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

June 13, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L078 - Mon 13 Jun 1988 / Lun 13 jun 1988

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

KEITH ACTON

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

FUTURES PROGRAM

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

YORK CENTRAL HOSPITAL

RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL DAYS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

VISITOR

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BOARDS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SEXUAL ASSAULT

CANADIAN SHIELD SPRING WATER CO. LTD.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE DETACHMENT

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

MORAVIAN TEMPLE CORPORATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

Prayers.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize members for members’ statements: On Tuesday of last week, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) asked if I would consider a few extra arguments related to the question of privilege presented by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), on which I had just ruled. I agreed to consider this matter further and I would now like to apprise the House of that consideration.

The member for Oshawa stated that he had sat through the hearings of the standing committee considering the freedom-of-information bill at the committee stage, where “it was made abundantly clear to all members on the committee that there was nothing in this act which would infringe upon the traditional rights of members of the assembly to ask questions and to seek information.”

He further stated, “It was said at the time that was not necessary” -- to put forward amendments -- because “this bill would not infringe in any way, shape or form on the traditional rights of members of the assembly to seek information.”

On this point, the Speaker has a duty in making certain that the rights of members to seek information is not in any way abrogated. I have looked into this matter and I must conclude that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the traditional method for members to seek information in this House are two distinct and separate matters.

The freedom-of-information act does not distinguish members from any other person in the general public and, therefore, members are subject to the administrative regulations attached to the act, but I fail to see how the coming into force of this act affects in any way the traditional rights of members to seek information of the government by the methods prescribed in the standing orders of this House.

The honourable member asked me as well to look into the application of

section 52 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which reads as follows: “Except so far as is provided by

section 40, nothing in this act shall be construed to deprive the assembly, or a committee or a member thereof of any right, immunity, privilege or power that the assembly might otherwise have been entitled to exercise or enjoy,” Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980,

chapter 235,

section 52; and of subsection 63(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which states, “This act shall not be applied to preclude access to information that is not personal information and to which access by the public was available by custom or practice immediately before this act comes into force.”

Both of these sections seem to me to address the same point and have the same desired effect, that is, to preserve the ancient rights and privileges inherent to members of this Legislature. Both sections are there to preserve those rights. But again, I must say that those rights are exactly what they have always been in the matter which concerns us today, and that is the right to seek information, not the right to receive information.

The Speaker has the duty to ensure that the members’ rights to seek information are preserved according to the standing orders that this House has passed in order to govern itself. Those standing orders -- and the members might wish to refer themselves to standing order 88 -- state that an answer must be provided within a certain number of days. That is where the Speaker’s duties end. It has never been the duty of any Speaker to look at the quality or the quantity of information provided.

As I have said, the Speaker is the protector of the rights of members to seek information, but is not here to give legal advice nor to advise members on the application of the law of the province. If members feel that it should be their right, under the freedom-of-information act, to seek information and not be submitted to the administrative regulations under the act, then my only advice can be, under the circumstances, that this House has it within its power to propose and adopt amendments to the act. This cannot and should not take the form of amendments to the standing orders of the House.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: The Cambridge hospital board will make an announcement later this afternoon, terminating Don Robertson as the administrator of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. The question we must ask is this: Was the Cambridge hospital board given the choice of delivering Robertson’s scalp in return for budget relief? The comprehensive Woods Gordon report, completed over several months, found the hospital to be well-run, well-managed and among the most cost-effective of the hospitals in its group.

The Cambridge Academy of Medicine, as recently as Friday last, issued a unanimous endorsement of the administration of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, and this is broadly supported by the residents of Cambridge. It is common knowledge in the Waterloo region that the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Barkin, was overheard by several individuals, in a recent social setting, to remark, “I’ll have Robertson’s head on a platter.”

This remark was made prior to the hastily contrived six-hour Stoughton report that condemned the hospital administration. This manner of vindictiveness is no way to run a ministry. It is a totally inappropriate way for a senior official to behave. It would appear that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan); her deputy, Dr. Barkin; and his errand boy, Dr. Stoughton, forced the hospital board to choose between delivering the administrator’s head or quality patient care for the people of Cambridge.

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. Sterling: Bill 109, which is

an act to establish a French-language board for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, is fast becoming a cause for great concern. The introduction of this bill was supported by all members of the Legislature and by a number of groups in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

While we raised specific concerns, the concept was, nevertheless, agreed to. To assure that we were setting off on the right step, I asked the minister about the constitutionality of such a move -- a unified francophone school board -- and I was informed by the minister that this “legislation respects

section 93 rights relating to our Constitution” and that he was not prepared to seek a referral to the courts.

I now looked to the standing committee on social development, which is meeting this afternoon, only to find out that the government is intending to introduce an amendment which calls into question the very constitutionality of this bill. What is at stake is the educational future of 15,000 to 20,000 young people in Ottawa-Carleton and many teachers. All the while, we do not really know what the intent of this government is, nor do we have any indication that this bill will be good.

KEITH ACTON

Mr. Ballinger: Last Thursday, I had the privilege of attending a testimonial dinner in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, which is in my riding of Durham-York, in honour of Keith Acton, the community’s most famous athlete. Keith Acton was the tenacious little centre who scored two game-winning goals to help the Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League achieve yet another Stanley Cup, something that most of us here in this Legislature, I am sure, have dreamed about doing.

This genuine and talented young man is a classic example of how a dedicated individual, although extremely small in physical size, achieved the ultimate boyhood dream by, first, making it in the NHL and then getting his name inscribed on the much-coveted Stanley Cup this year. Thanks to the hard work and loyalty of a couple of Stouffville ‘s progressive businessmen, Jim Mason, editor of the Stouffville Sun, and Dave Woods, owner of The Greens, a sports restaurant, Keith Acton received the much-deserved public recognition he has so rightly earned after almost a decade as a pro hockey player.

As well as being a dedicated athlete, Keith has been a tireless and public supporter of the Children’s Wish Foundation of Ontario, an organization which assists terminally ill children, with his sponsoring of an annual celebrity golf tournament which is held in my riding and which attracts sports celebrities from all across Canada. I am pleased to publicly support and congratulate Keith on behalf of the residents of Durham-York, and I will look forward to seeing the new entrance sign being erected in his name, which will read, “Welcome to Whitchurch-Stouffville, home of Keith Acton.”

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, you will remember, as will other members of this House, that the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), once the Minister of Health, was removed from that position because of his incapacity to bring forward legislation. Time and time again, he brought legislation forward and then dumped on us hundreds of amendments after the fact and immediately before we had committee hearings. Now we have the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) trying to replace the member for Bruce in terms of total incompetence and inefficiency.

We have had to repeal one law and bring in another in terms of Bill 76 being replaced by Bill 125. Now, as of Friday, we received over 60 pages of amendments, and another three or four today, to amend a piece of legislation we are supposed to be dealing with this afternoon in committee. Normally, we might expect a compendium to be put forward with these many amendments being brought forward, because it is bigger than your average bill; and this is a new bill.

Not only that, but as the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) raised, there are serious questions now raised by the government itself about the constitutionality of its own legislation. It is trying to put in a clause in this new piece of legislation which says if it is proven to be unconstitutional, one

section can be lifted.

