Mr. Speaker: The question is to whom?

Mr. Brandt: The question is to the Premier. I am not finished with him yet.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Brandt: The question is in regard to another matter. Since the Premier is so fond of quoting other individuals, I thought I would share with him today what was said by an individual whom I am sure he has an intimate knowledge of, namely, himself.

In May 1986, in relation to Bill 11, he stated: “The legislation” -- Bill 11 -- “was introduced as a short-term measure to combat the real crisis in terms of affordable housing in Ontario and will be replaced with a new housing policy after two years.”

At the time the Premier spoke about the vacancy problem and the affordability crisis in this province, the Metro vacancy rate was 0.3 per cent. It is now 0.1 per cent and getting worse on a daily basis. The crisis is growing. I would like to ask the Premier, since it was in fact two years ago that he made this commitment to the people of Ontario, where is the new housing policy that he has promised and where are we going to see some advances from this government with respect to one of the most serious problems this province has faced in its entire history?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not disagree with my friend that it is a serious problem and, in some respects, it is a function of the great growth the Metro region in particular is enjoying at the present time. Shall I say in some ways it is an offshoot of some of the success that is being enjoyed here economically.

My honourable friend will be aware that we have at the moment in this province the most robust economy in the industrialized world. That brings many people into the Toronto area in particular, and other areas, and puts enormous pressure on the system. He is right and I do not for a minute minimize the problems that we face.

The minister has put her mind to this matter, as have many others in the cabinet. In the next budget, which will be coming forward in the not-too-distant future, I think the member will be seeing approaches and strategies to deal with this problem. I cannot for a minute stand in front of him and promise a cure to all the problems or the pressures that are happening in the housing market, but I think he will see some real progress in addition to what has happened already.

Mr. Cousens: The Premier made the assertion two years ago that there would be some action taken by the province to at least come up with a policy. Since that time, the housing crisis has worsened and in Metropolitan Toronto, as our leader has just said, it is now one person in a thousand who can find some kind of accommodation.

The former Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) in the meantime came out with his assured housing program and what he has done is assure a bigger housing crisis in this province.

Let the Premier answer this question if he would. What does he feel is an acceptable vacancy rate in Toronto and around the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to answer that question. Obviously, one wants to see a situation where there is a sufficient mix of housing that people have an opportunity to get affordable housing. The member knows, coming from the community of Markham, which is a very high development area at the moment, and I know the cost of building today and he knows the pressures that puts on people. I can tell him we have dramatically increased the number of rent-geared-to-income situations. Building has been going on. Apartment rental unit starts are up.

I cannot stand in front of him and say that is enough or sufficient. I am sure he would not either. I do think we have made a major thrust forward and commitments have been given on the 102,000 units. I think he will see interesting new approaches to this matter as well that will take some pressure off the system.

I do not want to mislead my honourable friend. We are in a high-growth area. It is a problem that everybody has to be involved in, including his community of Markham and the other municipalities. We have to address it from a wide number of points of view. Hopefully, we can collectively make some impact, although we will not solve the entire problem.

Mr. Cousens: It is on the record now that the Premier has no goal as to what he is really aiming for in the vacancy rate in Ontario. What we really have at this point is no housing policy from this government in spite of the promise by the Premier close to two years ago. The word is now that the government is going to come out with a new rendition of Bill 11, the Condominium Act, the Rental Housing Protection Act.

At this point, landlords do not really know what to do. They cannot plan for the future. Tenants are getting eviction notices. Ontario needs direction on its housing policy today. Why will the Premier not announce today his plans for condo conversion and what his overall housing strategy will be for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I have discussed with my friend, I think a number of strategies have been undertaken and a number of programs have gone forward. There are major new budgetary commitments in that regard and they will continue to address the problems. We are going to have to enlist the help of people like him to persuade his own community to get involved in affordable housing programs, to make sure the municipalities assist us -- because, obviously, we cannot do this alone -- and to make sure that all communities are shouldering their fair share of the responsibility.

We hope to work with them because, as the members knows, we are giving municipalities a lot of new powers these days. I am sure we will all assist in building a co-operative, harmonious atmosphere to attack this problem together.

NONPROFIT HOUSING PROJECT

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The Premier has just said that the government needs the help of the honourable members in this House to convince local municipalities to facilitate the building of affordable housing.

The minister will be aware that the Humbervale United Church in the city of Etobicoke has made an application to build a seniors’ nonprofit housing project. I have provided the minister with letters written on legislative stationery by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), using his legislative stationery and his position to oppose that housing project because it comes close to the area in which he happens to have his own personal home.

My first question to the minister is this: has the minister received any submissions, be they verbal or written, from the member for Dovercourt opposing this particular housing project, which would be close to his own home, which happens to be located not in Dovercourt but in Etobicoke?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Thank you very much for the question. One of the things we know is that the work the nonprofit sector has done in partnership with the federal government and the provincial government together in increasing the supply of affordable housing is one of the very most important parts of the kind of housing program that we envision.

We have been working actively with community groups to increase the supply of affordable housing and will continue to do so. I myself, as Minister of Housing, cannot support any attempt to block that in any way. We will continue to work with nonprofit groups to build housing all over the province and actively support their efforts.

Mr. Philip: The minister has not answered the question of whether or not she has received any submissions, either verbal or otherwise, from the member for Dovercourt in opposition to this particular development. The minister has received the information that I have sent her, in which, on his letterhead, the member for Dovercourt says that he is speaking in opposition, not just as a citizen but as a member of the Legislature.

I ask the minister, does she approve of that kind of use for vested personal interest by the member for Dovercourt? Will she stand in the House right here today and say that she dissociates herself from that kind of action by the member for Dovercourt? Will she do that right now?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I thank the member for sending me a copy of the correspondence which he sent me today.

