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

December 2, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L016 - Wed 2 Dec 1987 / Mer 2 déc 1987

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ROBERT BECHARD

MCLAUGHLIN GALLERY

PUNCH IMLACH

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RECYCLING

RESPONSES

RECYCLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RECYCLING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

VISITOR

PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

WATER PIPELINE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MULTICULTURALISM

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

POLLUTION CONTROL

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PETITION

TRANSIT SERVICES

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

CROWN WITNESS PROTECTION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT (CONTINUED) /

LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE (SUITE)

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reville: Lorrie Goldstein, who gets to think in public every day in the Toronto Sun, had a really good idea this morning. He thinks the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) should get a day of rest this Sunday. She will need it to recover from being flattened by what Lorrie calls “the cabinet solidarity steamroller.” He is right, you know; I was there.

Before her elevation, the Solicitor General trudged from town to town across Ontario where she and 10 other members of the 33rd Parliament listened patiently to individuals and groups plead for a common pause day. She went on the bus to Barrie. A few days later, she went on the bus to Cambridge and then to London, where she endured with award-winning patience the local crypto-Conservatives, one of whom had run against her as head of a party whose sole plank was wide-open Sundays. The Solicitor General explained that restricted holiday shopping was not, after all, undemocratic.

Alas, a private member has freedom that a cabinet minister clearly does not; so let us give that cabinet minister a bit of freedom. Let us give her this Sunday off. She can soak her feet or perhaps her head and think about how strange life is.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has indicated how proud she is of the work she is doing as minister and how confident she is of her ministry to serve the public and resolve the housing crisis of the province. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, our caucus is not that pleased or that confident. The people of Ontario who have a housing crisis are not that pleased or that confident.

In fact, when one starts to ask some questions, as we did yesterday, about the rent registry, it really comes as a shock that the minister attributes it as still working, starting to come into effect, when maybe less than five per cent of the tenants are registered. Is there any wonder there is a backlog of 23,000 people trying to have their rents addressed and resolved?

We have a problem in this province. We have a problem of confidence that this government is going to do something to solve the housing crisis. There is a confidence factor in the fact that government promised it would build 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989. It has not even announced where they are going to go and when they are going to go up.

I wish the press would start coming out with the fact that this is another example of this government failing to meet the needs of legislation and of the people of this province. It is a situation where I have no confidence in them.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

Mr. McClelland: I would like to draw to the attention of this House that Peel region’s first comprehensive alcohol and drug assessment program will begin operating in Brampton and in Peel in January of this coming year.

This program, which received its funding from the Ministry of Health, will conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop a total treatment package for individuals in our community, directing them to the most suitable services offered in the community and working towards developing appropriate services for them.

In addition, I wish to draw to the attention of this House that last week at Peel’s annual conference on addiction, the organization MAP, Managing Addiction Programs in Peel, announced a plan to co-ordinate an integrated and holistic program to assist drug and alcohol addicts in Peel. Included in the plan is a proposal for a 26-bed detoxification centre linked to Peel Memorial Hospital. Currently, in Brampton and throughout Peel, alcoholics and drug addicts must go to Hamilton or Toronto or, unhappily, be admitted to jail.

This proposal to deal with addicts in a holistic manner involving as many as 500 community volunteers is to be commended for its vision and its thrust and the fact that it comes from the grass-roots involvement of the community. I look forward to working with health care officials, my colleagues in this House and the members of our community in advancing this worthwhile proposal to realization.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Over the past week or two, I have raised the matter of a lack of resources and an overcrowding problem at our universities.

Today I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature that 3,000 students and faculty at Trent University are going to boycott classes tomorrow to protest the gross underfunding of their library facility, the terrible overcrowding, where offices have been crammed into what should be library space, where the lack of funds for staff has meant it is open for fewer hours than at most other universities.

In fact, they are trying to receive donations from students in the university community, a $10 donation each, to try to compensate for the underfunding of this government. We know that is probably a dangerous kind of initiative for them to take. Perhaps it even runs counter to certain proposals that have been put forward by this Legislature in terms of not wanting to place an extra burden on students for the cost of their university education.

I think it is appropriate that the minister is here today. I hope she has a statement to make in terms of redressing the needs of that university, which has waited over 10 years for any major capital assistance and which has been complaining about this overcrowding situation through the faculty council and through the president, who has, I know, spoken personally with the minister recently. The university is in dire need of redress of this most significant problem.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. Harris: During the last campaign, the Liberal Party promised leadership that works. In office, they have provided leadership that wimps out. If this government were a car, its performance would warrant a recall.

On Sunday shopping, Liberal leadership consists of passing the buck to the municipalities. In trade policy, Liberal leadership means the Premier (Mr. Peterson) finally gets off the fence to go and sit on the bench. In education, the Liberal idea of leadership is to deliver one fifth of what they promised and then ask the property taxpayer to pick up the bill for everything else. On child care, the Liberals issue a New Directions paper which keeps them going in the same old circle while they wait for the federal government to come up with a policy for them.

Liberal leadership in tax reform means hiking the personal income tax, land transfer tax and every tax they can get their mitts on. Liberal leadership in housing means creating a system that can barely process a rent increase application and taking comfort in the fact that the vacancy rate has not got any worse.

Every time a fight starts, an issue or a problem comes up, this government leaves the room or strikes yet another committee or commission. It is not a government that leads; it is a government that appears afraid of its own mandate. It is a government paralysed by the responsibilities of leadership, to the point where it deals with issues by making them someone else’s problem and by waiting for others to come up with solutions.

That approach is rapidly making this government a problem for the people of Ontario, who are beginning to see that the Liberal idea of leadership begins and ends with a slogan.

ROBERT BECHARD

Mr. Elliot: I would like to make a statement about Robert L. Bechard, president and founder of ACTION International, a private relief organization founded to help orphans of Mexican descent. The initials of ACTION stand for a call to improve orphans’ needs. Initially, Bob Bechard began helping Hilda and Raefel Gomez in Mexico to support 50 children in their orphanage. The success of his charity has increased this number to 84. ACTION at this time is attempting to build an orphanage in Mexico which will house 100 boys and 100 girls.

Several months ago, we recommended that Bob Bechard receive the Order of Canada award because of his work as a gregarious missionary. We have done this because Bob Bechard directed his life to the things that count. He took opportunities to serve that came his way. He looked forward, in a spirit of adventure, towards new horizons of achievement. He brought into the lives of others all those major blessings that make for happy, creative, triumphant living.

Robert L. Bechard, at the young age of 64, died on Saturday, November 14, 1987, in Milton of a massive heart attack. I wish to honour Bob Bechard of Halton North by making this statement part of the official record of the Legislature of Ontario.

MCLAUGHLIN GALLERY

Mr. Breaugh: Members will know that Oshawa is the cultural centre of Canada.

An hon. member: True.

Mr. Breaugh: It is true.

Mr. Brandt: As of what date?

Mr. Breaugh: Don’t show your ignorance here.

Saturday afternoon at 3:30, all members are invited to the brand-new Robert McLaughlin Gallery, opening with a little bit of provincial money and a whole lot of Oshawa money. When members get there, they will see Joan Murray, the most dynamic person in all of art in Canada; they will have an opportunity to see an architectural wonder; and, best of all, they will get a chance just to be in Oshawa for an afternoon. All members are invited.

Miss Nicholas: I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to recognize the recent death of a former constituent of mine.

Agreed to.

PUNCH IMLACH

Miss Nicholas: I would like to recognize today in the House the loss of a legend. The city, the province and the country acknowledge today the passing of George “Punch” Imlach. The media have reported extensively on the accomplishments and controversies of his career life. Some people did not always agree with Punch Imlach, but he earned the respect of all people because, whatever he did, he made sure he did it his way.

I remember the first time I met Punch Imlach. It was in 1974 in St. Catharines and we were attending a banquet for charity. He continued to work on behalf of charities for the remainder of his life. More recently, I had the pleasure of meeting him on his doorstep in my constituency. We are told that his greatest joy was when he sat behind the bench, and that is where we recognize and remember him most, in particular leading the Toronto Maple Leafs to four Stanley Cup wins in the 1960s.

I am sure it is the unanimous wish of this House that we express the condolences of the people of Ontario, who enjoyed the benefits of his enthusiasm for the game of hockey, to his wife, Dorothy, his son, Brent, and his daughter, Marlene. Punch Imlach will be missed by all.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to join in this recognition of Punch Imlach. Most of us who grew up in Canada will know this man. We will know him probably for two reasons: one, the fedoras, the hats that were so great and that you saw when you first went into the rink; and, secondly, because he made hockey into something that we will all remember in this country. Strange though it may seem, hockey players and people who are involved in hockey play a great role in the development of our culture.

Punch Imlach kind of signifies that era when hockey was really hockey, when there were six great hockey teams and great legends at work. He carried it over into a new era and kind of expanded that into a franchise in Buffalo.

He was controversial, but there is nothing wrong with being controversial. He was sometimes wrong, but more often right. He inspired people to do great things. He inspired a great many memories all across Canada.

There is, I suppose, a number of cities that could be connected with him, but in truth, there was really only one, Toronto, and only one hockey team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, which as everybody who was born anywhere in this country knows is one of the world’s great hockey organizations. Part of that really belongs to Punch Imlach, who sometimes took some rather older hockey players, who others said were washed up and who had given up on them, and made them into Stanley Cup champions.

For those of us who are getting a little older and a little washed up, we look up to people like that who have the magic to make greatness out of people who have worked all their lives in professional sport. It is one of the toughest, roughest businesses around and we recognize the greatness that is Punch Imlach and we extend our condolences to his family.

Mr. McLean: I would like to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the late Punch Imlach. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my party, to pay tribute to George “Punch” Imlach, who passed away yesterday after a lengthy battle with heart ailments.

Punch’s first season ended with a Stanley Cup defeat in 1959, when the Toronto Maple Leafs lost out to their perennial rivals, the Montreal Canadiens. He had dragged the Leafs by their skate laces from the bottom of the league to the cup final that year. He then went on to build what many consider to be a hockey dynasty. Those same Leafs captured four Stanley Cups.