This party refuses to deal with this legislation this afternoon on this kind of basis. This is poor planning. This is a government which is incapable of bringing forward legislation. We will expect the minister perhaps to withdraw the legislation entirely and bring it forth in a package we can deal with in a reasonable fashion.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mrs. Cunningham: It is our understanding that the government recently slashed the Ministry of Skills Development budget by $500 million, and of that enormous cut, we understand the Futures program lost $43 million in funding. Many of the Futures programs have helped young people across Ontario. Thousands of young people suffer from specific problems in finding work because of a lack of education or experience or because they are living in areas of the province where economic recovery has been slower.

We trust that the Futures programs, which are successful and desperately needed in many parts of this province, will not be subjected to any funding cuts. The timing of this announcement exhibits a total lack of planning and management.

Further, I wonder why the government has not announced what it plans to do with the savings from these cuts; and more important, why no assurances have been given to help other programs within the Ministry of Skills Development. The minister seems to be unaware of the realities of his Futures program for hard-to-employ youth, as well as of those of the Transitions program for older persons who are unemployed. Both programs are in desperate need of support.

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 90 years ago, on June 12, 1898, the establishment of a free, independent, democratic republic of the Philippines. Philippine Independence Day is not only an important date in history, but it has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

In recognition of the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to the economic development and cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of the independent Philippines was raised in Toronto on June 12, 1988. These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection we have for the Filipino community.

With us in the gallery today to help us celebrate this historic event is Rick Falco, president of the National Congress of Filipino-Canadian Associations. To him and all Filipinos, we say [remarks in Tagalog]. Congratulations.

YORK CENTRAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Cousens: I am very pleased today to rise in support of the York Central Hospital in the riding of York Centre, which also serves the people of the riding of Markham. Twenty-five years ago this year, York Central Hospital was opened to begin its service to the people of our community. This morning we celebrated with flag-raising ceremonies in communities around the hospital and at the hospital itself.

I can say this is one hospital that is serving the people of our province. I am grateful for the fact that the medical staff, the professional staff and the trustees have always had the best interests of their people at heart. Ontario’s hospitals are something Ontario can be proud of, and certainly York Central is one of the best.

Mr. Speaker: We have completed the allotted time for members’ statements. Point of order; the member for Windsor-Riverside.

RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL DAYS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), when he raises legitimate and important national days in the Legislature, is going to refer to and speak on behalf of the government of Ontario, I think it is an inappropriate use of members’ statements. If he is going to speak on his own behalf, then it is appropriate during members’ statements, but if it is on behalf of the government or the Legislature, then we will do them by unanimous consent and do a go-around for each of the caucuses. I think the way he is presenting them is inappropriate and a misuse of members’ statements.

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of personal privilege: I think that should be brought up with the House leaders. I think the member is quite right. Let the parties make that determination among themselves and we will certainly follow that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside has made his suggestion, which has been responded to by the member.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Deputy Premier and Treasurer about housing speculation. The Treasurer may or may not have seen an

article in the Toronto Star on Saturday that referred to a letter which had been received from somebody working within our financial sector, who claimed that as much as 15 per cent of mortgages financed by the financial institution for which he was working were being given over to people who were speculating and planning to resell within a year.

Does the Treasurer not agree that if that volume of speculation is in fact taking place in the marketplace in southern Ontario, his government has an obligation to put a stop to that kind of speculation? Surely he would agree that the effect of that activity is simply to drive other people out of the market, to make it impossible for ordinary people to purchase homes and to make it impossible for the market to work in a way that is anything like fair.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I did not have a chance to read Saturday’s Toronto Star, but I will undertake to have a look at the letter to which the honourable member refers. Since the rest of his question is predicated on whether that sort of business practice is customary and what do I think about it, I think perhaps I will wait and see what the letter said.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me refer the Treasurer to two comments that have been made by two experts in the housing field, Frank Clayton and Wayne King.

As the Treasurer knows, Mr. Clayton is associated with Clayton Research Associates, which does a lot of housing market research in southern Ontario. Mr. Clayton told our researchers this morning: “We know speculation is there. Without speculators, prices wouldn’t be going up this fast.”

Mr. King, who is the vice-president of Brethour Research Associates, says that in his estimation in some of the downtown condo projects as many as 80 per cent of the units that are being sold are being sold to speculators and that in the suburban condo buildings as many as 50 per cent of the units are being sold in speculative activity rather than for people to live in.

This is the opinion of people who are watching the market closely and who are telling us what is going on in the market. The Treasurer can no longer turn a blind eye to this level and degree and extent of speculative bidding in the marketplace. Why does he not put a stop to it simply by bringing in a speculation tax?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows that the thrust of the government’s policy through the Ministry of Housing is to provide in this community and right across the province, where possible, an improved number of affordable units. The application of the provincial budget this year to the requirements of the ministry has been substantial, I would not say that it has grown faster than any other ministry, but it is one of those major priorities that the honourable member would be aware of. That is the thrust of government policy.

Mr. B. Rae: I know what the thrust of government policy is. That is why I am asking a question about why he does not change its thrust. It is not because we do not know what they are trying to do, it is because we know what they are trying to do that we are asking a question about speculation, because they are not doing anything to stop it.

When Michael Wilson brought in his capital gains holiday, the Treasurer himself said in this House -- I can recall him saying it and I can recall listening to him saying it outside – “As a result of the capital gains holiday, there is going to be all kinds of speculation going on, all kinds of unproductive investment going on, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.”

The Treasurer was right. The capital gains holiday has produced a bonanza of speculation.

Now that we have growing evidence, that we have all the ads in the papers for condos and most of those condos are being purchased by people who have not the slightest intention in the world of living in them, I would like to ask the Treasurer: If that is the case, and he must know by now that it is the case, why does he not simply introduce a speculation tax, which will stop that kind of totally unproductive economic activity?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have been trying to recall my comments at the time of the Michael Wilson initiative. There have been two or three federal initiatives in capital gains tax, once to remove the tax and then partly to reinstate it.

At the time, I was concerned that money would be invested in nonproductive things like condominiums in Hawaii and in Florida and artwork and things like that. While we are very interested in art, we felt that would be inappropriate.

To finally get to an answer to the honourable member’s question -- I thought I might as well leave it until his second supplementary -- we are not planning a land speculation tax at this time.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me ask the Treasurer to cast his mind to a particular property, a particular set of buildings, a particular set of apartments where people are being hammered at the present time, and ask him how he can justify this hands-off, do-nothing, King Canute approach to the speculative housing binge that is now ongoing?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thought I was Marie Antoinette.

Mr. B. Rae: He was Marie Antoinette last week. This week he is King Canute. God only knows what he will be next week.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am working on Farouk.

Mr. B. Rae: He could be Farouk, whatever, it does not matter. King Farouk in a laundromat; that is about how at home he will be.

The question I have for the Treasurer involves an apartment unit at 914 Yonge Street, which is what we call a hidden condominium. It was lived in as if it was apartments, although it was registered as a condominium. Therefore, it was not covered by rental housing protection.