As Minister of Housing, I am committed to increasing the supply of housing in this province that is useful for people of low income. That is the reason we have been working so actively with nonprofit groups. We will continue to do so. As Minister of Housing, I cannot support any initiative that would in any way stand in the way of appropriate development of nonprofit housing all over this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions. New question, the member for Burlington South.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Two weeks ago on Dateline Ontario, the minister responded to a question by Mark Kennedy about his government’s commitment to return school funding in this province to the 60 per cent funding rate. At that time he pledged, and I quote, that he was “moving towards decreasing the costs borne by local taxpayers.”

When his government took office, the provincial share of education cost was roughly at 48 per cent. As he can see by this graph, that rate has been constantly dropping ever since this government took office. How can he say he is moving towards the 48 per cent figure when, in fact, it has been dropping every year?

Hon. Mr. Ward: In responding to the member’s question, I remind him that the general legislative grant regulations were released to school boards across this province at a time when inflation in this province is running somewhere in the neighbourhood of four per cent. Grants to school boards increased some 7.2 per cent for the coming fiscal year.

At the same time, those GLG regulations contained a number of new initiatives, including $16.8 million in new money for textbooks and money to put in place teachers necessary to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in grades 1 and 2. As the member is aware, over the course of the past several months this government has come forward with many, many new initiatives. Indeed, I believe the 7.2 per cent increase in grants to school boards in this province reflects our commitment.

Mr. Jackson: With that response, the minister has not either made the grade or made the grid. He is still not on the grid to get him back to 60 per cent. The fact of the matter is that he is forcing more and more of the costs of education on to local taxpayers and local property taxpayers.

In his own backyard, in his own community where his own children are being educated, we are seeing increases in property taxes which go into double digits as a result of his pronouncements. The Hamilton Spectator of March 8 talks about the new budget for the Hamilton Board of Education, and I quote, Their budget “represents an 11.8 per cent increase in spending and an 11.3 per cent jump in taxes based on an average $5,000 assessment.”

The minister keeps talking about his promise but he keeps moving further and further away from it, at a cost to taxpayers --

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Jackson: My question is, when is the minister going to act so that municipal ratepayers are not stuck with the fact that he has broken another Liberal promise?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Quite frankly, I expected the member’s supplementary to ask when this government would balance the budget, but in reply I just want to say to my friend that indeed the 7.2 per cent average increase that flowed to boards across this province does vary from community to community. Shifts in enrolment and changes in commercial and industrial assessment from community to community will have an impact.

It surprises me that the member uses Hamilton as an example, because as a result of the new equalization factors, I believe the city of Hamilton was, in fact, a beneficiary and its 7.2 per cent increase may go beyond that.

The member knows full well that school boards do have the opportunity through local enhancements to set their own mill rate to establish priorities above and beyond approved expenditures. I know that when the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) was a trustee, there were instances when those expenditures would be out of control, such as during his days on the board of education, but I do not believe that is the case today.

Indeed, it is a shared responsibility, and I think the level of commitment that is extended through the general legislative grants this year reflects our commitment.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL

Mr. Dietsch: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister might be aware that many concerns about the leasing of the units at the Ontario Food Terminal were discussed directly with the Ontario Food Terminal this past week.

At a recent hearing of the standing committee on government agencies, it was noted that the leases were granted in perpetuity -- 30 years, renewable for further 30-year increments -- at the time of the food terminal’s creation in 1954. This is another nightmare, I might add, from the 42 years of previous reign.

The board has little influence over the selection of tenants and it has no control over the influence of subleasing or the assignments of leases. This creates the opportunity for leaseholders --

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Dietsch: -- to sell their leases at a handsome profit. The board has emphasized --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Dietsch: -- that it is bound by the provisions of the 1954 leases.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Dietsch: I am getting to the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dietsch: What is the minister’s response to the potential leaseholders who are unable to secure leases at the food terminal without paying exorbitant fees to assume the leasehold status?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member in whose riding the food terminal is located, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), raised this, in the last session I believe it was. I am also aware that the operations of the food terminal have been under review by the standing committee and, since it was brought to my attention, I have raised the matter with the Ontario Food Terminal board.

I think the member is aware that the Ontario Food Terminal Act gives the board the full authority and power to run the food terminal. But I will say that after contacting the board, it has decided that restrictions should be placed on the subletting of wholesale units at the terminal to address the concerns regarding the leaseholder demands for these very stiff fees. The board has also decided that a limit should be placed on the number of units held by one wholesaler to prevent further concentration of business.

I also gave approval for additional units to be established at the food terminal so that there would not be that same demand for obtaining leases at these very stiff prices. I think maybe the board has the matter under control.

Mr. Dietsch: I appreciate very much the minister’s answer in relationship to the new construction. I do feel, however, it is a matter of sincere urgency and I would ask the minister what he will do to speed up that construction.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The board is well aware of my concerns. I am sure that in discussing this matter it will come to the conclusion that there need to be additional units built at the food terminal, and I will certainly be making further contact with the board, urging it to move ahead with the building of these additional units.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. The minister will no doubt recall that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), in his budget statement of May 20, 1987, made an allocation of a paltry sum -- as I recall, it was some $30 million out of a total budget of $30 billion -- to enhance the economic opportunities of northern Ontario. He called it the northern Ontario heritage fund to allow for diversification.

Will the Minister of Northern Development tell us how much money has been spent out of the $30 million -- it has been about 11 months since the announcement -- and on what projects?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je remercie le député de lac Nipigon pour sa question. Premièrement, je dois lui dire que je n’ai dépensé aucun argent des 30 millions parce que le fonds n’est pas encore en place. Mais, par contre, je dois lui rappeler que durant les sept derniers mois, nous avons utilisé le Fonds du développement du Nord de l’Ontario pour remplir certains projets que nous avions en marche. Alors, le Nord n’a pas souffert.