After falling out of favour in Toronto, Punch went on to build the fledgling Buffalo Sabres into a respectable team that, five years later, made it all the way to the finals. Punch was notorious for battling with the league president, the club owners and with anybody he felt he could take on, and he was usually always right. These battles often took place on behalf of his players. He was truly a team man and a team player who displayed an immense amount of loyalty to his players, who often went on to become close friends over the years. I often thought if he had noticed my talents in my hockey days he may have won five Stanley Cups.

During recent years, after leaving the hockey wars behind him, Punch was quoted as saying: “I wish I could be behind the bench. That is where the fun is. It is the best thing in the world. “ Punch is no longer with us in this world, but I am certain that wherever he is, someone will have the smarts to have him back behind the bench where he truly belongs. On behalf of my party, I would like to offer my condolences to Punch’s wife, Dorothy, and his family.

Mr. Speaker: When the official record of this assembly is printed, I will make certain that the Imlach family receives a copy of Hansard so that they are aware of your words of sympathy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today I will be introducing an amendment to the Employment Standards Act to provide protection to workers who refuse to contravene the Retail Business Holidays Act by working on Sunday. This amendment is an interim measure that addresses the concerns of members of this House about the situation of the majority of workers in retail operations.

Yesterday the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) indicated that the current law will be in force until the legislation she announced is passed by this Legislature. Until new legislation is passed, it will remain illegal for most retail stores to be open on Sunday.

The purpose of the bill I am introducing today, therefore, will be to protect a worker’s right to decline to work on a Sunday, if by doing so he or she would be contravening the Retail Business Holidays Act.

The amendment will enable an employment standards officer to order an employee to be reinstated and/or compensated if he or she is dismissed for refusing to break the law by working.

In his statement yesterday the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) explained the special circumstances giving rise to his decision not to prosecute large retail stores that stay open on the Sunday after Boxing Day. As a result of that announcement, there will be three categories of stores on December 27:

1. Those that are permitted to remain open on Sundays under the Retail Business Holidays Act, including pharmacies and convenience stores.

2. Those that qualify for the Sabbatarian exemption described by the Attorney General, that is, stores that employ fewer than eight persons and occupy less than 5,000 square feet that are permitted to open on Sunday because they are closed on Saturday.

3. Those large stores that the Attorney General announced would not be prosecuted if they remain open on Sunday, December 27.

Today’s legislation will ensure that the employees of this third category of store, the large retailer, can elect not to work on Sunday, December 27. The bill will have no effect on the employees of the other two categories.

This amendment will come into force as of today. I am sure all members of this House -- I ask them and I urge them -- will lend their support to its speedy passage so that workers are assured that their rights are fully protected.

As I have indicated, this amendment is an interim measure. When the Sunday opening policy announced yesterday is introduced, the government will bring forth the necessary protections for the affected workers.

Comme je l’ai déjà indiqué, il s’agit d’un amendement temporaire. Quand la politique en ce qui concerne l’ouverture des magasins le dimanche sera présentée, le gouvernement proposera les mesures nécessaires à la protection des travailleurs.

RECYCLING

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Disposal of the vast amounts of garbage produced in Ontario is a vexing problem. Proposals to bury or burn it inevitably prompt fears of environmental damage and lead to lengthy, costly and often protracted political battles.

While there is no magic wand to wave and make the problem disappear, we have a waste management tool -- recycling -- which can reduce our garbage disposal problem in an environmentally sound manner.

Our government’s commitment to recycling is beginning to show results. The number of municipal multimaterial curbside recycling programs has increased from seven early in 1985 to 45 currently, with more planned. Waste diverted from disposal has increased from 51,000 tonnes in fiscal year 1984-85 to an estimated 100,000 tonnes in the current year. This is an increase from 1.6 per cent to three per cent of the total municipal waste stream.

Provincial funding for municipal recycling programs has been increased from $750,000 in 1985 to $3.7 million this year. Provincial support to help municipalities start up their programs is now available for five years, compared to three years previously.

In addition, the beverage container regulation we adopted shortly after taking office in 1985 was designed to drive municipal multimaterial curbside recycling programs. The regulation requires soft drink producers to recycle at least 50 per cent of their containers. The regulation and my ministry’s no-nonsense approach to its enforcement have prompted the industry to set up Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. or, as it is known, OMMRI. OMMRI is distributing $20 million over four years to help municipalities pay the capital costs of establishing recycling programs. This private sector initiative has been helpful in getting recycling going province-wide.

While we are making a good start, we must find ways to expand the scope of current recycling programs by including corrugated cardboard and organic waste for composting and by serving high-rise apartment residents. Initiatives in these areas are under way, and new techniques applied province-wide could help us to recycle 25 per cent or more of our municipal waste in years to come.

Today I am pleased to announce that our government has allocated an additional $2 million to support municipal curbside recycling programs. This is a 54 per cent in-year funding increase and brings provincial support to $5.7 million this year alone. The response to recycling around the province is snowballing, and these additional moneys will ensure that all the good proposals brought forward get all the provincial help they deserve.

RESPONSES

RECYCLING

Mrs. Grier: We certainly welcome the minister’s announcement today and are very glad that his recycling programs are proving so successful. In fact, we hope they will be so successful that he can close down the Commissioners Street incinerator immediately and save the people of Metropolitan Toronto from the pollutants it is pouring out.

I think I want to say, though, that the minister has to begin to move beyond the kind of voluntary response that has proven so successful and take a look at those municipalities that are not yet into recycling. Obviously, Metropolitan Toronto is the prime example.

He also has to think about moving into the commercial field and what can be recycled commercially. Here in Metro, as I understand it, we could extend the life of each of the two landfill sites by two years if we do as the minister says he hopes to do and move into recycling commercial cardboard.

We also have to move towards reducing the garbage at source and move beyond recycling and produce less garbage to begin with. Only when we have gone all the way, can we begin to really come to grips with the environmental problems that we ourselves are creating.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I almost felt sorry for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) when he stood up in his place today and read the statement, which I had seen in advance. It is truly an astonishing example of government by the seat of its pants.

We have a Minister of Labour who, according to my information, has not consulted with representatives of the workers who are affected by this legislation prior to any announcements he has made in this House with regard to this matter, claiming to represent working people. They are the ones who are being inconvenienced, not he. They have not been spoken to.

He announced that there are now going to be three categories of workers on Sunday, December 27, and he expects, on the basis of this announcement, those people to be able to exercise in a serious way their right to refuse, knowing full well that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) just stood up two days before and said there are a whole category of workers who might think they are part of an exclusion, but they are not. Why? Because the Attorney General, on his own, has decided he is not going to enforce the law.

So we have workers who could be included, but they are not included, because the Attorney General says, “I have decided the law will not apply to these people in this particular circumstance on this particular day.” The government is asking the House and the working people in the province to take seriously an announcement which is operative for one day for one group of workers and not for two other groups of workers who are also going to be working in retail stores, because the Attorney General has decided that, depending on the size of the store, depending on which side of the store they are working on, they are either included or excluded.

The Liberal Party has managed to turn around a situation that was considered by an all-party committee that came up with recommendations and said to the government, “This is the way we think it should be and we think that once we have decided this is the way it should be, the law should be enforced.” For reasons that have not been explained in this House, for reasons that have not been adequately brought forward, the government of the day has panicked and brought forward a panic result that is laughable.

This is not enforceable. Working people cannot rely on it. It is not enforceable and not functional, and the Minister of Labour knows it. The Attorney General knows it. They have created a situation which makes them and their government the laughingstock of Ontario with regard to this legislation.

The municipalities do not want it because they know the government has chickened out. Working people are looking at the government and saying it has chickened out. It is quite clear that the law it has created in the province is an ass. All I can say is I hope they are proud of themselves.

RECYCLING

Mrs. Marland: I am somewhat interested in the statement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) today.

First, as a former member of the Mississauga city council, which during my term of office introduced the second recycling program in a municipality in Ontario, a program which is excellent and is working, I certainly am an advocate of those programs in municipalities across Ontario through firsthand, personal experience.

I am very interested in the figures in this statement. It is very interesting, but I wonder whether the minister’s staff people have made an error. They say the tonnage has increased from 51,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes, an increase to three per cent of the total municipal waste stream. If one looks at the figures, they really do not make any sense, because the minister says that at 51,000 tonnes, the cost was $750,000 for provincial funding. He now says the cost is up to $3.7 million, but the tonnage has only doubled. The cost actually has multiplied five times; the tonnage achievement is only twice as much.

I think those are very interesting figures. They are figures the minister should look at very closely, because if we are now, in 1987, spending five times as much but the achievement in tonnage recycled is only twice as much, I think there has to be some question about how the program is being achieved. We certainly look forward to having more money’s worth in terms of provincial support for a much-needed program.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: We will support the amendment that was announced today by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) when he introduces it later today, but I want to tell the House it is a disgrace the way this government has handled the whole situation. I do not feel we have any choice but to support the amendment, because in some small way it will help the botch-up that has been created by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and, presumably, the fence-sitting Premier (Mr. Peterson).

I want to agree with the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) in the comments he made and add our support to those remarks, but I also want to take just a second to point out something in this statement today and in the statement yesterday as well. In the statement yesterday, the Attorney General explained the special circumstances giving rise to his decision -- the Attorney General’s -- not to prosecute large retail stores that stay open on the Sunday after Boxing Day.

What we have here is the Attorney General saying he has the power and the right to decide what laws will be enforced and what laws will not be enforced in this land and in this province. I did not have the opportunity to bring back all the quotes that the Attorney General gave, but I know members of the House will recall that when he was asked, for example, about Morgentaler and about Scott, he was very clear in saying: “Oh, you can’t expect the Attorney General to tell the police what to do. I can’t interfere with what the Solicitor General has to do or what the police have to do.”

When it came to the matter of charges, he said: “Oh, you can’t expect that of the Attorney General. The Attorney General can’t involve himself in that. That is not my role.”