I would like to ask the Treasurer what he would do if he were a tenant who was told by his landlord on Friday that he had a choice and that choice was, “You either get out or you pay up to $200,000 for an 800-foot apartment.” What would his advice be to that tenant?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am always amazed at the convolutions of the business mind, both in Toronto and, I suppose, elsewhere. I cannot answer the honourable member’s question. I think this is not the first instance where apartments have been condominiumized. We have certain controls in legislation over those transitions and they certainly do not provide the perfection the Leader of the Opposition seeks.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer is wrong; there is no protection for these tenants. The Treasurer should know that in December 1987 a company named Nansa Resources began purchasing many of the units at 914 Yonge Street and, in turn, sold them less than three months later for a huge profit. For example, price increases show a jump from $26,500 to $40,000 on a bachelor apartment -- that is nearly a 50 per cent increase -- and a jump from $32,000 to $106,000 on a two-bedroom apartment. That is a 230 per cent increase in a very, very short time period.

The question I have for the Treasurer is this: What is he going to do to stop the speculation in units such as is going on at 914 Yonge Street? This is not some academic pursuit. This is a question that is very, very real to people who up until Friday thought they were tenants and discovered on Friday that they were not; they were living in a condo. What is the government going to do with these people?

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

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We do not have any action planned at this time, but I am sure the Ministry of Housing, which has the direct responsibility in these areas, is looking at that matter.

Mr. B. Rae: The fact is that the government of Ontario has turned this city into a place which more resembles Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous than it does a place where working people can live. That is precisely what the government has done. They are running fashion shows for the rich and famous on Friday, while there are 20,000 homeless people. That is what they have turned this province into and that is what they are turning this city into.

What is the government going to do for those people at 914 Yonge Street, many of them elderly and living on fixed incomes, who on Friday were told, “You either pay up or you get out”? What is the government going to do to protect them? Tell us now.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There is certainly no one in this chamber on the government side who is feeling apologetic about what is happening to Toronto. This is an excellent city and we are leading the world in many of our endeavours. We have also made application of the provincial budget to the provision of affordable housing in a way of which we really are proud. The leadership that the honourable minister is giving this endeavour is something that is commendable, and I know all members in all parties would agree with that assessment.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General and it relates to activities in her ministry that she may be able to assist the House with. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether either her ministry or any other ministry of the government she is aware of has in fact conducted any impact studies with respect to the effects of Sunday shopping on Ontario communities. Have any such studies been undertaken?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Brandt: In light of the fact that a recent study in the United States undertaken by a consumers’ group has indicated that, in so far as the popularity of Sunday shopping is concerned, the only demand Sunday shopping appears to have with respect to consumers is that it has turned out to be the weakest shopping day of the week in the United States, that fewer people shop on that particular day; the argument put forward by many indicating that Sunday shopping is to be put in place for the convenience of consumers is obviously wrong.

What the impact of this is going to be, quite frankly, I say to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), is to inconvenience workers in this province. Why, in light of those kinds of statistics which are available in many jurisdictions, is the Solicitor General and her government moving forward with legislation which is obviously extremely ill-thought-out and very unpopular?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to remind the member for Sarnia that, for one thing, we have no idea what municipalities will decide to change in the wake of this bill. If I could judge by what the municipalities are saying at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, there will be very little change in the shopping habits of this province after this bill is passed. There will be greater enforcement in place and less abuse of the bill. Unless AMO misleads us, they do not want to open and they certainly will not be forced to open.

I would add one other interesting comment, that the statistics we have been given by department stores which have changed in the United States are not the same statistics which were indicated by the member for Sarnia. Rather, as statistics tend to do, we found that one group of stores which was pushing for more openness had figures to validate its position and another group of stores which was pushing for less openness had statistics to validate its position.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say to the minister that we have seen statistics which have indicated different sets of facts, particularly emanating from her government from time to time.

As the Minister of Labour insisted on involving himself in the last question, perhaps my final supplementary on the issue of Sunday shopping could relate to his ministry, at least in part.

Again to the Solicitor General, there was an

article in the London Free Press on May 28 which indicated that in Alberta, when the Sunday shopping legislation was brought in, workers were originally advised that they would not have to work on Sundays. It appears that as a result of the whole issue of Sunday shopping spreading in that province, as we predict it will here in Ontario, workers are now being hired with a very clear caveat that they must be prepared to work on Sundays.

In light of that, why is the government stubbornly holding to the fact that all it is doing is passing this on to the municipalities when it knows full well it is opening the door to wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia may wish at another time to address the question to the Minister of Labour, but I would comment that in my opinion, although I am not the minister, there are already thousands of people working in the retail business who, for the first time, will be protected, who never had protection with regard to Sunday working. The new people will have this protection; indeed, so will those already working. This in fact brings new protection which did not exist before in this province.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: In view of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I will direct my question to the Deputy Premier.

I have some very serious concerns about the way the government has dealt with the issue surrounding Cambridge Memorial Hospital. Threats of firing, taking over the hospital and blacklisting have come from the Ministry of Health. The ministry is demanding that the hospital board fire the administrator, Don Robertson, yet all indications are that the hospital is one of the most efficient and well-managed hospitals in the province.

It would appear that because hospital staff went public with their side of the story, the minister and deputy minister have taken the harshest of retaliatory steps towards the hospital.

Will the minister commit to this House that a public and impartial inquiry will be launched into the controversy surrounding Cambridge Memorial Hospital?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr. Eves: As the minister is aware, the Minister of Health sent in an investigator, one Mr. Stoughton, to look into Cambridge’s deficit situation. He was appointed to do this on May 16. The Woods Gordon report on Cambridge Memorial Hospital took over three months to complete. Mr. Stoughton spent a grand total of eight hours at Cambridge hospital. It seems the implications exist that the investigator the ministry sent in needed only eight hours to do his report because his findings were already a foregone conclusion as far as the Ministry of Health is concerned. Would the minister agree with that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, but I do feel that -- oh, the member has another supplementary. I will wait.

Mr. Eves: If I may enlighten the Deputy Premier somewhat -- at least we do get a straight answer from the Deputy Premier, which is more than I can say about the Premier -- some three days before Mr. Stoughton was appointed, the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Martin Barkin, on May 13, 1988, blew up at a meeting of the district health councils at L’Hotel in Toronto and said, “I am going to have Don Robertson’s head on a platter.”

If we can confirm that in fact is what the Deputy Minister of Health said three days before the minister’s investigator was appointed, would the minister not agree that he should look into removing his Deputy Minister of Health or does he condone this sort of action on the part of his civil servants?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I certainly do want to say something more about the situation that the honourable member has brought to our attention. I do not agree, of course, with his assessment of the situation. I am not the Minister of Health and certainly I do not answer for her. She is quite capable of doing that on her own, as is her deputy, who is a very competent person with a well-known record both as a medical practitioner and as a hospital administrator.

I would also like to say just a word about Mr. Stoughton, who the member says went in with some preformed ideas and eight hours later came up with his recommendation. I do not know about the time lag but I do know that Mr. Stoughton, as the chief administrator of the Toronto Hospital, has the highest possible reputation for integrity. I would say he is a servant of his profession, not of the government or any aspect of it. In this connection, I can assure the honourable member that he is taking a wrong tack if he is trying to impugn the integrity or independent ability of Mr. Stoughton.