Mais une chose que je dois lui dire, c’est que d’ici quelques semaines, avec l’aide du Trésor, du Conseil de gestion et de mon ministère, nous sommes en train de mettre une loi en place pour ce fonds. Je dois rappeler à l’honorable député qu’un projet de loi comme ça, ça ne se fait pas du jour au lendemain. Premièrement, j’avais dit aux personnes du Nord que je consulterais les conseils économiques, ce que j’ai fait pendant deux mois, pour trouver...

Interjections.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Le député d’Algoma (M. Wildman) devrait s’abstenir de rire, puisque tout à l'heure il sera bien content d’avoir cet argent pour des projets dans son comté.

Alors, je vais continuer la réponse au député de lac Nipigon. Je dois lui répondre que ce projet sera en marche d'ici quelque temps. Je suis certain que lui-même, son parti et les gens du Nord seront satisfaits de la présentation que nous allons faire en Chambre d’ici quelques semaines.

Mr. Pouliot: The future can last a long time, especially when it comes to the declarations of the Minister of Northern Development. Let me ask a supplementary.

Le ministre nous a dit tout à l'heure que rien n'avait été dépensé. Il y a onze mois, moi, je l’ai cru. Il y a six mois, quand il a ajouté d’autres bureaucrates pour essayer de se faire comprendre, de faire dépenser ces miettes, encore une fois je l’ai cru. Son problème, et le problème des gens du Nord, est un problème de crédibilité.

Dozens of projects have crossed his desk from labour and the business community. He has no credibility. When is he going to start doing his job and finally give us the tools to enhance our economic future up north?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Ma réponse à la question du député de lac Nipigon, c’est que je n’ai pas peur de me comparer avec lui sur le degré de crédibilité, puisque lui-même, il est bien content d’écrire des lettres à des ministres, il est bien content d’avoir de l’argent à dépenser dans son comté. C’est une chose que je ne lui reproche pas. Je reçois au moins quatre lettres par semaine de lui. En retour, je lui donne des octrois, et à tout bout de champ il veut savoir à quel endroit ira l’argent. Je le lui dis: 100 millions ici, 200 millions là, 20 millions là, 20 000$ là.

Alors, qu’il demande donc au maire de Marathon et au maire de la ville de Manitouwadge combien d’argent ils ont eu de mon ministère cette année. Ils lui donneront peut-être la réponse à ces questions bêtes.

Je dois lui rappeler que le Fonds du patrimoine sera la, mais il y a un autre fonds qu’il oublie, c’est le Fonds du développement du Nord. On y a 100 millions qu’on continuera à dépenser pendant les cinq prochaines années; ça, il oublie ça. Il oublie, en plus, que nous avons des fonds dans la Northern Ontario Development Corp. qu’on dépense dans son comté; il oublie ça. On a le fonds pour les personnes âgées; il oublie ça. Il oublie tous les fonds. Il se concentre sur ce fonds qui, tout à l'heure, sera très satisfaisant pour le Nord.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I know the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) is, and perhaps most members of the House are, somewhat surprised and disappointed that she did not make a statement in the House earlier today regarding the questions about the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. I would like to ask the minister about the abduction from a bus stop in London last week of a 14-year-old girl apparently by two inmates of the psychiatric hospital. This vicious and outrageous crime almost resulted in the death of an innocent teenager. We cannot run the risk of any more vulnerable people being endangered.

Is the minister prepared to institute immediately a temporary, partial freeze on day passes for psychiatric patients held on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants until a public inquiry is instituted and completed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me express, not only to the member opposite who asked the question, but also to the member for Elgin, who has discussed this with me, and to all members of the House, my own deep concern about the recent events, this very upsetting incident, not only as Minister of Health, but also as a parent and a citizen of this province.

I want to assure the House that my priority, and I believe the priority of every member of our society, is that public safety must always be our main concern. The Ministry of Health has been in touch with the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital as well as the chairman of the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review, Mr. Justice Callon. It is my understanding that both are reviewing the particulars of this case.

Mr. Runciman: That is great. Deep concern is the trademark of this government, not action. We see it in a variety of ministries. The system obviously failed in this case, resulting in grave danger to the public. For all we know, another abduction could happen at any time, committed by people on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants. In my community of Brockville, we have a man responsible for six deaths in Hamilton walking the street. How confident can people be? I am amazed that the minister does not see the need for action now. Without a temporary freeze until all the facts are in, what assurance can she give that a similar abduction will not occur this week to another young girl?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have noted to the member, review is under way and will be completed as soon as possible. It is important for him and for the people of this province to understand that the system in place is one mandated under the federal Criminal Code. Lieutenant Governor’s warrants are appointed by a panel consisting of a judge, lawyers and psychiatrists as well as lay members of the board representing the public. They are an independent body which makes these decisions and recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor. The hospital involved then implements the provisions of those warrants.

As I have stated to the member, and I do share his concern, we are reviewing the particulars of this case. It is my fervent hope that in the future, as these decisions are made, the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society will result in public safety.

CHANGE OF NAME

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It was recently brought to my attention that under the new Change of Name Act there are two very serious concerns.

The first concern is on behalf of women in this province, who apparently may have their birth records altered upon marriage, if they assume the name of their spouse. I understand that the new birth certificate will show the married name with no reference to the maiden name.