Here he is clearly on the record as saying not only it is his role, his prerogative and his right to direct the police, to interpret the law and then direct them, but in fact he even has the power to direct them to not enforce existing laws.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I didn’t mention the police.

Mr. Harris: Well, it says here “not to prosecute.”

Hon. Mr. Scott: It says I wouldn’t prosecute them. They can lay what charges they want.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I point this out, because the next time the Attorney General gets on his feet and says, “Oh no, we can’t be involved there, I want to sit on the fence on this one,” let it be clear that he has said he has the power to determine who will be prosecuted when, what the police will do when, and he cannot back out of that in the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be time for further exchanges during the question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I heard the minister this morning at 8:30 while I was having my breakfast --

Hon. Mr. Scott: A poor working man’s breakfast at 8:30.

Mr. B. Rae: It is the only chance I have to see my kids.

The question I have for the --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is just like the old days in the embassy.

Mr. B. Rae: That’s right. Eat your heart out, I say to my friend.

I heard the minister say that Sunday is a public holiday under the Employment Standards Act. Would he care to clarify that? Was he serious when he said that under the Employment Standards Act Sunday is a public holiday?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My light is not on, so I do not know if my friend the member for York South can hear me.

An hon. member: Your lights are on.

An hon. member: We know you’re home.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The lights are on, Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hope so.

The first thing I want to say is that I hope I somehow enhanced the member for York South’s breakfast at 8:30. I wish I could have been listening to him while I had my breakfast at 6:30, but he was not on. I hope I did not ruin his breakfast.

In response to the question my friend the member for York South asked, I want to say that yesterday I received a note from my ministry which I misinterpreted. As a result of that note, I made a comment that I am afraid was incorrect in that It suggested inadvertently that Sunday was a public holiday. I want to say here during this question period, first off, that information is unfortunately incorrect and it is unfortunate that I made that statement yesterday.

Mr. B. Rae: I am glad the minister has more than 10 watts. I was up all night thinking about the question.

The minister has admitted that yesterday, when he participated in the cabinet discussions --

Hon. Mr. Scott: You worked all morning on this.

Mr. B. Rae: -- if I can talk over the chatter of the Attorney General for a moment -- when he participated in the cabinet discussions concerning this matter, obviously the Minister of Labour, the minister representing working people at the cabinet table, did not know what the law was with respect to whether or not Sunday was a public holiday, which I think characterizes this whole flying by the seat of its pants, which is what this decision appears to be all about.

Does the minister think it is fair that some retail workers will, under the legislation he is proposing, be able to refuse work on one Sunday only but that all the other workers working in the retail sector will not be able to exercise a right to refuse on that Sunday or any other Sunday? Does he think that is fair in terms of the administration of Justice -- for somebody looking at the issue from the outside, not understanding all the ins and outs of the law? Does he think that is a fair way to proceed?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If my friend the member for York South is talking about proper representations of bills, I think the first thing he ought to do is properly represent the bill I am about to introduce this afternoon.

This bill represents interim protection for workers who may be asked to work in stores which cannot legally open. The bill simply says that if an employer asks you to work in a store that cannot legally be opened, then you have the right to the protection that is provided under this bill, and that protection is, as I said in my statement, both reimbursement and reinstatement in the job.

Mr. B. Rae: I can understand the minister correctly. What he is saying is that the government has now created a scofflaw situation. It has created so much uncertainly out there that I would venture to predict there is going to be chaos for the period of time until the government makes up its mind on the legislation and the municipalities decide what they are going to do, which they do not want to have to do.

The government has created, frankly, a situation of complete chaos. What the minister is saying is that some workers -- we are not quite sure who they are, because they themselves will be uncertain as to whether they are covered or not, and they themselves will be uncertain because the law is only going to be enforced in some areas and not in others. The Attorney General has already said that on one day, which he decides, he is not going to enforce the law on that day, so there may be other days on which the law will or will not be enforced and nobody is going to know.

The question I want to ask is, are workers in the retail sector going to be protected on Sunday or not? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If my friend the member for York South would simply read this piece of legislation, he would know that it does one thing and one thing only. The fact is that the Retail Business Holidays Act is in force in this province now and it will continue to be in force until it is repealed or amended. This amendment to the Employment Standards Act simply offers the protection to workers to refuse to work in those businesses which are not allowed to open anyway. That is what it does. He knows that, and it is statements like the ones he has made that create the confusion, not a simple bill that offers workers the protection they deserve under the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. B. Rae: It is that big, bad opposition passing all those terrible laws again. I wish we could do something about it.

Mr. Speaker: New question and to which minister?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a new question for a new minister, the Minister of Financial Institutions. Later on today, the minister is going to be presenting Bill 2,

An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

During previous discussions on earlier proposals, the then Minister of Financial Institutions stated in this House his view that that review board would have the power -- indeed, the responsibility -- to review not only automobile insurance rates but also rates affecting fire insurance, home insurance, other forms of casualty insurance and so on, that the entire insurance sector would necessarily come under the purview of this review board. Is that in fact the case?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We will have the power, if the House approves the bill, to empower the board to review the transferences of profits from the automobile insurance sector of the business to any other sector.

Mr. B. Rae: Having said that, I wonder if the minister can then explain to me precisely what he anticipates is going to happen. Subsection 20(4) says, “In setting a rate or range of rates, the board shall set a rate or range of rates that in the opinion of the board is just and reasonable and not excessive or inadequate.”

The insurance industry has told Ontario that in the past year it lost some $330 million. We are not quite sure how it calculates that or what exactly it means by it or where and how it made it up, but it says it lost that much money. Can the minister confirm that the board, if it considers that the rates are inadequate, will have the power to increase rates in order to ensure that the automobile insurance side of the business makes a healthy profit for the insurance companies? Is that what the board is going to be doing?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the profit aspect will have to be considered, but the honourable member is concerned about the word “inadequate.” That is to safeguard against the possibility of a company coming in with a loss-leader rate which cannot be supported by the statistics associated with the costs of the claims; therefore, it is going to maintain the competitive aspect in that regard. The board has the responsibility, if this bill is proclaimed into law, of controlling the rates as being either inadequate or too large, and this will be done on the basis of public hearings, as the honourable member knows.

Mr. B. Rae: In questions of adequacy or inadequacy, will the board be taking into account the fact that in Ontario the private insurance industry’s commission fees, overhead costs, claims adjustment costs, loss reserves and taxes make up some 42.5 per cent of its operations,

whereas in Manitoba and British Columbia, the figure is around 20 per cent? Are those the kinds of figures the board will be taking into account? Can the minister confirm, just one more time, if he is saying it is the purpose of this bill to ensure that in the car insurance sector, the insurance companies will be permitted a healthy rate of return on the automotive business?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not accept any of the adjectives the honourable member is attempting to put in my mouth. I will simply tell him that the insurance industry is here to serve, in a fair and equitable way, the automobile owners and the people who are to be insured in this province. We believe the answer is not to follow the lead of the other jurisdictions the honourable member is so much committed to, but to establish a fair and equitable rate review board, which action is going to be placed before the Legislature this afternoon for useful debate that might very well encompass the views the honourable member is expressing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I want to note for the record there was applause, even on the other side. I have their names and I have recorded them.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General. I would like to quote the Solicitor General from a statement she made on December 1: “The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will shortly be addressing the issue of protections for workers which may be required.” Of course, he introduced that amendment in the House today.

On December 2, that minister said, “Sunday continues to be a public holiday.” This was a quote taken from the 6:30 a.m. news broadcast. I was up having breakfast at five o’clock. I phoned around to see if there was a radio program that would like me to straighten up the government’s policy relevant to this question and I will undoubtedly be on the air tomorrow very early.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: I suggest all members get up early to listen to that broadcast. In any event, the Minister of Labour said: “Sunday continues to be a public holiday. The Employment Standards Act provides now that a worker, except in certain sectors like hospitals, can refuse to work on Sunday and without retaliation, of course.” If he was admitting he was wrong in making that statement, I accept that correction.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Brandt: I would like to address my question, which I know you, Mr. Speaker, want me to raise at this time, to the Solicitor General, with respect to this confusing matter that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has been trying to clarify and on which I join with him in trying to get some clarification.

Will the minister give the House the assurance that a worker who refuses to work on a Sunday will, in fact, receive the protection of this government?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We are dealing with two separate issues here. The first is Sunday, December 27. The second is the issue of Sunday that may be addressed in a new bill.

As for December 27, the member has the bill in front of him. I can only guarantee it will be helpful to the employees if we get the cooperation of the opposition in passing that bill very speedily before December 27. I trust we will have that co-operation.

With regard to other Sundays, we will be addressing that matter before we introduce the legislation. I cannot answer those questions at this point as we have not yet put together that bill.

Mr. Brandt: I do have a supplementary and it is with respect to a quote from the Solicitor General when she was a private member and before she joined cabinet. It is in regard to the very law we are talking about.

On April 23, 1987, the Solicitor General -- l know she wants to make a notation of that date so she can look up my quote, but I will share it with her, in fact pass it over to her if she likes -- said: “Yes, if the law says you cannot force someone to work on Sunday, the merchants we have talked to would tend to say such a law is meaningless except for a person who is not dependent on the job and is willing to risk going to court. If he is working his way up, hoping for promotion, having the law on the books would really mean nothing.”

Will the Solicitor General indicate to this House whether this quote is a reflection of her views as it relates to the law which she is now proposing to pass, or is she in support of the Minister of Labour’s view that this law will clear up the whole question of whether or not workers will be forced to work on a Sunday?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It will vary from case to case, I assume. I mentioned, in reference, people with whom I had spoken who work in Vancouver. They seem to have managed to work it out in most stores there, where they work it out among the employees who get off either Saturday or Sunday according to their own choice, and it works rather well. That is what I have been told.

As for the question of promotion, as the member says, this was something that merchants often said to us in the committee, which is what I reported and which they often did say.

Mr. Brandt: I recall some time ago that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) had indicated that if anyone was forced to work on Sunday all one had to do was call his number. I want to indicate to the members and for the viewers at home what his number is. The number is 965-1664, if they are forced to work on a Sunday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the number is changed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

If you have no further information, maybe you would place your supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: Yes, I do have a supplementary. I can appreciate the fact that the Attorney General may want to change that number.