Mr. Speaker, if you will give me just a moment, I think the member will be aware that, over a number of years, hospitals, including Cambridge Memorial Hospital, have for good and appropriate reason overspent their budget. There is no thought that the money was misallocated; far from it. All of these methods of administration are shared and inspected by the ministry from time to time. The idea that somehow or other the minister or the Treasury is looking for somebody who is misappropriating funds is totally wrong.

In the three years that I have been Treasurer, we picked up the deficits the first year. The second year we picked them up with review and, so that we would not punish those hospitals who did live within their budget, we raised their base by an additional half of one per cent, which is a lot of money when you know that billions of dollars are spent in hospital operations.

For the last two years, we have picked up the deficit, put that in the base, and even those who were able to live within the deficit we raised by a half a per cent. This year, because the former Minister of Health very properly informed the hospitals that we were improving once again the base by a substantial amount, an average of between seven and eight per cent, that we expected the administrators to live within their budget and they are now doing --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to go back to the Treasurer of Ontario concerning the Massey retirees who have been cheated out of their benefits and his response in this House on June 1. The minister said that the Canadian Auto Workers made an agreement with Massey Combines. Part of that agreement was to put the responsibility for the pensions and other auxiliary benefits with the company that employed them.

I know the Treasurer has had a letter from the assistant to the director of the CAW which says very clearly:

“I wish to inform you and all other honourable members that at no time did the CAW make any agreement to put the responsibility for the pensions and other auxiliary benefits of Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. retirees over to Massey Combines Corp. We were never consulted by either level of government or the corporation officials about the restructuring of Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd., or were we informed about the Varity commitment to the unfunded liability of the pension plan should Massey Combines Corp. go bankrupt.”

He has included the documentation in that letter to the Treasurer. I do not think the Treasurer would deliberately lie to this House, but obviously he has misled the members of this House and I am wondering if he has some comment on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully to the member for Hamilton East. Will you withdraw your last comment?

Mr. Mackenzie: I will withdraw it and ask if the Treasurer has inadvertently misled the members of this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is not funny, but I would like to say to the honourable member that in order for the union to proceed with its agreement that its members would accept employment with the successor company, in this case Massey Combines, that successor responsibility had to be accepted.

Certainly, any comment of mine was in no way trying to lay blame for what has happened to Massey over the last few weeks and months. The blame for that, if any, lies with the farm economy in North America, which did not respond as the rest of the economy responded. There is presently a 200 per cent overcapacity to build combines, and it so happened that the costs associated with the Brantford plant and the administration that led to the downturn in its share of the market led it into receivership.

The taxpayers of Canada and Ontario have already committed $200 million to maintaining those jobs. The member may question the intelligence of the people who were in government at the time that was first entered into or at the time the contract was renewed, and that is his right, but we feel that, in both instances, the best interests of the taxpayers were supported and additional employment was maintained.

All of us in this House, including the honourable member and myself, wish that it had been different, but in fact the company is now in receivership and is no longer continuing to operate as it was under its own board.

Mr. Mackenzie: To continue with the letter and the documents that went to the Treasurer of Ontario: “The record will show we were notified by the corporation of the restructuring of Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. into Varity and Massey Combines Corp. only at the conclusion of the restructuring agreement between the corporation and the government.”

It is also very clear, as the Treasurer is aware, that several hundred salaried employees lost their benefits as well and that they were never notified or consulted about the transfer of responsibility for their pensions and other auxiliary benefits to Massey Corp.

The government was part of this deal that cheated the workers at Massey; clearly part of it. The province has several million dollars in Varity. What is the Treasurer going to do about these workers who gave their life to that company and who now find out they do not have the benefits they thought they would have when they retired?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is correct in that the auto workers were not at the table when the restructuring of the companies took place, but they did sign the agreement and unfortunately --

Mr. B. Rae: The successor agreement.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The successor agreement is still there. The point is --

Mr. B. Rae: No; they did not sign. You are making the same mistake --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any further response?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The whole matter, as the member is aware, has resulted in the bankruptcy of the company, which is no longer in operation. Varity, as the honourable member knows, was separated under the provisions of the agreement that the honourable member is talking about, and without that agreement the whole thing would have been in bankruptcy three years ago.

The honourable member should be aware of that. He may not be prepared to admit it, but it is the truth.

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. It has to do with the constitutionality of Bill 109, his francophone school board or boards for Ottawa-Carleton.

Late last Friday, the minister sent to the opposition critics over 60 amendments, which I have in front of me now, including one which admits that any or all sections of this bill may indeed be unconstitutional, and it provides for an automatic severance from the bill of the offending clauses.

We understand as well that this weekend the minister sent to the planning committee in Ottawa specific copies of a draft proposal which would drop the one-board, two-sectors approach and provided a proposal with two separate and distinct boards. We do not know the status of the advice that that group has given the minister.

Given that these activities indicate a realization by his government that Bill 109, as it now stands, is unconstitutional, and given that the minister is scrambling to rectify the problem, will the minister tell this House how the standing committee on social development can proceed this afternoon, in less than an hour, to do clause-by-clause and approve the bill in the condition in which he has set it up this weekend?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to point out to the honourable member that yes, indeed, we did circulate a package of amendments which was distributed to both opposition caucuses to be shared with their members.

I might also point out that in my statement upon introduction of this legislation and during the course of the second-reading debate, we made it quite clear that copies would be made available for widespread public consultation within the Ottawa region and throughout Ontario.

We also made it clear that, given the time frames, many of the suggestions which came through that process of open community consultation could not be included in the bill that was printed for consideration in this House and that they would be dealt with during the course of the committee’s consideration. That, indeed, has been the case.

With reference to the suggestion that a particular clause in the amendments which are being put forward in any way acknowledges or suggests any concern as to the constitutionality of the bill, I want to assure the member that that is not the case in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Jackson: It is the same amendment we had put in Bill 30. When our party proposed amendments to Bill 30 that would allow the voluntary amalgamation of public and separate boards, his Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said it was unconstitutional, but when the minister is now trying to force an amalgamation-type model into this bill, his Attorney General, we believe, says it is constitutional.

The minister refuses and has steadfastly refused to table any legal opinions on this matter. His Attorney General was specifically invited to provide input at the social development committee. He has refused. We were supposed to meet with him today.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary?

Mr. Jackson: This bill affects hundreds of teachers, thousands and thousands of students, property and millions of dollars of taxes. Will the minister agree to refer this matter to the courts for appeal, to determine whether Bill 109 is constitutional, before he creates chaos with a subsequent court ruling?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think there are two or three questions in the supplementary, but let me begin by indicating to the member that the bill and the proposals which are before the Legislature and the social development committee today do, in fact, provide for the establishment of an umbrella board structure in the Ottawa-Carleton community. That is what the francophone community in Ottawa-Carleton has been asking for for 20 years. His party, of course, chose to deny that over the course of the past 20 years, so it does not surprise me that today the honourable member still makes those arguments.