Will the minister consider allowing the maiden name to appear on the birth certificate document along with the married name when that request is made by the applicant?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable member for his question. I should say at the outset that the member would want it to be known that this process only takes place on the election of the newly married spouse to take the surname of her new spouse. That election having been made, in the past -- the honourable member is correct -- the birth certificate, the little card one gets, rather than the birth registration, would be returned with the new name.

I think the honourable member has made a good suggestion. We have been discussing that as well, that we would be prepared in the interim to change the birth certificates we are sending out so that where that election is made, the individual would receive not only the new surname, but also her original maiden name in most cases.

I should say as well, just very briefly on this issue, that there has been concern that even that does not go far enough. We have been simply administering the legislation within the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations; it originally stood in the name of the Attorney General. I say to the honourable member, who, I know, has expressed his concerns to me, that we are prepared to have a new round of consultation and see whether even this dual name move is appropriate and whether it goes far enough.

Mr. Mahoney: Thank you. I appreciate the minister’s answer. The second area of concern is the ability of a divorced spouse to apply for a name change for a child under 18 years of age without the consent of the other parent. There is some question as to whether notification is even required and what remedies might be available to the parent being so notified.

Will the minister ensure that, at the very least, anyone with a legitimate interest in that child receives notice of the intent to change the name of the child in advance of that decision being made?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the honourable member asks a question which is actually, in terms of the Change of Name Act, being asked more frequently. I should outline to the honourable member and to the House the present situation.

At the outset, the agreement of any child over the age of 12, as I understand it, must be obtained, but in this situation the spouse who is not the custodial spouse must receive notification. Notification must be acknowledged in the application.

If the noncustodial spouse objects to the change of name application, it has been the policy of the deputy registrar, she advises me, to allow a 60-day period so that the noncustodial spouse can begin to take any court action that he or she deems to be appropriate.

I should just point out, now that this act has been in place for some period of time, that those who are going through divorce proceedings perhaps would wish to make sure that this is dealt with at the time custody is being discussed.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions on auto insurance.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if we could have order. I would not want the honourable member to have to raise his voice.

Mr. Swart: I would not want to have to say either that this issue is not funny to a lot of the motorists in this province. I am sure the minister will recall that Gordon Chellew of the Insurers’ Advisory Organization said about three weeks ago that they want “car insurance rates increased by more than 20 per cent immediately.”

The minister would also know that just recently Statistics Canada reported that the net profits of the casualty and property insurers last year were the highest ever, 16 per cent higher than last year and three times as high as they were just in 1985.

Simply, will the minister assure this House today that he will not permit any interim increase, any general increase in auto insurance rates prior to his rate review board completing a full hearing on any requests?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? Maybe there is no need.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary -- and I think all the motorists of this province will realize how ominous his answer is as far as their rates are concerned -- does the minister not really think that when the casualty and property insurers made $1,164,000,000 profit last year, a 15 per cent return on equity -- incidentally, that was 75 per cent higher than the average business in this province -- he could give a promise to this House and the motorists that he will prevent any further increases until an in-depth examination is made?

Hon. Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Would the minister tell this House the status of the federal-provincial negotiations regarding the Canada child care act?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, we tentatively negotiated an agreement in early December 1987. As a result of that, increases with respect to direct grants were passed on to our nonprofit centres. I had indicated to the federal minister at that time that I wanted to do the same thing for commercial centres on April 1, but I would not be able to do so unless I got an assurance from him and from his government that the money would flow as of April 1.

As a result of that, I sent a letter to the federal minister late in December and asked for a confirmation in writing on that. I have not yet received it. My staff has been in touch with his office and his staff, literally weekly since then. My understanding is that the federal minister plans to bring legislation before the federal House some time in June -- at least that is his intent -- but I cannot get a guarantee much beyond that. That is as far as I can go. We have clearly indicated what we want.

Mrs. Marland: The problem is that if the minister’s staff is in touch with the federal ministry weekly, at the same sequence people are leaving the private sectors to work in the nonprofit sectors because the funding has been flowing through to them since January 1.

I would like to ask the minister if he has any plans, while we wait another two or three months for this Canadian child care act, to provide interim measures of funding for the commercial child care centres so that 50 per cent of Ontario’s child care places are not being jeopardized by the unfair advantages which now go to the nonprofit sector.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would share with the honourable member that, as a result of the initiatives we have taken over the last year or so, the share of the profit sector is now 40 per cent, down a considerable amount.

Yes, I have been in consultation with the profit sector and with its association. I have indicated clearly what I intend to do and also clearly to them the restrictions I am under. I have been obviously discussing this among my own staff and my colleagues and will continue to do so, but I am not able at this time to give the member a clear yes or no that I will be able to do anything very quickly.

LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Wayne Gretzky has shown himself to be a real winner.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Hear, hear. He comes from my riding.

Mr. Tatham: Good. We have a program in this province fighting soil erosion, looking after soil conservation. Soil is a magic potion, and if we do not look after the land, the land will look after us. If we abuse it, we lose it.

This program the government has, the land stewardship program, is doing an excellent job. The problem is that I understand there are more people who want to use it but there is not enough funding. Can the minister please tell us what the situation is so that all members who want to use it can use it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I thank the honourable gentleman for comparing me with Wayne Gretzky.

Mr. Ferraro: You are both good stick-handlers.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, if, in your busy schedule, you are able to follow government programs and policies, you will know that the land stewardship program is probably the most innovative program that has been devised anywhere in a long time. The purpose of that program was to stimulate interest in good land stewardship. It was not for the financial duress of many farmers, which we have been trying to address. Soil degredation, much of it caused by soil erosion, is probably one of the greatest problems we have in the agricultural community of Ontario today.

We introduced the land stewardship program. It has been oversubscribed, particularly in southwestern Ontario. There has been tremendous interest in this program, but we felt the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association and the local committees could best administer the program. They have to look at all these applications, and it may well be that they are going to have for this year to downsize the projects which farmers are trying to carry on in order to preserve the soil.