Further to quotes that the Solicitor General has made in the past with respect to this issue, does she still concur with the point of view she expressed on April 23, 1987? That must have been a good day for her in committee. I think she would find a lot of older women, mothers, mother-led families and that sort of thing, for whom, as she has already indicated: “The pressure to be able to take off the day the kids have off might be great. I see this as an unprotected group, this particular group of women who may very much need that day with their families.” I agree with that.

I think that is a point of view I share with the minister, and I want to say that publicly. My question is, does the minister agree with what she said?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It should come as no surprise to the member for Sarnia, as it comes as no surprise to me that he has been sifting through the committee reports. It was an idealistic report, and I completely agreed with it. I would still like to be able to say we could do those things we hoped we could do.

The problem we have is that we have been unable to find a way to define tourism in a meaningful way so it could be applied across the whole province. The abuses of this definition one sees around the whole province are the very things that have made it impossible to define. It is still my hope that it may be able to be defined and used at the municipal level where it can be dealt with in a smaller context. The municipalities may be able to come up with a definition of tourism and a tourist plan that will allow them to keep their stores closed in various parts of the province and thus protect the people I was referring to.

Mr. Brandt: I have another quote. My question again is to the Solicitor General. This is February 18, 1987, with respect to another dimension of the problem as it relates to the whole issue of Sunday openings. I have to say the minister at that time had an extremely open and progressive mind on this issue.

I want to quote to her what she said about municipalities and the options that she has placed before them as they relate to this new proposed law: “I have to make one final comment. From what we have heard, I gather that the municipal option eventually becomes total opening.”

Would the minister agree that there really is no municipal option and that all she has done is shifted the problem to the municipalities, virtually all 800 of which have said they do not want to have the controversial issue shoved over?

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

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This problem arises before this law comes into effect, because municipalities already are in that position if they choose to be. They simply declare themselves a tourist area. We have, I believe, fruit stands that have been declared tourist areas. We have St. George where our eminent Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) comes from, a great tourist attraction in this province. We were about to find the city of North York declare itself a tourist attraction. So this problem was upon us anyway; we are simply recognizing it.

Mr. Runciman: It is obvious from the minister’s remarks in the past and today that the government is trying to push totally open shopping through the municipal back door. It is equally obvious when we have the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stating that the new law will not be in place before the next municipal election, even not until 1989, that through the government’s cowardly avoidance what we are facing is a year and a half of chaos for municipalities and retailers.

We all know the government is trying to get municipal councils and politicians to take the heat for this and we all know it will not work. If the government wants wide-open Sunday shopping, and it is obvious it does, it has 95 members. Why do they not take the responsibility for it and bring it in now instead of delaying for a year and a half to protect their own skins?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I did not hear any statements about it not coming in until 1989 and so I do not know that has occurred.

As far as I am concerned, the interesting thing which I had not considered was that if we took the opportunity off the province and said, as we have, that it is impossible to define tourism which, according to the select committee, was to be the guidance, the municipalities would then still have had to decide how to define their own tourism in keeping with the provincial definition. They still had that responsibility. Now that we say it cannot be defined on a provincial level, it either goes to the municipalities or you take from them the right to have any choice in it at all. You force them to open on Sunday.

We did not want to force them, and the member will see in today’s paper that many of them are grateful for that.

Mr. Runciman: I suspect the majority are not too grateful.

As we heard earlier, the Solicitor General was a signatory of the final report of the idealistic select committee on retail store hours. Among the recommendations of the committee was that the primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act should remain that of the provincial government. The minister signed that.

The minister has made obvious her opposition, in the past and yesterday, to wide-open Sunday shopping. She is aware of the effect it will have on workers and single-parent families. Unless the Solicitor General is prepared to totally renounce her previous stands on this issue, will she now in all conscience admit that she does not agree with the announcement she made yesterday and will she either ask the Premier to give her new responsibilities or, failing that, step down as Solicitor General of this province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the other members of the committee would agree, we were very idealistic, but we were not idle. We were an idealistic committee, which unfortunately put on the government the charge to define something that proved not able to be defined in a useful way. Unfortunately, the whole recommendation was based on that. We did say in the recommendation that the government would have to do this. We did not tell them how. We hoped they could do it. It has turned out a worse task than we thought and it cannot be defined in a way that covers the province. I still wish it could, as I did when I signed that report.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as a point of order before I actually raise my question: I really regret it when a minister makes the kind of statement, which seems on the face of it not to be an offence to the House, but which is actually a great putdown of the committee system. To make it sound as if committees do their work and are somehow idealistic and not looking at practical realities and that governments that change their policies are somehow realistic is an offence --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of view.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That was one I felt I had to get off my chest, as somebody who takes committees seriously.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for the next question, I would like to inform the members that we have the former member for Middlesex, Bob Eaton, in the lower west gallery. Would you welcome him.

PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO

Mr. K. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. Given that the nasty reality of tape machines and tape recordings has proven that the minister has directly contravened his election promise to give almost $300 million in this year to the elementary system -- and even the Premier (Mr. Peterson) reluctantly admits, “If a tape says it, maybe I did say it too” -- will the minister now perhaps deal a little bit with the substance of what class size reduction is all about?

Can the minister tell us, given that the boards are going to have to make decisions about hiring late in this winter, when the boards will be informed? What methodology is he using to choose which boards are going to get the advantage of the class size system? What goals has he set for this first year in terms of what the class size should be next year? Can he tell us which boards will receive the money?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am happy to indicate to the member for Scarborough West that we are indeed consulting extensively with the boards of education and with representatives of teachers’ federations, gathering their input as we work towards developing an implementation policy on the 20-to-one option.

As I indicated when I made the statement last Thursday, in terms of the general legislative grant, it is our intent to phase in a reduction in classroom size over the course of the next three school years. We have provided funds to place an additional 1,130 teachers in the coming year.

I will be happy to bring to the attention of the member and this House the details of that implementation policy when they are available.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is the third figure we have seen for the number of teachers: 1,000, 1,100; 1,130 now. I hope it changes upward again.

I am wondering if this does not prove that a senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Education was correct in that this was a hasty promise made in the election which was totally impractical and that the minister does not have any idea where he is going this year.

Can the minister tell us whether boards that have already accomplished the levels he is seeking will not receive any money and therefore will be penalized for being progressive on this issue, which this government has been pushing them to move on for the last number of years? How will the money be divided between the Catholic system and the public system? As most of us know, the present ratios are, generally speaking, higher in the Catholic system. Is the minister doing a survey to determine what the present class sizes are, or how is he determining that?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am very sorry to hear the member for Scarborough West does not support this particular initiative in the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio in the elementary schools.

I do want to assure the member, as I indicated in my initial response, that we are in the process of developing those implementation policies. We are working towards having that information available so that boards will be in a position, when they do their hiring in February and March of the coming year, to know what the expectations are.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question of the Solicitor General, who has abdicated her responsibility to make any decision on Sunday shopping.

I have 21 municipal councils in my riding. I wonder if the minister is aware of the untenable position in which these municipal councils will be placed in attempting to deal with this responsibility. The government cannot handle it, so it gives it to the local councils. Is this power-hungry majority Liberal government so easily intimidated by what it perceives as a political hot potato that it feels compelled to run for cover under the aprons of municipal councils? Is this the type of leadership the citizens of Ontario can expect from this government?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I have already stated, the choice we had was not so simple. Having decided we could not put on the provincial definition that was needed to stop this wave using the tourist escape clause, we therefore had to look at a more open situation being possible. In other words, the open situation was there by abuse, by calling something tourism. We recognized that fact.

However, we also recognized that some municipalities may be able to define tourism within their municipality and take advantage of the ability to do so. If so, I wish them well. If not, if they find the whole thing too difficult and do not want the politicking of it, then it will be available to them to have a referendum at the time of the next election and let the people in their own communities decide.

Mr. Villeneuve: The 23 rural municipalities that are in my riding have populations from 3,000 to 5,000, and some of those are very much smaller than 3,000. We have a legislative committee report that says the committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario and that it is the provincial government’s responsibility. How do we explain this to these people, with family-owned businesses, who do not want to be open on Sunday?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would point out that the various councils can feel free to vote it down. I would point out on the other hand that some municipalities have opened up that are probably smaller than the member’s. I would say that St. George is probably as small as the communities the member refers to, and it took advantage of the tourist loophole. It is being done even by small communities. As bigger communities did it more, the smaller communities would have come into the same position they are in right now.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

However, the demand for this program has been considerably greater than the funds have allowed it to meet. In our community, 10 disabled persons from Brantford have applied to the program. To date, only one application has been accepted.

I would ask the minister responsible for disabled persons, what is his ministry doing to review the success of this program and perhaps to provide supplementary programs to allow disabled persons to enter and leave their own homes ?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I know from personal experience that the honourable member is very concerned about issues which affect disabled persons.

I want to inform the honourable member that over the past year we have given a substantial sum of money to the Easter Seal Society for families with disabled children so they could use this money to make their homes accessible. At the present time we are reviewing the situation, which will hopefully allow us to give even further moneys to the Easter Seal groups. As I say, this is being reviewed at the present time.

I also want to inform the honourable member that the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons, which is operated very ably by my colleague the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), has been enhanced twice in this past year. I have been in further communications with my colleague, and we are discussing the merits of enhancing the program again. We hope to have something to say to the honourable member and to the members of the House in the near future.

I am wondering about the supplementary program he mentioned. Will he be doing some publicity to make sure that the people who are in need are aware that this other option is available?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: The honourable member knows from his personal experience and from his involvement with disabled issues that approximately one out of every eight persons in our province is disabled. These disabilities cover a wide range of disabilities that affect people.

I want to tell the member that we are reviewing all programs that affect disabled persons, and I say to the member that housing is one of the most important issues which face disabled persons. That is why the Minister of Housing has in fact a number of programs, such as the low-rise rehabilitation program, Project 3000 and the ones I mentioned in my first answer to the member. These matters are of great importance to the disabled community.