I will point out to the member that in our attempts to put in place a structure which has an umbrella board operation, we have done so in a manner we believe is totally constitutional, and the advice we received does in fact reinforce that.

With reference to the member’s point, that the clause we introduced by way of amendment is similar to one in Bill 30, I cannot speak as to why that was introduced during the course of the Bill 30 considerations. It is interesting to note, though, that although that was put there, I suppose as a precaution, it was totally unnecessary because --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps this debate can continue in committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the next questioner, I would like to draw the members’ attention to the visitor we have in the upper east gallery, the federal member for Nickel Belt, John Rodriguez. Welcome.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BOARDS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Many farmers in my area have expressed their concern with the proposed Canada/USA trade deal and the possible effect it might have on them. The minister has vocalized concern for the effect of the trade deal on the future of agricultural boards which are there to help and to protect the farmers. More recently the federal government has been bringing in people who have been trying to reassure them that they have nothing to worry about, that the boards that represent agriculture are going to be there and will be inviolate, that the government will be continuing to protect them and that they have nothing to fear.

The farmers in my area are now saying: “We’re confused. Whom do we believe? What is going on?” My question to the minister is, what is the future of the boards with regard to the trade deal proposal?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Let me say, first of all, that there is a tremendous amount of concern in rural Ontario about the free trade agreement, so much so that no matter where you travel in the province you see anti-free-trade signs posted here, there and all over.

We all know that marketing boards were not even supposed to be on the table in the first place, but we discovered later that they were. Then the federal government came along and said, “Fear not, marketing board producers, we will protect you by adding products to the import control list and that will be a suitable safeguard for the removal of tariffs.”

What the federal government has not said is at what levels it is prepared to add products to the import control list. The federal government has told the chicken industry that it has no intentions of adding chicken products to the import control list, so members know what that will do to the producers and the processors.

The Ontario Egg Producers’ Marketing Board is very concerned that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency will be considered a public entity, and that means it will not be able to use producer levies in order to export surplus product.

There is a lot of concern. I could go on and on and talk about the concerns there are on the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Owen: The entire scenario of the trade deal has seen a federal government which has continually said one thing and done something completely different. I would like to ask the question: What is the outlook for maintenance of the supply management industry in these multilateral negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member is quite right when he says that the federal government says something and then does something different. The federal government talked about a compensation package for those producers who are going to suffer losses, so in the removal of the two-price wheat system, where we are going to lose $45 million each and every year under the free trade agreement, the federal government comes along and says, “We’ll compensate you for one year only, to the tune of $45 million.”

They still have not announced a compensation package for the grape growers down in the Niagara region, so we really do not know what the federal government is up to. I will tell members that we are working very closely with the federal government to make sure it protects the marketing boards and the supply management system.

We are trying to get assurance from the federal government that it will do that. We are also working very closely with the different producer groups to make sure that they are taking measures in the event that the supply management systems may not be kept in the same state they are in today. We are working closely with the government, the producer groups and the processors to try to protect this very important system.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: In talking to members of the hospital board at Cambridge Memorial Hospital, they had this to say: “We’re being forced to dump Don” -- Don Robertson, the administrator -- “We’re being forced to sacrifice Don.”

Mr. Speaker: To whom are you asking the question?

Mr. Farnan: I am asking this of the Deputy Premier. I asked the board members, “Is there any just cause why this man should be terminated?” They said: “No, but we are being forced by the ministry. If we do not fire him, they will send in a supervisor. They will fire Robertson. They will fire the board. We are doing this in the hope that we can keep some local autonomy and we can get the $3 million.” It used to be 30 pieces of silver; now it is $3 million.

My question to the Deputy Premier is: Is this the way to run a ministry, with bullying and intimidation, where a man who has administrated a hospital, the most cost-effective hospital --

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

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I object to the terms in which the honourable member has placed his question. When he thinks about it, maybe he would even consider withdrawing some of those terms that are really unacceptable to me as a person and as a member of the government.

The answer to his question is that I am not familiar with the situation that led to the decision taken by the board -- by its resolution, apparently -- to terminate the employment of the administrator. Presumably, such a resolution was passed.

Mr. Farnan: We heard the circumstances. The deputy minister said, prior to the Stoughton report, “I’ll have Robertson’s head on a platter.” I attended a press conference on Friday last in which the Cambridge Academy of Medicine had this to say: “As individuals, we have worked in hundreds of hospitals across Canada. We know that Cambridge Memorial Hospital is, without a doubt, one of the best-managed hospitals in Canada.”

In light of the evidence that has been presented today, knowing that there has been a witchhunt for this man, a personal vendetta, will the Deputy Premier undertake a public inquiry into this termination of the administrator of Cambridge Hospital?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the words used by the honourable member to be untrue. I withdraw that. Let us say unnecessarily inflammatory. I do not believe that what he recounts is factual. It is not my place, but if it were, I would not undertake an investigation into the decision that has been taken by the board to terminate the employment of the administrator.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) is waiting patiently.

Mr. Brandt: How many more administrators have to go?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) allow the member for Markham a new question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Since the minister has become Minister of Housing of this province, the housing problem has become a very serious crisis, with the vacancy rate at an unacceptable low. We are faced with an increasing number of people on the waiting lists for rent review. We are seeing fewer and fewer people being able to afford to buy a home -- in Metropolitan Toronto less than four per cent.

What assurance can the Minister of Housing give this House that she is really doing something to solve these problems?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am delighted to answer the member for Markham’s question. This government has taken a very significant series of steps to address the problems that people in this province face with regard to housing. One very important step is that we are systematically releasing surplus government land for the purpose of building housing that people can afford in the nonprofit sector; also affordable housing of various sorts. We are building communities that people can be proud to live in.

Let me suggest to the member opposite that there are more resources that could be forthcoming in the way of land. There is a significant amount of land in this province that is owned by the federal government, and the lead that we have given in using our land and releasing it all over the province for the purpose of building affordable housing and increasing the supply of housing that people in this province need would be incredibly more significant if the federal government could be persuaded to join us.

I would suggest that the member opposite and his party are very well placed to speak very clearly to the federal government as well. We are speaking with the federal people very clearly. The member opposite and his caucus are very well placed to join us in that attempt. There is only so much land in the world --

Mr. Reville: How much is there?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: -- and they are not making any more of it.

Mr. Cousens: We are glad to help this government with the federal government in anything that we can do to help provide housing. I happen to know that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. is genuinely interested in solving the problem and is trying to work with all of us. The one point that this minister has not answered --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time to just pause and quiet things down a bit.

Mr. Cousens: This minister has failed to comment on the failure. If she is really doing everything she can to help with housing, why is it that her ministry underspent its capital budget in 1987-88 by $34 million, or 27.8 per cent? The minister can talk about the other things, and we knew she was going to do it somewhere in the question. Now she should deal with this one: Why is it that the minister is continuing to hold on to that money from last year, $34 million, when she gets letters like this from the executive board of Strathcona Gardens, which is questioning --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked the question twice.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In the agreement that this government signed with the city of Ottawa is a framework for dealing with issues like Strathcona Gardens. In our budget we have $2 billion committed to building 30,000 additional units of nonprofit housing all over the province.