We are tremendously impressed with the response that we have received to this program. If we find it is going to meet the needs, the chances are I will be visiting the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) at some time to see what we can do.

Mr. Tatham: If our friends across the line sign the free trade agreement, what impact will that have upon a land stewardship program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: There is no question that we have all of our programs under review because of the impending free trade agreement. There is no question the Americans are going to use their trade laws and they are going to countervail our products if they feel our products are going to injure their markets, but I do not believe they will look upon the land stewardship program as one that is countervailable, mainly because it is not a targeted program. It is open to all farmers.

As well, it is taking land out of production, and that is something we have to do in Canada. They have to do it in the United States and they have to do it in the European Community. We have a world surplus of food and all of these food-producing nations have to bring their production under control. I doubt very much if the Americans would look upon the land stewardship program as one that they would countervail in order to establish injury to their market.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer. In view of the length of time, I will make it very short. In view of the fact that the Treasurer has been dropping hints across the province in the last month or so that there would be an increase in the retail sales tax, can the Treasurer assure us here today that this is nothing more than a nasty rumour and that he would have nothing to do with increasing the most regressive of all possible taxes?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I cannot give the honourable member any assurance other than that the Treasury is examining a wide variety of alternatives involving cost control, improving the productivity of the present tax base and seeing where, on a basis of fairness and equity, we might possibly expand that base in the event that it is our judgement that we need more revenue. The basic phrase, I am sure you would agree, is “fairness and equity.”

PETITIONS

EDUCATION

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from a group in Peterborough that favours amalgamating the two boards. It reads as follows:

“Whereas we, the undernamed, believing the present dual system of school boards, public and separate, to be out of date with modern thinking, liable to promote dissension between religious factions and is expensive and wasteful, we petition you to amend legislation concerning education to create one consolidated school system under which all schoolchildren attending state-funded schools get equal benefit of education paid for by equal taxation throughout the province, with provision being made for religious instruction within such schools as and where required.’’

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind all members that the House is in session. Would you please refrain from having private conversations?

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition from 43 signers in the great riding of Markham who have expressed disapproval of wide-open Sunday shopping.

“We, the undersigned, urge the province to reverse the decision to turn the issue of Sunday shopping to the municipalities.

“It is also necessary to protect the right of freedom of religion to believers, including the right to gather with their community of faith on its common day of worship. Such a law should provide protection for all believers, including those who worship on Saturday and Friday. The right to a day of rest each week and to freedom of religion are guaranteed under international law which Canada is pledged to uphold.

“The choice to retain Sunday as the common pause day in Ontario is a practical option reflecting the practical reality that the largest number of worshippers still gather on Sunday. By retaining Sunday and strengthening protections for Saturday and Friday worshippers, we would protect the largest number of people from denial of their right to freedom of religion. Wide-open Sunday shopping would undermine the wellbeing of the family and jeopardize for many the basic right to a day of rest and recreation.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Breaugh: I have two petitions this afternoon. The first is addressed:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

That one is signed by 162 members of my riding.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Breaugh: The second is addressed:

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

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

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

That one has 38 signatures on it.

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Beer: I have two petitions to present today. The first is signed by 136 individuals from York region who are concerned about the future of Greenacres Home for the Aged. This petition states:

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

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

“Whereas it is the constitutional right of all senior citizens to have access to a health care facility that is appropriate to their needs;

“And

whereas Greenacres Home for the Aged in Newmarket, Ontario, is one of the few health care facilities that can safely provide care for the wandering, cognitively impaired older person;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to resolve the issue regarding the future operation of Greenacres in order that admissions can begin immediately to alleviate community stress resulting from long waiting lists for long-term care facilities and decrease the number of inappropriate accommodations in acute care hospital beds of cognitively impaired elderly.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Beer: The second petition is signed by 122 individuals who are concerned about the naturopathy profession and it states:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

AVORTEMENT

Mr. Pope: I have a petition signed by over 600 residents of the communities of Timmins, Iroquois Falls, Black River and Matheson in the riding of Cochrane South, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

Attendu que le 28 janvier 1988, la Cour suprême du Canada a aboli la

loi sur l’avortement parce que considérée en opposition à la Charte des droits et libertés;

«Attendu que cette décision laisse les enfants à naître du Canada sans aucune protection légale;

«Nous demandons à votre gouvernement:

«

a) de rédiger une loi donnant aux enfants à naître les mêmes droits à la vie et la même protection que tout autre membre de notre société;

«

b) de passer un amendement à la

section 251 de la Charte des droits qui outrepasse la décision de la Cour suprême, jusqu’à ce que la nouvelle loi entre en vigueur.

«Nous croyons que votre gouvernement a à coeur le respect de la vie de tous les Canadiens et nous sommes assurés que vous agirez rapidement et sûrement pour le bien de toute notre société canadienne. »

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Ferraro: I have two petitions to present today. The first petition 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 are opposed to the Ontario government’s plan to give responsibility for Sunday shopping to the municipalities because we feel it will result in wide-open Sundays. We request that the Ontario government pass legislation to ensure the people of Ontario a common pause day.”

It has 5,348 signatures from the Guelph and Fergus area and 1,910 signatures basically from the Hamilton area, for an aggregate amount of 7,258 signatures.

The second petition I have is signed by 131 fine people belonging to the Guelph-Wellington Seniors Association and is essentially objecting to the same matter. They do not want or desire wide-open Sunday shopping.