WATER PIPELINE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. One of the most basic concerns that people have about their environment is the condition of their drinking water, particularly if that drinking water comes from known contaminated areas like the St. Clair River, which is one of the reasons I have urged the government to pass the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act in this province.

Fifteen months ago the minister went to Wallaceburg and announced with some fanfare that the province would pay 75 per cent of the cost of a pipeline to bring Lake Huron water to Wallaceburg. He went on to say, “My staff will work with you to iron out the details of the proposal and expedite construction.”

When I have raised this problem in the House the minister has passed the blame to his federal counterpart, but it is very clear that the project does in fact qualify for federal funding and I would like the minister to explain why the project has not yet been fully approved and why he has not even applied for federal funding.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to indicate first of all that the Ministry of the Environment’s money, the 75 per cent, is on the table; it is up front and it is there for this particular project. Now in relation to Wallaceburg, that is even though all of the testing we have done at Wallaceburg has indicated that the drinking water in Wallaceburg meets the provincial guidelines. We have still put our 75 per cent on the table. What I announced is there. Our people are working with them.

I think the member would be better to go to her federal counterpart in the House of Commons to ask where the federal money is. I have control over the provincial money; I do not have control over the federal money. They will play a little game by saying, “Well, of course, it’s there with economic regional development agreement grants or something,” but they do not really mean new money. They mean they will take it away from something else that the member’s party wants to see it spent on in this province and spend it on this particular project.

If it were genuinely new money, that would be a different case; but the feds, as soon as you mention money in Ontario for a project of that kind, say, “Oh, there’s a freeze on ERDA money.”

Our money is there. It is up front; it is on the table. It is time for the feds to put their money on the table if they are interested.

Mrs. Grier: I could not agree more that there needs to be more federal money into municipal infrastructure. The point is that the Minister of the Environment realized the predicament in which the community of Wallaceburg found itself and made a special announcement of provincial funding to meet that pipeline cost.

The municipality put up its money, and I pointed out to the minister last July that the gap was only $2 million and that surely for $2 million he could ante up and get on with it. But in fact I now discover that there is the ERDA program, that the ERDA program very clearly covers the criteria of this pipeline, that the federal government has funds in the ERDA program and that there has been no application from Ontario.

Before the minister tells me that is because there are socioeconomic criteria for ERDA, I am going to send to the minister a copy of real estate ads from Wallaceburg that show that homes in that area are being advertised, if they have Lake Huron water.

Does the minister not recognize the very severe economic and socioeconomic hardship that he is placing on communities by not guaranteeing them pure drinking water? What is he going to do to live up to the commitment he made to Wallaceburg?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member is talking about Wallaceburg, there is a very clear indication in all the testing we have done that it meets the requirements of the province as they relate to drinking water.

The second thing I want to say is that they can talk all they want about ERDA money being available. The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) has, on a consistent basis, been working on this problem, has brought it to my attention and has investigated, as my ministry has. The feds know this; they are simply holding back their money.

I think the member and I are on the same wavelength. I know she would like me to be doing something different in this particular instance, but I am going to tell her that to try to get money out of the federal government for a project of this kind is like getting blood out of a turnip.

An hon. member: There is the new leadership candidate: “Bradley for Leader.”

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The minister must be in favour of an elected Senate; then he could blame them for not doing something as well as the House of Commons.

Before I get into my question, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), on a point of order, tried to divert public attention from his number by saying it is no longer valid. It is indeed the Attorney General’s number, 965-1664, and in spite of his efforts that is how they get hold of him. I want him to know that.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been an interesting question period. We have learned about times for breakfast, telephone numbers and what not. The member for Nipissing with a new question.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: l have a question for the Solicitor General with regard to this municipal option. The major part of northern Ontario is not organized into municipalities. Could the minister tell us who will make the decision, in all of the unorganized areas of northern Ontario, whether stores will be allowed to open?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: There must be somebody there now who is making decisions on store hours. They can continue to do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Nipissing would like to ask a supplementary. Thank you.

Mr. Harris: This is one occasion where you might have said, “Surely there cannot be a supplementary to that,” but in spite of that, there is.

An hon. member: There wasn’t yesterday.

Mr. Harris: No. The member is right; there was not yesterday.

Clearly, once again we have this government making a major policy decision without any understanding of northern Ontario, without any recognition of how life in northern Ontario operates, without any recognition that right beside North Bay, two miles from downtown, there is an unorganized area.

Maybe I should ask the minister, because it is obvious she does not know, if there was any input, other than just now, from the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), who is supposed to know something about northern Ontario. Did the minister ask for any input, or did she ask for any input to inform her about the implications this will have in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This was discussed at great length in cabinet and the minister was there. I would like to help the member for Nipissing simply by saying that I do believe district boards in those territories now set the times for shops and the regulations. The government has simply said that the district boards and the local boards will continue to define the hours of traffic for Sunday as they do for any other day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members wish to waste the time, that is up to them. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. As the minister knows, yesterday the federal Secretary of State introduced legislation that will enshrine in law general principles about multiculturalism. The presence of different ethnic groups in Ontario has become an important characteristic of this province. I am very pleased and proud to know that the Liberal Party and this government have long recognized and responded to this new development.

Could the minister share with us his global reaction to the federal bill and what concerns he may have with specific aspects of this initiative? 1450

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The start of the evaluation of this really revolves around the policy that we announced in June, which is a very comprehensive program around multiculturalism that I think really is at the root of what this province is all about. My evaluation of the Ottawa bill is very much equated to our proposals and our program that we announced in June.

The essence of that for all of us is that we celebrate in this province the diversity of cultures, that we believe the diversity of cultures in this province is a source of strength and a source of enrichment, that we believe as a province in the retention of culture as a source of strength, that we believe our government and our government policy should reflect the many cultures here in Ontario and that as we look at the appointments and the people who reflect our province, they should reflect the many cultures.

As I look at the federal bill, it is a step in the right direction. I believe our policy announced in June is a more progressive and more far-reaching policy. The bill, as I say, is a step forward. I believe it strengthens multiculturalism in this country and therefore we welcome it. I think there are now issues around implementation.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question to the Solicitor General. First, I want to point out to her that there is a difference between “unorganized” as it applies to the townships in northern Ontario and “disorganized” as it applies to her government.

Now that the minister has had a chance to confer with her colleagues, could she accept that in unorganized communities local services boards do not have any control whatever over retail stores and shopping hours? The legislation that governs local services boards does not give them that power, even though the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) would like to give them that power. If that is the case, could she explain how store hour openings and closings will be controlled in unorganized communities which are adjacent to the cities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am glad to look into this unfortunate state of them having nobody there to make store hour rulings for them. We would be glad to look into that and arrange some manner by which these people may make regulations and then they will be able to apply these.

As a matter of interest, I would tell the member that when I was in Terrace Bay recently, the wish was spoken to me by many people there that Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie should be allowed to be open on Sunday because the people who travel long distances to go there on weekend outings with their families would like to be able to shop there on Sunday. This was what was spoken to me in Terrace Bay.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order under which standing order?

Mr. Pouliot: I am really confused. I need your help. Maybe we can do this together. It is a bona fide point with respect to the minister. She mentioned the township of Terrace Bay in the same breath as being “unorganized.” It happens to be in the riding of Lake Nipigon and is indeed a fully fledged municipality. It does not need the help of Sault Ste. Marie or Thunder Bay but it needs her help --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a good point of information.

Mr. Wildman: The minister said earlier that there had been extensive discussion in cabinet over this problem, and yet her answers indicate that she does not understand the problem and that there has been no discussion in cabinet. Can she tell us now what will be done to ensure that retail stores are not opened in unorganized areas adjacent to municipalities that may have decided not to open on Sunday? What is she going to do to control that? Is she going to allow retailers simply to move beyond the boundaries of organized municipalities to avoid having to deal with the local option that her government has now conferred upon the municipalities?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: At the present time, in these areas, stores are open. Indeed, the member is referring to one of the other types of abuses that have created the problem, where people in one area are taking advantage of loopholes and people in another are not. Therefore, we are trying to make it more even. If in fact the member has an area that has no group that can say that stores must be closed we will be glad to look at that, if that is the state it was already in before we spoke yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. This morning my staff called the Transitions hotline of the Ministry of Skills Development. The person who responded on the phone confirmed that the statements made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on August 4 about older unemployed workers’ eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits extension was in fact at variance with the truth.

We were also told that eligible workers on Transitions whose unemployment insurance benefits had expired would be terminated and that they had been advised that they should in turn apply to the Ontario student assistance program, under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, for assistance. Has the minister been advised that older laid-off workers are being directed to apply to her ministry and that program; and if so, how many have applied?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, there are now two ministers responsible for areas of delivering programs in applied skills development. This question has been referred in the past to the Ministry of Skills Development. We will be working in very close co-ordination in delivering skills programs that are required through the colleges, and certainly students who are going to be provided programs through the colleges will be eligible for OSAP funding.

Mr. Jackson: My question to the minister is not about the Ministry of Skills Development’s involvement. They have no involvement with OSAP. This is entirely her program. I asked her specifically if in fact she has been advised of the number of applicants. In fact, when we checked with the manager of client service at the student awards branch of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities this morning, he indicated in a telephone conversation that the first eligible OSAP application grant for Transitions -- one; that is all that has been processed -- has in fact been paid.

The minister’s colleague, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), has confirmed in this House that there could be upwards of 6,500 older unemployed workers applying for this program and therefore applying to OSAP. With thousands of unemployed workers coming, will the minister significantly expand the base for OSAP support assistance in this province so students and unemployed workers are not fighting over limited dollars that are provided under that program?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Over the past two years, we have greatly increased the funding for student assistance because of our commitment to providing funding for students. There are specific criteria under which students apply. Those criteria will continue to be applied as there are new programs added. If those programs in fact increase the demands under OSAP, we will certainly look at that as a future consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: l have a question today for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I missed the member for Ottawa West.