It seems to me extremely important for the member opposite to remember the concerns that he is trying to address. We are using our resources to make sure that nonprofit housing gets built all over the province; we are using our land; we are striking agreements with municipalities in order to create the framework within which those resources are used.

What I find extremely interesting is that the member should feel such concern in this House at this moment, when he was reported in the press not so long ago saying that all our efforts are premature. I would like the member opposite please to clarify that. Are they premature? It seems to me that what we are doing is pushing our agenda forward and making sure that housing is built in the way that will meet the needs of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe the Minister of Housing may want to correct the record. She has just said there is $2 billion in her budget. It is not correct, and I do not want the minister to be in the kind of trouble she has been in before.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT

Mr. McGuinty: My question is for the Solicitor General.

The tragic death of Benji Hayward of North York, who recently died of a drug overdose, has highlighted the serious drug abuse problem faced by families across Ontario. In the Ottawa-Carleton region, illegal use of drugs is on the rise, especially the use of more dangerous drugs such as cocaine, but enforcement is down. A great deal of illegal drug use goes undetected because police simply lack the necessary resources to fight this serious problem.

Could the minister tell the Legislature how much money is currently allocated to drug enforcement and whether she has any plans to increase that amount?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind the member for Ottawa South that the ministry is involved in policing, one could say, in two different routes: one is directly, through the Ontario Provincial Police, and the other is indirectly, in its responsibilities for municipal policing. In the case of Ottawa and most large cities, we do not do the direct policing for these areas.

Drugs are fought on many levels, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the import of drugs. With the OPP, we spend roughly $2 million per year in our programs on drug prevention. However, I would stress that with the OPP and with the ministry itself, we recognize that particularly for children the real pressure to prevent drugs has to be in education, and in doing this we lean very heavily and our stress is on community policing. There are many policing programs directed at the community to try to impress these dangerous problems on young people and keep them out of the drug scene.

I would point out, just as an example, one program very much promoted by all police forces, called VIP -- values, influences and peers -- in which the police work in conjunction with schoolteachers and other interested adults in a program for grade-school-aged children. They try to stress with these young people that they must stand firm in their resolve to stay out of drugs and out of other crime influences. Much work is done. This is probably the most important thrust in policing today.

Mr. McGuinty: Is the minister prepared to consider providing municipalities with extra funds specifically to deal with street-level drug abuse?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The ministry does not get involved at all in the priorities of spending within municipal police forces. This is the responsibility of the police commissions, of which the member is well aware. In this area also, we give a per person grant to the municipalities. It is with regard to that the police commissions of the local police forces make their priority decisions on which programs to fund and to what level.

No, we would not be getting directly into providing targeted funds in this, as indeed we do not in any. The one exception to that was a very brief two-year assist to municipalities in getting the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program started, but this was done very much as an exception, as far as targeting money for municipal police forces was concerned.

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Deputy Premier. He will be aware that last week my leader and I called for the government to take a stand against union-busting and pull its advertising off CFTO. This Saturday we read in the Toronto Star this quote from Douglas Bassett: “The Premier called me himself to assure me that the government would not be pulling any ads. No one is cancelling, no one is reacting at all. Everything is running smoothly, as usual.”

I wonder whether the Deputy Premier would like to make things run a little less smoothly for this union-buster and pull the government ads.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I did not get a chance to read that report, as a matter of fact, and I think it would be somewhat unwise of me to comment on the matter.

Mr. Reville: I happen to know that the Toronto Star does go to Earl’s Shell Service.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Not Earl’s; we have another publication there.

Mr. Reville: Right. For those who like pictures, obviously. In any event, $204,000 will be spent by the government next month on CFTO ads. One series of ads, Ministry of Agriculture and Food ads, are scheduled to begin on June 27.

Some people at McKim Advertising, which in fact negotiates these ads for the government, indicate that there is an “out” clause -- an o-u-t clause -- that would require a 28-day notice period. Will the Deputy Premier now give that notice period and ensure that the government is not conniving at union busting?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not think it is appropriate for me to say yes in that regard, it is beyond my powers. The honourable member did indicate that there are contracts that have to be fulfilled. He talks about an “out” -- an o-u-t clause -- and I am not familiar with that.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Reville: I would like to correct the record, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of personal explanation then.

Mr. Reville: In my fever I said “June 27.” I should have said July 27. There is plenty of time for the government to withdraw those ads.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Deputy Premier. It is with respect to the series of events that surround the position of Don Robertson at Cambridge Memorial Hospital and the questions that have been raised already with the Deputy Premier in respect to the request by both opposition parties to have some kind of an inquiry held into the events that led up to his losing his position. I would like to remind the Deputy Premier that this was a hospital which very clearly had a good track record, according to any objective consulting analysis that was taken of that hospital with respect to its operations.

Does the Deputy Premier not find it passing strange that this board has now come to a conclusion, subtly and not so subtly, perhaps, influenced by this government, and that it finally resulted in this man’s losing his job as a result of a deficit which was brought about for no other reason than servicing pressures in that particular hospital?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have already responded to a previous question, indicating the way the deficit had been handled in the past by building the increased costs into the base and then adding subsequent amounts of money from the previous year. I think the problem the ministry had with the board and administration of that hospital is that they found it impossible to live within their budget.

The ministry was no doubt aware of the fact that, like many communities, Cambridge was growing very rapidly, but it was not prepared to automatically provide the money on a continuing basis, on the basis of budget overruns for programs that had not been approved by the ministry and therefore were not part of the ministry’s overall plan of providing service and adequate funding.

Mr. Brandt: Preliminary reports would indicate that all of the hospitals in Ontario that are operating at a deficit are well administered and well run. They have some difficulties in meeting your budget targets, certainly, but they are well administered.

It is interesting to note that with respect to Mr. Robertson, the indications are that he was a highly capable individual who was well regarded by both his peers and the senior administrative team that he worked with. In addition, some two or three weeks ago I had occasion to speak to another hospital administrator, whose name I shall not release in this House for fear some retaliation will be brought against this individual as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Don’t deny it. The fact of the matter is right in front of you.

I want to tell the Deputy Premier that this hospital administrator, and I will quote him accurately, indicated to me that if Don Robertson’s job cannot be saved and if he is found at fault for the operation of Cambridge Memorial Hospital, then there is no hope for a lot of other hospital administrators in this province. He had nothing but the highest regard and the deepest respect for Mr. Robertson and had worked with that man for years.

How can the Deputy Premier’s government stonewall this issue and not take a look into the circumstances that surrounded this man’s losing his job?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The resolution was passed by the board of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, and whether or not the honourable member is true in his assertion, that has been echoed by others, that somehow or other the board did not have any responsibility other than that which was dictated to it, I am not aware of that, but I do not believe that to be so.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr. Callahan: I would like to ask the supplementary that I was not able to ask on the last occasion because time ran out. It is directed to the minister responsible for women’s issues. I believe, just by way of background, the minister had replied to my question by indicating that we did in fact own the scripts or the tapes for the sexual assault commercials.

I would like to ask whether or not these announcements or these videos are being shown on TV0ntario and/or cable television?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It was a good initial question, last Thursday I think it was, and it is a good supplementary.