AVORTEMENT

M. Morin: J’ai devant moi une pétition de 700 commettants de la circonscription de Carleton-Est qui se lit comme suit:

«Nous, soussignés, déclarons notre objection à ce que l’avortement puisse être obtenu sur demande ou d’une manière qui soit subventionnée par les gouvernements et réclamons des gouvernements des niveaux provincial et fédéral à prendre toutes les mesures qui s’imposent pour préserver la vie des enfants à naître.»

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pollock: I have two petitions. One reads: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Our very strong opposition to opening of retail stores for Sunday shopping.”

It is signed by the executive of the Belleville Presbyterian United Church Women.

RECREATION TRAIL

Mr. Pollock: The other petition reads:

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

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

“We are in favour of the former Canadian National railway line known as the Marmora subdivision being developed as a recreation trail.”

It is signed by 639 people.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Furlong: I have two petitions. The first reads:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

It is signed by 94 residents.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Furlong: The second petition reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business.”

It is signed by 34 members of the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Whitby.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee’s report.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I would like to compliment members of all parties who worked very hard with a very short period of time and those who prepared the 62 exhibits we had for our consideration. I hope we have achieved a valuable consensus for the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) when he considers it with regard to his budget, which I expect he will bring down later this month.

The committee recommends: that moneys be spent to improve Ontario’s competitive position in maintaining our infrastructure in schools, both primary and secondary level; that capital grants and assistance to school boards, as well as grants to universities and colleges, be increased; that with the help of the federal government, we spend moneys to improve our sewer and transportation systems; that we improve our housing funding; that we improve our funding for the disabled and give more help to low-income residents.

We also recommend that this be done in a fiscally responsible manner. I can report that the majority of the committee was of the view that taxes may have to be raised. The third party issued a dissenting opinion on this point.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet on the morning of and following routine proceedings on Wednesday, April 6, 1988 and on Wednesday, April 13, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that notwithstanding standing order 71(h), requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 106,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation will implement the changes to the local government electoral process which I outlined to the members in my statement of December 10. The bill will establish a new recount process, place limits on contributions and expenses for local government candidates and make mandatory the disclosure and reporting of campaign contributions and expenses.

The legislation will also make an additional change. I am pleased to advise the members that this bill will enable municipalities, school boards and public utilities commissions to adopt a rebate system for local campaign contributions. By providing this authority, we will for the first time be treating candidates for election to local office on an equal basis with their provincial and federal counterparts.

This optional rebate system will, I believe, encourage campaign contributions from a broader cross-section of the public. By making more campaign funds available, it will also encourage a greater number of individuals to seek local office and thus further strengthen our system of local government in Ontario.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. B. Rae moved, pursuant to standing order 37(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; that being the decision of the Liberal government of Ontario to reverse its pre-election promise to prohibit wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario and the resulting anger felt by workers, store owners and their families because they will be unable to spend time together.

Mr. Speaker: Notice of the motion was received in my office in the appropriate time and therefore is in order. I will listen to the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, as well as representatives from other parties for up to five minutes each.

Mr. B. Rae: My reason for moving this motion today was to call as much attention as we are allowed in parliamentary terms to what I think amounts to a flagrant breach of promise by the Liberal Party and the Liberal government with respect to its own election mandate.

As I said earlier in the question period in this House, we all recognize the size of the Liberal majority. We all recognize that the government won itself a very substantial mandate back in September. But I want to point out to members that the mandate was based, at least in part, on the commitment by the member for London Centre, who is now the Premier (Mr. Peterson), that in fact his party and government would respect the desire of an all-party committee and the will of this House that there be a common pause day in the province and that that day be Sunday.

That was a commitment the Premier made in August 1987. That is a commitment he has broken. That is a commitment he has flagrantly abused, and we think that in itself is worthy of an emergency discussion in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that even as late as Thursday, the Premier made it very clear that he was not going to change his mind. He stated on March 31, 1988: “The decision has been made.” He told the Association of Municipalities of Ontario -- I am quoting from the Toronto Star -- “We have a province that’s bigger than most countries, and we are making our decision.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you not only the results of the by-election in London on Thursday but also the opinion as expressed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, by literally hundreds of churches and church organizations across this province, by small businesses of all kinds speaking through various associations and individually, by employees speaking through their associations and trade unions and individually and by recent assessments of public opinion showing a very substantial change, even from the opinion polls that took place as recently as six months ago.

The public does not want local option. The public does not want human rights and labour legislation to depend on every municipal council in this province. The people of this province do not want a situation where stores are, as a matter of course, open on Sunday. They want to have legislation in place which will protect them.

That is what the Premier agreed to in August. That is what the Premier said he would do before the election, and we think it nothing short of disgraceful that he would turn around and say: “That may have been the case before the election. Now that I’ve got my majority, I will do whatever I want and whatever I please.” That is a shameful proposition. It is a shameful thing for a government to do.

I know there are those in the government benches who do not think this is a major problem. I know there are those in the government benches who have spoken publicly saying, “You know, once it was streetcars and once it was movies.” I remember reading with interest the comments of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter). The Premier himself has said it is the sign of a modern country that these things can happen. All I want to say is, this is not a religious issue. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick completely confuses himself and the public if he thinks it is a religious issue.

It is a question about the priority that we give to commercialism and the priority that we give to family.

I am the first to admit that this will not be the end of civilization. What I do think is that if we can choose to support and protect families, that is what we should be doing, and every time we have that choice to make, we should, if we possibly can, be passing laws and taking measures to support and protect the family and not be passing laws and taking measures that will drive people apart.

I just want to close with a letter that I received the other day from Janice Rothwell, a letter I quoted earlier. I want to end with what she simply says.

“In summing up my letter, I just want to point out that my reasons for not doing business on Sundays are not religious but family. Religion does not have to be practised on a specific day, but family is every day, and Sunday is the only day we all can count on being together. Please make your decision intellectually and with your heart and not your wallet.”