Mr. Harris: You gave him a note. He was not on his feet. If he can’t stand up after you look at him he can’t do that. He is supposed to stand up when you look at him.

Mr. Villeneuve: He should be embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was no note. The member for Ottawa West.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Chiarelli: During the recent election campaign, the government announced that it would double its annual spending on beaches cleanup. Of this amount, it was also announced that $30 million will be spent outside Metro Toronto and will include Ottawa area beaches. My question to the minister is, having two major beaches in Ottawa West, both of which are all too frequently closed due to excessive pollution counts, can the minister inform me how these funds will be distributed to the Ottawa-Carleton area?

An hon. member: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a very good question.

Mr. Brandt: It’s funny how all the good questions come from that side.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Some excellent questions come from the other side as well. There are some excellent questions from all sides.

We have a number of programs that can be devoted to the improvement of beaches cleanup. One of them, which I announced and which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced some lucrative funding for, was the LifeLines program. This is for infrastructure renewal where you have older pipes and facilities which require rehabilitation. In addition to that --

Mr. Sterling: How much? What are you going to give us?

Mr. Speaker: Response.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is interrupting. I am trying to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Interjections are out of order. Please disregard them.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to continue, Mr. Speaker.

We believe the LifeLines program, which has funding where we put up one half of the cost of the study that identifies the specific problems and 33 per cent of the cost of the infrastructure renewal, is going to be of immense benefit to places such as Ottawa-Carleton where the beaches are impacted in some cases by the fact that there is an inadequate storm or sanitary sewage system. By rehabilitating these systems, I think we will find less of the bacteria will be making its way into the waterways.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We know his position on direct election in Metro. We would also like to hear his position on election expenses proposals that have been discussed for some time now for municipal elections. Is it his intention to tie those two proposals together and to provide for direct election and for some kind of election expenses act for municipal elections as well?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Two of my priorities, of course, have been the reform of the Metro elections and certainly to deal with the need for some reform in municipal elections. We are looking at that right now. We are consulting with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, with the municipal associations and with my colleagues, and I hope to deal with that at the very earliest opportunity.

Mr. Breaugh: If the minister is intending to move towards direct elections, and that is now clear, will he then agree that it is imperative, for example in Metropolitan Toronto, that he do so in conjunction with some election expenses reform at that level and that it would be untenable to proceed with direct elections without some kind of election expenses act municipally as we now have federally and provincially?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am very concerned about this particular area also. I will simply say that the total package of municipal elections is being looked into, and I hope to have something to report on that very soon.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: The Solicitor General indicated in her answer that the implications on northern Ontario have been extensively discussed in cabinet, which I have to tell the minister we doubt given the fact she knows nothing about the implications for northern Ontario. The minister indicated that presumably somebody makes the decision. That is why they are unorganized. There is no organization.

I will also explain to the minister, so she might understand, that in certain areas there are service boards or local roads boards that are mandated to deal just with those issues. Clearly, the one that makes the decision is the government of Ontario. That is the only organization they rely on.

My question is this. The minister said they are wide open now. They are not. They obey the law of Ontario now. I want to know from her who is going to make the decision and what is it going to be for the unorganized areas of the province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I have said and I continue to say, as the member has pointed out, that there are many different situations here. We are happy to meet with them and work out what is satisfactory to them in this regard.

PETITION

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 38 riders on the GO Transit bus service from Oshawa to downtown Toronto, mornings and evenings, Monday to Friday.

The petition reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas GO Transit provides bus service between Oshawa and the downtown Toronto corridor, mornings and evenings, Monday to Friday; and

“Whereas the present bus service uses older, inadequate, uncomfortable vehicles which cause undue stress, backache, fatigue and many other discomforts to patrons,

“That equipment be updated in the interests of the wellbeing of those citizens who travel approximately one and one half to two hours per trip daily.”

It is signed by 38 persons. I support the petition.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr12,

An Act to revive the Centre for Educative Growth;

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Special Ability Riding Institute.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr69,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Your committee would further recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on;

Bill Pr12,

An Act to revive the Centre for Educative Growth,

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Special Ability Riding Institute.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Sorbara, first reading of Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The purpose of the bill is to protect employees who refuse to contravene subsection 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to reintroduce for first reading today,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act. The purpose of these amendments is to prevent any access to a consumer’s credit file without his or her knowledge. The new provisions would require that the prescreening of credit files or any information taken from them be treated as a consumer report and that the affected consumers be notified before any unsolicited search could be conducted. The amendments are necessary to ensure the integrity of consumers’ credit files.

CROWN WITNESS PROTECTION ACT

Mr Runciman moved first reading of Bill 53,

An Act to provide for the Safety and Welfare of Crown Witnesses in certain Criminal Proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Runciman: This is the third time I have introduced this bill which is designed to allow the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to offer protection, including relocation and a new identity, to crown witnesses whose lives or safety is jeopardized by their willingness to testify at certain criminal proceedings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT (CONTINUED) /

LOI SUR LES CONFLITS D’INTÉRÊTS DES MEMBRES DE L’ASSEMBLÉE (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1,

An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion de deuxième lecture du projet de loi 1, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) adjourned the debate. The member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) wishes to participate.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to start by saying I agree with --

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure if the member for Wellington is being allowed a two-minute reply. Under the rules, I understand that we are entitled to reply to the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I suppose you can reply. There is no one to respond to, but you can if you wish.

Mr. Fleet: I do wish to reply.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: We have another point of order here.

Mr. Sterling: I understand that particular rule in the standing orders was made for the cut and thrust of debate. I think this is the first time we have run into a situation where a member of the Legislature spoke to the end of the proceedings and then was not here to pick up the debate the following day. I think the idea was that there would be some interplay in the debate. The member opposite might have an opportunity to speak and we would require a comeback from the principal speaker, in this case the member for Cochrane South.

In this particular situation, if this member wished to speak in the debate he would have every right to speak in the debate on second reading if he had some redress. We have not faced this situation, and the only reason I am raising it at this time is that I do not know if there has been a reflection on the rule and whether you are setting a precedent today or whether you should consider setting a precedent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You may want to respond to that point of order. However, I believe this is the first time it has occurred. It is a different situation because I do not believe the member had completed his remarks. As I gathered, he just adjourned the debate.

I feel I might be within my right to suggest, and I only suggest this, that because of the extreme circumstance where I am not certain whether the member had completed his remarks, if the member or any other member wishes to put on record any comments, I feel it might be in order to put them on the record so that the member for Cochrane South could read them, and then I hope that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly will come up with some assistance for the Speaker. Would that be agreeable to the House?

Hon. Mr. Conway: May I make an observation or two since I sat through the entirety of the member for Cochrane South’s commentary yesterday?

Subject to correction, of course, I think the record will show that the member for Cochrane South adjourned the debate last evening at very nearly six of the clock. It can only be remembered as a very lively intervention calculated to excite honourable members. This is something to consider, I think, when members are making speeches in this place, particularly since the standing orders now anticipate that members will have an opportunity to respond.

It is unfortunate the member for Cochrane South could not be here today to continue a debate he was pleased to adjourn less than 24 hours ago. The members who were here yesterday will take note of the fact that it seemed on occasion that the intervention of the member for Cochrane South was so phrased as to calculate a response from at least this side of the aisle. I recognize that these are early days, but I would certainly hope that when we reflect upon this precedent or this situation, we would take into account that the rules seem to state that members have the opportunity to respond to an honourable member.

An honourable member went on here at great length yesterday saying some very interesting and excitable things. One of the members who was here yesterday who was drawn into that debate would now like to respond, as he is entitled to do under the rules. The member for Cochrane South is not here to carry on the debate he adjourned less than 24 hours ago, and so, Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate the difficulty of members who read these rules and try to understand their spirit and intent and you can appreciate the situation in which they find themselves.

Mr. Speaker: After reading again the standing order set out in 20(b), it certainly allows any member up to two minutes, up to a total of 10 minutes. If every member used the two minutes it would be a total of four members and then the last two minutes should be reserved for a response, but not necessarily a response. If the members would be agreeable, I think it would be in order to allow the member to have up to two minutes and any other member who wishes up to two minutes. Again, I request that some time in the future the Legislative Assembly committee review it and assist the Speaker. I will recognize --

Mr. Sterling: I would just request that an opportunity be given to the member for Cochrane South, after reading this particular reply, to put on record his reply to this member’s concerns.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member’s request very much. However, just again reading this, up to two minutes should be reserved out of the 10-minute period; and the 10-minute period, I believe, has to be taken following the member’s speech. The member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Fleet: The speech by the member for Cochrane South yesterday was interesting and in fact it was excitable, as the House leader has described it, for a number of reasons.

It would appear that the member for Cochrane South is at odds with his party. The member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) indicated to this House that there was support in principle from his party and it appears that the member for Cochrane South lacks any appreciation for what is in Bill 1. In fact, in his whole speech, and I went through the Instant Hansard to double-check this, he never once referred to Bill I or any line in it. He seems to have a problem understanding it.

He seems to think that somehow there is a dodging of responsibility, when in fact quite the contrary is true and this government and this Premier (Mr. Peterson) should be congratulated for taking as serious a matter that affects every member of this place and that, with the will of this House, is now going to implement into law a solution that has the force of law. It goes farther, I believe, than guidelines that exist anywhere in Canada and this government should be applauded for taking this step.

I will also add that in some respects the tone of the dissertation by the member for Cochrane South was not helpful. I commend to him, and I hope that members of his party will pass on to him, the words spoken by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) in a recent speech, that the object here ought to be to raise the level of debate, not to root around in the gutter. I strongly urge that the member for Cochrane South use his significant skills in a more useful way to assist all members and in fact the public interest.

Mr. Tatham: I would just like to make this comment: this Legislature has already agreed upon the imperfectability of people who produce statutes on conflict of interest. The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1983, applies to the many thousands of elected municipal officials in our province. Why should we not have the same type of law on the provincial scene?