I tell my friend the member for Brampton South that indeed the Ontario women’s directorate of the government of Ontario does have the rights to those commercials. Following upon a suggestion, we have and are currently investigating with TVOntario as to whether or not it would be interested in running those advertisements.

The advertisements are proving to be very effective. Many people across the province have now seen them, and we think TV0ntario might be an appropriate vehicle. Obviously, they are independent and will make the decision as to whether or not they perhaps want to incorporate them into a larger public service initiative on the whole question of sexual assault. My understanding, however, is that according to the guidelines they have for the rebroadcast of this type of material, our material would qualify and so we are going to pursue that.

Mr. Callahan: In light of the fact that these commercials are extremely effective, in light of the amount of money that was spent in producing them and also recognizing the fact that I think all members of the House consider it to be a matter of extreme importance that the message get out to as many people as possible, perhaps the minister might discuss it with his colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and these messages might be made available in some appropriate form for young people in our secondary schools in order that they will approach the entire issue in a different way than adults have in the past.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member is absolutely right. The whole issue of sexual assault is certainly one we have to confront in new ways. In fact, the theme of that campaign is that sexual assault is a crime, and that is very explicit within the materials.

Indeed, I will take up his suggestion. As I understand it, he is suggesting that we initiate discussions with my colleague the Minister of Education and find out whether it would be appropriate to use those materials in the schools. Certainly, we would not have any objection to that.

In another vein, I should point out that following upon the campaign a number of ministries will be getting together to determine where government collectively ought to go on this question.

Mr. Jackson: You won’t listen to the victims, that’s your problem.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hear my friend the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) shouting across the floor about holding committee hearings. His view is that this House should take a travelling road show around the province so that he and a few of his friends can go on tour during the summer. We have not --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Interjections are out of order and they should be disregarded.

CANADIAN SHIELD SPRING WATER CO. LTD.

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to the investment by the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery Technology in Canadian Shield Spring Water Co. of Sault Ste. Marie, an investment of exactly $300,000.

Can the minister explain: (1) why the resource technology centre is investing in a bottling company and what kind of resource technology is involved; and (2) why is it investing in this company at the very time that the Ministry of the Environment is investigating and trying to determine what can be done about the fact that the well being used by this company is apparently depleting the water supply of a number of residents in the area and the company is not willing to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for the question. I really cannot tell him the details of that particular transaction, but I would be very happy to look into it and report back to him.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE DETACHMENT

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition signed by residents of Onaping Falls and surrounding district concerning the potential closure of the Dowling Ontario Provincial Police detachment station. These people are opposed to the closure. While it is not really in its proper form, I knew you would want to have it anyway, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will check it out.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 165 persons from Windsor and area, which reads, in part, as follows:

“Fight back if you are against Sunday shopping.”

I have another petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 1,419 persons from the Pickering Shopping Centre, which reads, in part, as follows:

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

I have a third petition, a rather substantial one in term of numbers. It is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 7,108 persons from southwestern Ontario, and reads, in part, as follows:

“SOS. Save our Sundays.”

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 89 persons from Sacred Heart Parish in Rockwood, Ontario, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We believe that legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should remain the responsibility of the provincial government, and we do not support the extension of Sunday shopping.”

I too have signed the petition.

I also have one more petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 44 persons from Guelph and area, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, are opposed to any legislation which would further commercialize Sunday by extending Sunday shopping. We believe legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should remain the responsibility of the provincial government.”

I too have signed that.

MASSEY WORKERS’ BENEFITS

Mr. Neumann: I have a petition signed by 127 individuals from the Brantford area. It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, are salaried retirees who lost our health and welfare benefits as a result of Massey Combines Corp. being placed in receivership. We are petitioning that the appropriate provincial ministry or ministries vigorously investigate and report to all such salaried retirees the propriety of the loss of such benefits, which we had reason to believe were secured and paid-up benefits.”

I add my name to the petition and present it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 50 residents of the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It reads as follows:

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

“In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened; that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

I have affixed my signature to the petition and support it and hope the government will act on it.

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 14 persons from Rowland Hill Ltd. Footwear in London, Ontario, and it reads, in part, as follows:

“How could we ever have placed Ontario in the hands of such weak leadership?”

I have affixed my signature to that one. I have a further petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 1,039 persons from London and area, which reads, in part, as follows:

“I am strongly against opening on Sundays. Sundays are for relaxation and families, not shopping.”

I have signed that as indicated. My final petition is for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and it is signed by 108 persons from the Ontario Street United Church in Clinton, Ontario. It reads, in part, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, oppose further expansion of Sunday shopping” and further want “to protect Sunday as the traditional day for rest, worship and family activity.”

I have signed it as required.

Mr. Allen: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 52 residents of Hamilton:

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

“Let’s not leave this issue to the municipalities. This is the responsibility of the provincial government. I say no to Sunday openings.”

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

I have another which reads in a similar fashion, but it is signed by the members of Garside Church in Hamilton, who are endorsing the same message. There are 78 signatures on this petition. I have signed this petition also and certainly do support it.

I have as well the following petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We wish to add our voices to the growing concern over Sunday shopping.

“We strongly oppose Sunday openings. We are not concerned about Sunday shopping, We are concerned about having to work on Sundays.

“We believe the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day. The decision to remain closed and to enforce closings must be made at the provincial level.”

It is signed by 17 residents of Hamilton.

Finally, to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I have the following petition:

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

This is signed on two sheets by three separate signatures, and I have affixed my signature to those petitions as well.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Adams from the standing committee on social development presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 155,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Those provisions are designed to increase consumer protection regarding automobile insurance and to strengthen the regulatory system governing insurers in Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 156,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The bill provides that the minimum wage cannot be less than 65 per cent of the previous year’s industrial aggregate average wage for Ontario as published by Statistics Canada.

MORAVIAN TEMPLE CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Reycraft moved first reading of Bill Pr44,

An Act to revive Moravian Temple Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

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

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Sault Ste. Marie had some more comments to make.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to continue the debate on this bill which has given the province the right to establish Sunday as a working day in retail establishments across Ontario.

Last Thursday, when the debate on this bill was adjourned, I had been commenting about the broad-based opposition to this bill that has been expressed by the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping. This organization includes a wide-ranging group of associations, labour unions and church groups right across this province, and I had listed a number of them.

They have made very serious critiques of the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, and I think many of their points should be brought to the attention of the public so that we better understand what is implied by this bill that is being introduced by the current government.

One of the most serious areas of concern is the protection of workers against being forced to work on Sunday and being taken away from their families on what has traditionally been a day of rest. In the area of labour protection, they make some very valid points. This government has not realistically addressed the concerns of workers about having to work on Sundays and holidays.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) introduced the Employment Standards Amendment Act to “create new protections for employees of retail business establishments that open Sundays.” Representatives of employers and union and nonunion employees know that the complaint system used under the Employment Standards Act is unworkable for the Sunday shopping issue.