That request comes from an ordinary family member in Hamilton.

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

Mr. B. Rae: I think we should be supporting Janice Rothwell and her family and thousands of other families throughout the province.

Mr. Harris: We are very supportive of the resolution that has been put forward for an emergency debate today. We think not only that the problem is one of urgency and of significant importance that should be debated, and debated today, but also that there are two things at stake here, two things that this government, if it pursues in this changed position from the election to now, is going to lose out on.

One is a very serious problem. That is one of credibility, credibility of all politicians. For when one party says one thing and campaigns on one thing, gets the mandate it seeks and then completely ignores that and goes the other way, it causes a credibility problem not only for that Premier, that party and the government of the day, but it causes a credibility problem for all legislators and for people of all parties. That concerns me, particularly at a time when credibility of politicians is not at an all-time high in this province, this country or North America. For that reason alone, it is a very serious problem and one I think the government should look at.

Second, there are the issue and the merits of the issue itself. As the leader of the New Democratic Party has said, this is not a religious issue. This is an issue of family, of family values, if you like. In a very fast-changing world, in a very difficult time, the meaningfulness of family, the opportunity for families to cling to whatever they can together, is diminishing and diminishing.

I agree very strongly with something the leader of the New Democratic Party said, and that is that we should be looking at a number of issues, not just this one. We should be looking at policies and saying what does this policy do to the family? I do not think anybody would say this is going to be good for the family, that this is going to strengthen the family. In fact, it will go a long way to do just the opposite.

There is a problem. The debaters can take some time today, but the problem is the existing law, which worked well for quite a period of time, to deal with the tourist designation in today’s modern age. Over a period of time people have figured out how to get around it. It is not working well and is something that has to be addressed. We acknowledge that. It worked for a while. Today it is not working well; so we have to address the problem.

What concerns us is the local option proposal put forward by the Premier. It is the media gurus and the Liberal experts who say, “If you want to change your position, if you want to go against the family, if you want to do something that, in your view, will promote your trendy, urban yuppieness, but really is going against the family and is against what you campaigned on, then you have to come up with something to hang your hat on.”

This local option did not evolve with an overriding principle of the Liberal Party that everything is going to be a local option, because we have seen just the opposite when it comes to other issues. That is where they all go, and now they are trying to sell that. They are saying, “You cannot sell it on the merits. You cannot sell it on what you campaigned on. So now you must try and sell it on the local option.”

That is not working. The local people are not buying that. We know the issue of Sunday shopping, of trying to have a common pause day, is not one that should be good for some Ontarians and not others, not one that should be good for one municipality and not others and not one that should be left to a local option, neither the municipalities themselves, the actual elected councillors, nor the people who have elected them there.

We offered to come up with a solution if the government was afraid of it. We offered to work three-party. We said we would do it one-party if they wished, to work with the groups and come up with a tourist designation that would be acceptable to retail members, to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, to chambers of commerce and what not.

We welcome the debate today. We think it is timely and we think it is important.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have in my hand the notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), and I must say that I received it with some interest last week. I believe it was on March 30.

Looking at this motion and looking at the intent of provisional standing order 37, I could argue a good case that this is not an emergency in the language of the provisional standing order. I dare say there might even be some in this House who would like me to argue that case, but I do not intend to be, as the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) would perhaps suggest, picayune --

Mr. Wildman: Don’t be cynical either.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- because as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) properly observes, this is a matter of some debate.

I just want to say very proudly to my friends in the two opposition parties that I am not at all reluctant to debate the member for Algoma and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) on this subject, if on no other grounds than on the very grounds of their own constituencies and what I know to be the case in their communities, where I see a pattern of activity over the years that is at some very considerable variance with some of the rhetoric that I hear in this chamber today and have heard.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Let us have another by-election someplace else.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Windsor-Riverside intervenes, and we know, thanks to the Premier, what it is the member for Windsor-Riverside said to the Windsor Star on November 15, 1986. Before the day is over, I will want to return to that.

Let there be no confusion in the minds of the opposition. Let there be no consternation in the hearts of the member for Nipissing and the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) as to the willingness of the government to debate this. We are more than willing to debate this subject in this chamber and elsewhere --

Mr. Mackenzie: Closed mind.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- because we are not at all worried about contesting the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) on this subject.

For that reason, I want my friends opposite, and most especially the Leader of the Opposition, to know that notwithstanding the fact this resolution is almost certainly not in strict accordance with provisional standing order 37 -- I hope all my friends opposite have read that standing order, particularly 37(b)(ii), very carefully.

Mr. Breaugh: Some of us even wrote it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The seer from Oshawa will have read it, if he has not memorized it.

I just want to say to my friends the opposition House leaders and their colleagues that while we will debate this today, happily, because of our strongly held view --

Mr. Sterling: You don’t look happy.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You haven’t looked happy for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friends opposite that we are prepared to debate this today. I particularly want my friends the opposition House leaders to understand what I have conveyed to them over the last number of weeks; that is, this government has an agenda that it intends to proceed with. My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside most especially knows that over the last number of weeks we have said that there are a number of issues relating to the municipal and school board elections for 1988 that are pressing. The most pressing of these is Bill 77.

Mr. Wildman: If it was so pressing, why has the House not been sitting?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend the member for Algoma that we intend to proceed, because that legislation, particularly the creation of a permanent voters’ list, is important and pressing. As a government, we want to go forward in an orderly fashion not only to accommodate the not inconsiderable sensitivities of my honourable friends in the opposition, but at the same time to proceed with the agenda of this government and most especially those areas as they affect municipal and school board elections in 1988.