Mr. Sterling: While I did not have the opportunity to be in the legislative chambers, I did hear the member for Cochrane South’s speech with regard to this matter. l can tell the rather new member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) that maybe the member for Cochrane South has been accused over this period of time, or a period of time since he has been a member, since 1977, of various different kinds of things or indiscretions, but one thing he has never been accused of is a lack of understanding of issues that were in front of this Legislature.

As the member for High Park-Swansea may know, the member for Cochrane South has been a minister of the crown, as Minister of Natural Resources and as Attorney General for this province, and he has a full understanding of the whole ambit of this conflict-of-interest act.

The frustration of the member for Cochrane South and many of the members of this caucus is that if you read the fine print, you will find that Bill I is in fact what the member for Cochrane South was saying: it is a copout by the Premier from accountability, a copout of this government from accounting to the people of Ontario for the indiscretions of that cabinet over the past two years.

Mr. Callahan: I listened attentively to the member for Cochrane South as he read to us from transcripts and it relived for me the trying experience that any member of this House would have to face under the previous rules. I think what Bill I does is to set out in a specific way how each member can meet his or her responsibilities and avoid the necessity of ever having to appear before a Star Chamber, and I suggest that the procedure used in the past was exactly that. I would not want to see any honourable member of this Legislature faced with that again.

There is an old adage in the common law that laws should be specific and should be clear in order to avoid the possibility of the decision being made on the basis of the length of the chancellor’s foot. I am sure my friend from Cochrane South, being a member of the legal profession, would understand that.

Instead, what he does is to try to relive what I suggest was a tragic situation in terms of dealing with any member of this Legislature, and it was a process that could not be repeated again. We had the supposed rules of the previous 42 years which were so clear that l can remember specifically sitting on that committee and asking a question of one of the witnesses where I got three different answers and that person was supposed to be clarifying for me the rules that had to be abided by. Now, certainly if we got three different answers to those questions, how could any minister possibly understand what those rules were?

So I applaud the introduction of Bill I because what it will do is set the record straight and allow us an opportunity, each and every one of us, to get on with the work and the task at hand.

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments or questions? If not, further debate. Because we go in rotation, I recognize the member for Halton North.’

Mr. Elliot: Mr. Speaker, I was not rising to enter the debate. I wanted to make a comment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to ask if the time -- there is still time. I am sorry; OK.

Mr. Elliot: As a new member of this House, I listened attentively yesterday to the speech of the member for Cochrane South. I would just like to note that I think it would be regrettable if the member for Cochrane South did not have the opportunity for two minutes to stand up and say something about the comments made about his speech yesterday. I think he should be facing the House on this matter with respect to these comments.

Mr. Speaker: There is still one minute and 16 seconds left.

Mr. Harris: I was going to ask if I could respond for the member for Cochrane South but that probably is not in order so I will take the minute to comment on the speech of the member for Cochrane South and the reaction it has evoked.

Some have said they would not want to see a member go through what two members from this Legislature went through. We would not want to see members go through that either. We were not in favour of those two members having to go through what they went through in the committees. They went through it because the Premier abdicated his responsibility. There was no problem with far more rigid guidelines, according to our

interpretation, for 15 years under the Davis guidelines since they came in in 1970. There was no problem in interpreting those guidelines. Some ministers lost their jobs. Some did the honourable thing and resigned. Some were asked to resign.

What happened was that this Premier abdicated his responsibility. We are talking about cabinet ministers and we are talking about parliamentary assistants. The public has no say in who they are and this chamber has no say in who they are. They are left solely to the discretion of the Premier and he should be solely responsible for them.

Mr. Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I guess this bill is even more important than I had thought because we must have touched a raw nerve someplace with the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan). I do not think there is any concern in my mind that the member for Cochrane South will make the appropriate comments when he has the opportunity. I think he could well lay out more information pertaining to this issue if he so wished.

I would like to suggest that this bill is extremely important. It is the number one bill the government has decided to go with in the first session of the 34th Legislature,

An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

In plain language, it is

an act to control conflict of interest by the members of the assembly and cabinet. The government should consider this a number one priority in view of the problems it had in the last parliament. Two members of cabinet were forced to resign because of conflict of interest. For that reason, the government should consider it an extremely important bill and proceed with it as soon as possible.

Mention has been made many times of the former government’s 42 years in office. I can tell the members that we always had a Premier with the intestinal fortitude to handle conflict of interest in a very expeditious manner and not have the problems this present Premier has.

In the speech from the throne, the government states that the people of Ontario must have full confidence in their representatives, and so they should. I strongly support any legislation that will enhance that situation, but l wonder if Bill I will really achieve that goal.

I would like to point out some flaws in this legislation that I think might make the public very sceptical of the intent of Bill 1. I will read

section 2:

“For the purposes of this act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest.”

To me, that means a member of this Legislature should not be involved in making a decision on anything that would be a benefit to that individual. I have a few examples that I need clarification on.

Would it mean that no farmer could be Minister of Agriculture and Food? How could the minister bring in any policy that would help the agricultural community if he were a farmer? I understand that the present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) owns a 200-acre farm. If we bring in legislation that says the property tax rebate should be increased, and that minister introduces the legislation, does that not involve him in a conflict? Is he not enhancing his own worth?

That

section gives us a real problem. Would it also mean that no doctor could be Minister of Health? Would it mean that no lawyer could take

part in passing legislation? At some point as he pursues his career in law, he is going to be working with that legislation and benefiting from this Legislature’s passing it. Who could be Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and not be in conflict with some part of that vast ministry? These are just a few of the examples that make this bill unacceptable as drafted.

I might mention a personal experience I had several years ago -- I think it was in 1980 -- when we were dealing with rent control legislation. At that time, I happened to own an apartment building that had five apartments. The issue we were dealing with was the threshold, the number of units in an apartment building that would be affected by the rent control legislation. We were talking about four, five, six, even eight in number or maybe 10. I sat on the committee for a short while and it finally dawned on me that I was in conflict by being a part of that committee.

I had no right to make a decision that the number should be six, eight or 10, when indeed I had an apartment building of my own and the number of units was in that neighbourhood.

I do know there were certain people on the committee who also owned apartment buildings. I declared my conflict to the chairman and resigned from the committee. I would think most members, if not all members, would do the same.

I think if there is one place where we, as members, are in conflict of interest, it is in setting our own indemnities and salaries. How can we say to the people of this province that we are so concerned about conflict situations when we decide the amount of salaries we should earn as members? Surely that puts us in complete conflict. I have not heard any member suggest that we should cut our salaries back; it seems that we always ask for an increase.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Is that the suggestion?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: To the former Minister of Everything, the current Minister of Mines and member for Renfrew North I say that it creates a problem. The committee that I used to chair, the standing committee on members’ services, made a recommendation to this Legislature a couple of years ago that the members should not have a say in setting their salaries and that the Commission on Election Finances should be empowered with the opportunity to set our salaries without bringing it to the Legislature. We could simply approve it, but we would have no choice in setting the salaries.

I feel that the government should follow through in this process, that some outside body should be setting our salaries, not the members themselves.

I would like to refer to clause 11 (2)(a), and that is the disclosure statement. It says that “a statement of the assets and liabilities…of the member and the member’s spouse” should be disclosed. Well, possibly it could apply to the member, but even then I am not sure that it would not create a problem. Would it not be extremely embarrassing to a member, and certainly to his family, if it were disclosed that he did not have any assets, that indeed he was deeply in debt? That, I would think, would be fairly embarrassing. I am not sure that what we want to do with this legislation is to put someone in that position.

I also am not quite sure what difference it makes what assets the member has. Maybe he was fortunate enough to inherit some money, or maybe he worked extremely hard and set some money aside. What business is that of this Legislature or the public? Even more important are the spouse’s assets and liabilities. I guess on the odd occasion you might find a spouse who would not tell her husband what her assets were, or maybe her liabilities. In that case, would that member then be disqualified from sitting in the House? Maybe the spouse would do it deliberately, wanting to get the member out of the House. I wonder how the commissioner would deal with that possibility.

On the same point, I wonder if we create a very unfair position for an incumbent during an election. Incumbents’ financial affairs become public knowledge, but the other candidates’ financial affairs are their own business; they are confidential. So the one candidate runs with everyone knowing his financial affairs, his liabilities or his assets -- and he could be penalized either way -- and yet the other candidates in the same election are not treated the same way. If we are going to do this, then would it not seem to make sense that the candidates in an election would also have to declare their assets and liabilities? Well, the member shakes his head, but I am not sure why.

Section 17 deals with the executive council: “

(1) A former member of the executive council shall not, unless 12 months have expired after the date when he or she ceased to hold office,” and then it lists several things they cannot do. If they contravene it, subsection 17(3) says, “A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of not more than $5,000.”

What if a former cabinet minister defies

section 17 and does in some way benefit from an extremely lucrative deal by many, many times more than the $5,000 offence? Would he not simply pocket the rest of the money, pay the $5,000 fine and be home free? If it is going to be meaningful, the fine should be in proportion to the offence and certainly exceed any monetary gain to that individual.

These are only some of the concerns that I have with this legislation. However, I want to make it very clear that I do support conflict-of-interest legislation and look forward to the committee hearings. I understand that this legislation will be sent to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. I am pleased to be a member of that committee. Hopefully, a much better amended bill will be reported back from the committee. I will try to do my part to see that happens.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too will participate for a short time in the debate on Bill 1, on conflict of interest. I was one of the members who subbed on the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly last year pertaining to a conflict by one of our peers, a member of cabinet. I want to just quote what was quoted by this member, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) at the outset. I think it is a résumé of what most of us try to do.

“My sole purpose from the day I was elected an MPP, was to serve the people of my riding, and in my capacity as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, to serve the people of this province....My motives were honourable but I see now that my actions could have been interpreted differently by some.”

That was the problem. It was a lengthy committee hearing, very stressful on the member and his family, and one that I would not look forward to participating in again. However, the Premier in his wisdom saw fit to appoint this particular member to a portfolio that would obviously create problems, in that he was a businessman of some renown in his area and looking towards the government of Ontario for certain rulings, certain conditions that would create problems for him almost at the outset, because one of his election promises was to provide a forest management agreement to his area.