I know my friends the members for Windsor-Riverside and Oshawa and Algoma and elsewhere will not want to delay the debate of that particular legislation and they will not want to add any additional difficulties to the municipal elections or the school board elections in 1988.

I will look forward, as a member of the government, as a member of the assembly, to debate the issues this afternoon as they affect the regulation of retail store hours.

I want to say, in conclusion, that the government’s agenda is going to be proceeded with, that the local government bills, as they affect the 1988 elections, are matters of urgent and pressing concern, I know, to all members of this assembly and certainly to all communities that will be affected in the fall.

On the basis of that caveat, I say, “Let the debate begin,” because this government is delighted to have the opportunity to engage honourable members on the subject.

Mr. Speaker: As all members are well aware, there are several parts to standing order 37. We have now dealt with 37(a), 37(

b) and 37(

c) and we come to 37(d).

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: That being the case, I would advise any member who wishes to speak, he or she will have up to 10 minutes to speak and the debate will continue until 6 p.m. or until we run out of speakers. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has stated publicly that members of the Legislature who believe in a common day of rest are living in the past. One would have to ask the Premier, did he believe that the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) was living in the past when she signed her name to a select committee report that stated a common pause day was a principle which should be upheld by this government?

The report of the select committee, which was established by the Premier at a cost to the taxpayers of over $90,000, reflected the views of thousands of people -- citizens, corporations and members of the community -- who came before the committee. No doubt the Premier believes the leaders of these community groups are also living in the past.

He was obviously thinking of the future, however, when during the election campaign he stated that he believed in the proposals of the select committee. I would remind the members of the House that the select committee firmly maintained that provincial legislation “regulating retailing on holidays, including Sundays, should therefore be structured to support the maintenance of such a common pause day or day of rest.”

That is what the Premier was agreeing to when during the election campaign he stated he was in agreement with the thrust of the select committee’s report. What we have is more than just the issue of Sunday shopping. What we have is the issue of a Premier going to the people with one set of premises, telling them one thing and then a few months later doing exactly the opposite.

In announcing the government’s decision on providing the municipal option on Sunday shopping, the Solicitor General stated that the government had concluded the recommendations of the select committee were unworkable. But she was the one who signed that report only a few months earlier. She was the one who strongly supported the committee’s recommendation against widespread Sunday shopping. Furthermore, in comments prior to the government’s recent Sunday shopping decision, she described the municipal option as the chicken way out, the passing of responsibility on to the municipalities when the select committee’s report was fairly clear as to where it stood on that.

It stated in its recommendations, and it was the first and second recommendations that dealt with this and are therefore, one would assume, very primary and important recommendations, “the primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays should remain with the provincial government.”

That was clearly what the Solicitor General and other members of the Liberal party signed when they signed that select committee report. That was clearly what the Premier was promising during the election and now he is breaking that promise.

In his letter to someone who had written to him, the Premier gives two reasons for his sudden flip-flop and change of heart against the people of Ontario. He states: “We have concluded that municipalities should be allowed to regulate Sunday openings. Since the attitudes and conditions vary widely across the province, municipal governments, in our view, are in the best position to determine locally appropriate approaches to this issue.”

If one looks at the select committee report and the 17 recommendations, it deals with that flexibility. It recommends ways in which we can deal with the problems associated with local conditions. But instead of implementing the select committee report, the Premier has decided simply to throw it away and go the Bill Vander Zalm route.

I want to point out to members that the Vander Zalm route, the British Columbia route of giving the power to the municipalities, does not give them power at all. What the local municipal option means is that municipalities -- and this happened in British Columbia -- whose citizens, whose merchants, whose aldermen or councillors are against wide-open Sunday shopping are coerced for economic reasons into having wide-open Sundays.

We heard that in the select committee. We heard from people who had had some experience with British Columbia that when you give them the local option, all you need is for one municipality to open the doors and the others, for economic reasons, even though they do not wish to, simply have to open their doors as well. It is fairly clear. This happened in Vancouver and it will surely happen throughout all of southern Ontario.

The other argument used is that any changes in the law will address the question of the protection of retail workers who may be asked to work on Sundays. The select committee dealt with that.

We had managers, particularly managers of Canadian Tire stores, saying: “You can pass any legislation you want, but the mere coercion of the promise of promotion is enough to force an employee to work on Sunday whether he or she wishes to or not. Indeed, there are ways of getting rid of any employee whom one does not wish to have along or who is unco-operative, simply by scheduling him on a Thursday night when he has university classes or at some other time when it is very inconvenient for that person.” Those are the managers who are saying that and those are the owners who are saying that.

They are saying, “We can get around any labour legislation you pass because of the nature of the retail business.”

If members look at what we are talking about, we are talking about Sunday working which will force people who are single parents, who now, because of the nature of their work, are not home with their children on Saturdays, to work on Sundays as well and therefore not be at home during the main time in which the children are at home.

We are talking about additional municipal costs, because surely the costs of policing, of transportation and of day care services will be affected, and they fall most heavily on the municipality and on the home owner.

We are also talking about an increase in food costs. The merchants in my area, grocery store owners and people who are involved in that trade, inform me that they are very likely not to increase in any substantial way the volume of food they are likely to sell. They state that their costs will therefore go up proportionately in terms of their costs of operating.

It costs more to operate seven days a week than six days a week. That has to be passed on to someone, and it will be passed on to the consumer. They have estimated 15 per cent. That may be a little high, but if one considers that some of the revenue will come as a result of putting small store operators out of business, none the less we are going to have an increase in food costs as a result of this reactionary legislation.

The argument is also used that somehow, according to the Ontario Libertarian Party and people like that, we should let the marketplace decide, that open Sunday would lead to more convenience and that the shopper then would actually