The Premier totally abdicated his responsibility by putting this member in cabinet, in a particular portfolio that inevitably would create problems; and it did.

I have some problems with certain areas of Bill 1. For instance, right at the outset of Bill 1,

section 1, is the definition of “spouse.” “‘Spouse’ means a person of the opposite sex to whom the member is married....”

I recall this Legislature last year dealing with Bill 7,

section 18. There was a great debate as to sexual orientation. It was this Premier’s, this Attorney General’s (Mr. Scott) and this government’s response that sexual orientation should be protected, regardless of what a person’s sexual orientation was. We have in Bill 1, on page 2 of this very first bill of this Legislature, the words, “‘spouse’ means a person of the opposite sex.” I think there is a dichotomy here and I would like to see this particular area addressed.

The definition of member is a “‘member’ means a member of the Legislative Assembly or of the executive council, or both.” So when we speak of a member we speak of the 130 members who form this Legislative Assembly.

Section 4 states, “A member shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made by another person to further the member’s private interest.” I have some problems in this area -- and they were alluded to by my colleague, the previous speaker -- particularly when it involves people who may be involved with agriculture, farmers.

Does this mean that a farmer could not sit on a committee of the Legislature which would be bringing forward or formulating legislation that would affect his own business? If indeed that is what

section 4 means, we will have the downtown Toronto folk creating legislation for the agricultural community of Ontario, we will have possibly those of us who are of an agricultural or farming background creating and working on legislation that affects the downtown Toronto folk, and I think it could wind up being a total catastrophe.

I believe that conflict-of-interest guidelines must exist; inevitably, they must exist. However, I believe the commonsense approach would be to somehow arrange particular guidelines that would not exclude those people who know something about the legislation that is being brought forth. I think common sense has to come to the fore.

We talk about committees and, of course, a lot of legislation goes to committees, is amended, brought back to this Legislature, debated and finally passed. I referred to a select committee report today in question period. It is a report that was very carefully prepared by a group of very dedicated members of this assembly and it explains why Sunday openings, Sunday closings, Sunday law, the Lord’s Day Act, should be changed but the day should be retained as a special day.

The announcement of this government yesterday totally overlooked and overruled this particular committee of the Legislature. I just wonder now why we have committees, if we are going to spend several months receiving delegations, listening to input from concerned people, citizens who do have concerns enough to come and express them to a committee, and then we totally disregard them. Here we wind up with legislation, conflict-of-interest guidelines, that will eliminate those people who may know and have vested interests in certain areas. As members of this assembly, they will be excluded.

I think this bill has to go to committee and be looked at very closely. I believe the executive council or the cabinet must be treated in a considerably different fashion than private members are. If we leave the likes of item 4 as part of this bill, we will be defeating the very purpose that most of us have been elected for.

I could go on at some length but I know there are a number of my colleagues who want to address other areas. These are but a few of the concerns that I have as a private member, especially the exclusion of people, if this particular bill is put forth in the fashion in which it is presented.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to compliment the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) on his presentation. I think he has touched on a number of very important issues with a sincerity and a depth of passion that l am very impressed by. I listened to the member for Wellington and other members who are concerned with this issue and I would like to share in the intent that they are presenting to this House and to the people of Ontario.

I think underlying their concern is that we all know it is imperative there be guidelines so that there cannot even be the appearance of conflict of interest for any who are serving the public. There should not be any misunderstanding at all that members from this side, from this party, believe in the importance of having a well stated, clearly defined guideline that can assist all members in fulfilling their responsibilities to their constituents, that will allow them to be above and beyond any suspicion, so there can be no doubt that their interests are indeed to the very heart of the needs of the people of our province.

Politicians already do not have a very good reputation. Every one of us who is here has suffered the abuse that comes from the understanding that pollsters have found out that it is not one of those professions that has a lot of honour associated with it. Yet in my dealings with most of the members from all parties in this House, I have never had any doubt about the integrity of other members.

It has been a tragic occurrence that within the last few years there have in fact been circumstances for at least two members of this House where it was necessary for them to resign. There was an investigation. It meant that everything had to be looked at again and it meant that the Premier in his own wisdom had to bring in some new legislation that could get him off the hook.

I am concerned about it. I am concerned that what we have now done is to react in such a way that we are taking the responsibility away from the Premier who is primarily responsible for the selection of his cabinet and his parliamentary assistants and that we are putting the onus on some commissioner who will have responsibility.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, when we are debating important legislation like this, is the minister not supposed to be on hand to be party to it, to hear what is going on and to be cognizant of the feelings of this House? The parliamentary assistant is --

Mr. Offer: As the parliamentary assistant, I believe that pursuant to the standing orders I am able to carry the bill. The Attorney General will be back. He is at a very important meeting right now. He is very interested in hearing all the comments. He was here for the totality of the debate yesterday and, apart from the very important meeting he is currently at, he will be back.

Mr. Cousens: I wish he were here because certainly he is closer to the drafting of this. Hopefully, as this bill is considered further in committee, there can be amendments to it. It can be improved. It is a flawed document as it now stands, flawed in many serious ways.

I do not want to take away from the importance of this House considering the importance of having all of us accountable to the public and not in any way have the appearance of a conflict of interest.

It goes to a couple of questions I would like to ask. I do not think anyone at this point has the answer. Maybe one question that needs to be explored is, who wants to have all his personal affairs made public? l think there are a lot of sacrifices that one makes when one goes into politics. Certainly, in wanting to attract high quality people to public office, it is important that we say: “Here is an opportunity to serve and an opportunity to do something for your community. But at the same time there are other things you are going to have to do.”

I do not know other people’s incomes and resources, but I think a large number of the members of this House have gone into office and taken a salary cut. The Speaker is nodding his own head and I can believe that. He has a new suit on anyway. The fact is that a great number of people in this House -- I do not know of anyone who is here because of the money. The great number of people are here to do a job and to serve the people of Ontario. That really goes to the underlying reason we are here. Members of all parties come with that passion and that desire.

At the same time as one makes that commitment to run for politics, there are certain things that cease to be one’s own. One’s life becomes public; people begin to know who one is. That is part of the public acceptance and people enjoy that, at least a majority of us do. But how much of us is to become public? Does our family also participate in that? To some degree, some families are more involved in politics than others. Some families continue to have a very private life and what they do in their own home, in their own community, at their cottage and at their camp, whatever it might be, is theirs. It is not something they have to give up.

In declaring all the assets that all the members will have within 60 days of being elected is going to take away an element of privacy that each member of this House has cherished and guarded. The secrets they kept from their own brothers and sisters, from the other members of the family, could now be on the front page of the local paper.

Their friends are going to say: “Look, I didn’t know that you had all that. Gracious sakes, when I went to you for that loan and when I was asking you for this, you said you didn’t have it.” Or on a more serious note, they are going to say, with jealousy in their hearts: “My goodness, you’ve done well. Where have you done that well? How did you do it?”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Either that or they’ll understand why you didn’t loan them money.

Mr. Cousens: That is true when they look at the declaration of the member for Windsor-Riverside, and when they look at mine they will know the same.

Then they are going to come along and say, “Look at your wife, we can see now how much she’s got,” or your spouse or your live-in, whatever it is that this legislation will define. “Isn’t that interesting? l didn’t know that you inherited that much.”

If we want to attract quality, competent people to this Legislature, let us not put up barriers in front of them. Let us at least offer them the challenge to serve the province, offer them the opportunity to commit themselves to the people of their communities, offer them that chance to come and give, but let us not have them give everything away so that some of those things that are personal and cherished by themselves, that are a part of the secrets of life -- we share with the tax man, our accountant and our lawyer, but do we want everything to be just laid out in public?

I think this legislation could be modified so that those who are in cabinet, those who are parliamentary assistants -- it could be broadened to include senior civil servants, it could be broadened to include advisers and counsellors and comforters to the Premier and senior staff, but may it exclude for public record the detailed background of all the other members.

May these members, none the less, submit themselves to the commissioner, where they can then say, “All right, here are the facts and these are the sheets.” The other part of the legislation could still stand that if someone had some concern about another member it could go to the commissioner where there could be a reckoning of it and, if necessary, there could be a public discussion of it.

But if it is for the sake of being able to say, “Oh, this Legislature is so clean, we’re going to have all the laundry out of all the members;” that does not solve the problem of conflict of interest, and I think it creates another problem. It will create conflict in the minds and hearts of people who would otherwise want to commit themselves to public life.

The sacrifice will not be worth it for many. If they have the opportunity to serve in the executive council, then that can give them extra reasons to say, “Well, I think I have a good chance of serving there, and when that happens I will be prepared to make it public.” Until then, let there be some personal holding on to those parts of one’s self and one’s background that should not necessarily become everybody’s property.

I am concerned with what this could do when we are trying to attract capable, competent, caring people into politics. We have them. I am convinced there are very, very many people in this House, and many in the past, who have served out of a sense of great dedication. Will we be able to continue to attract those people when this legislation is passed?

I hope this question is addressed. I know the Attorney General has brought in legislation very similar to Bill 23. I do not see any changes in it. This question was addressed before and he has not recognized it now. I have a fear that when it goes to committee, there will not be any opportunity for a legitimate, honest change to be made unless there is a rebellion in the back benches of the Liberal Party and these members begin to say, “Look, maybe Cousens is making some sense and possibly we can make some sincere amendments.”

I would like to know what is going to happen with this legislation as it affects nominated candidates. What will happen is that for anyone who is coming up for re-election, his assets and his own personal finances are going to be public. What about newly nominated candidates? They will be able to hold that up for public information during election campaigns. What is going to happen to their public information? When they win the election, or if they win it will they ever have to make theirs public beforehand? Maybe it could influence the thinking of the electorate prior to the election if in fact they had to make public their assets prior to being officially nominated candidates.

I honestly would not like that, but I am telling members it gives an advantage or a disadvantage. In some cases, it will be an advantage and in some cases a disadvantage when previously nominated candidates’ assets, especially if they have been elected, will have been public and those other people who are trying to get into public life do not have to make that publ