In Ontario today, there are approximately 250,000 retail workers, full-time and part-time, of whom some 20 per cent are unionized. The 50,000 who belong to unions are mainly employed by large retailers. The other 200,000 work largely in retail outlets that have 1 to 20 employees and do not have the same kind of protections that union membership gives the workers in those larger establishments. Experience tells us that, for nonunion, small retail employees, the complaint mechanism is unlikely to be used, and that, even for unionized employees, the complaint mechanism is very unlikely to be successful.

I would like to illustrate some of the problems with the complaint mechanism. They involve the fact that the refusal to work on Sundays, under this legislation, has to be “reasonable.” Bill 114 defines what a referee may consider reasonable and, therefore, what is reasonable for an employment standards officer, a worker or an employer. Some of these

definitions really provide the loopholes that ensure that it is virtually impossible to avoid having to go into work on Sunday.

The definition says that it is unreasonable for a union member to refuse work on Sunday if there is a collective agreement that addresses Sunday work, even if that collective agreement does not deal specifically with a set of personal circumstances. Therefore, the protections that might be afforded to nonunion members are not given to union members.

They also state that it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if a premium is paid for that work. The Ministry of Labour makes the assumption that family values and personal friendships, fellowship and relaxation have a price; that to refuse time-and-a-half pay to be with a spouse or children demonstrates, in the government’s view, an unreasonable attitude towards the work ethic.

The bill also states that it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if another employee has worked; it is unreasonable to refuse to work Sundays if the employee has also refused on previous Sundays; it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if the employer claims that an employee is irreplaceable, and it is unreasonable to refuse Sunday work if the employer claims it is an emergency.

Surely it is unreasonable that we would require retail employees to work every Sunday. However, under the conditions listed above, there are hardly any grounds upon which employees can refuse to work and successfully defend themselves at an adjudication of their case. Clearly, these kinds of loopholes leave the employees vulnerable and lacking the power to be able to make the determination that they would like to be with their families and not to work on Sundays.

The presentation from the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping goes into a number of matters which, I am sure, are going to be addressed by further speakers from our party on this very important issue.

One of the situations that was most interesting for me was that when I was with the standing committee on government agencies, we had the opportunity back in March to spend a couple of days at the Massachusetts Legislature. One of the issues we asked about was how they addressed the issue of Sunday shopping. In Massachusetts, they have in their legislation ironclad guarantees that Sunday work is to be voluntary.

There is no such principle in this bill and, in fact, the loopholes in the kind of language I have just indicated in terms of what is defined as unreasonable in refusal to work on Sunday allows that there is no principle of voluntarism at all in terms of Sunday work, but that everyone who is a retail worker will be subject to forced Sunday working.

As well, in Massachusetts anyone who works on Sunday is guaranteed and fully paid a 50 per cent premium on the regular wages. That indicates the kind of penalty employers are subject to when they make the decision to operate on Sundays. If an employer in a retail firm decides he wants to operate on Sunday, he should have to pay a major premium to his employees.

Certainly, if the kinds of factors that they have in Massachusetts were included in the legislation here in Ontario, we would probably have a very different reaction to this bill from the employees of that sector of our economy today.

At this time, I would like to conclude by saying I look forward to the hearings that are going to take place on this issue. I would welcome individuals across the province to come out to those hearings as they go to the various communities in Ontario.

I expect to be a part of at least some of those hearings, and I would think that if this government is sensitive at all to the serious concerns of the workers of this province and the concerns of others who have put a high value on the need for a day of rest when, as much as possible, families are allowed to be together, we will see the most significant fight this government has seen on any piece of legislation it has introduced yet in this session.

I will look forward to that debate and I will look forward, hopefully, to this government coming to its senses and withdrawing this piece of legislation.

Mr. Runciman: I want to put a few comments on the record in respect to this legislation. I would like to respond briefly to something that the government whip, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), mentioned last week. In one of the two-minute responses to a speaker, he made reference to the fact that quite a number of Ontarians are currently working on Sundays and that he had difficulty understanding the concerns of the opposition parties and others in this province with respect to the negative impact this legislation could have on the quality of life in the province.

I have to assume, based on his comments, that he is one who has not had to work on many Sundays during his working life. No doubt there are a great many people working on Sundays, but they are not working by choice; they are working on Sundays simply because they are required to, because their occupation, profession, place of employment, what have you, requires them to work on Sundays. If they had their druthers, obviously they would be at home with their families.

As one who did work for a considerable number of years on shift work and had to work Sundays during the better part of the growing years of my children, I can tell you quite clearly that missing those opportunities to be home on weekends with your children during their formative years is certainly something I and my family have suffered for, as have countless thousands of other Ontarians.

To suggest that because some in our society are required to work on Sundays, it is OK for the rest of the people; for this government to, in effect, mandate and in some instances in a very indirect fashion require those in the retail sector especially to work on Sundays because others are doing it, is simply a comment that is nothing less than off the wall from someone who obviously has not had that experience in his own life and cannot appreciate the impact it has on one’s relationship with family and friends.

It was mentioned last week as well, when we were talking about eastern Ontario -- Mr. Speaker, you will be familiar with this -- that the mayor of Cornwall, who attempted to secure the Liberal nomination prior to the last provincial election and was unsuccessful, has taken up the torch, if you will, in that community in leading the fight against Sunday shopping. I found it interesting, because in my own community the Liberal candidate who ran against me, Jim Jordan, a retired director of the separate school system in Leeds-Grenville, has also taken on the challenge of heading up the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping organization in my area and, I understand, is doing a fine job.

It is interesting that we have these individuals who had ambitions to become candidates for the Liberal Party taking very public positions in opposition to this government’s initiative with respect to Sunday shopping. Some of the members who were fortunate and indeed gained seats in this Legislature are not taking similar stands. I guess we have talked about ambition in the past and the fact that they all hold out hopes and aspirations that at some point in the distant future -- perhaps, in some instances, not-too-distant future -- they will gain entry to the executive council.

I want to indicate that they have only three years in which to do that. Based on their current performance to date, they are not going to be returning to office three years from now. They are offending a great deal of the electorate; with their budget, this kind of initiative and others they are taking, they are simply not going to be around to gain office again three years from now. So they should take an independent stand, follow the lead of the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), who, on a regular basis, stands up and expresses views that are reflective of the people of his riding.

He is not simply here to act as a rubber stamp or to endorse what the three or four key players in the front bench tell him to endorse, unlike the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), who, two weeks prior to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) making his announcement -- she has heard this ad nauseam, I am sure, but we are going to continue to remind her -- stood up and said this kind of legislation would not be appropriate, it was “the chicken way out,” to use her phrase. A couple of weeks later, the Premier surprised her. Not just her: I gather the bulk of his cabinet colleagues as well as his caucus.

Shades of days gone by. We were told this new government was going to be a consultative government and certainly would not be making decisions based on the reflections of one individual, who let the party or his coffee club or a clutch of advisers --

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Remember Bette Stephenson and the amendment regarding separate schools.

Mr. Runciman: That is what I am saying; shades of days gone by. We could say déjà vu. We thought this was a whole new broom; we were going to see all sorts of things occurring in a different fashion, but that has not been the case in this instance, where the Premier had the effrontery to come up with a radically different prescription than his own Solicitor General.

She, as a member of the select committee on retail store hours, supported the common pause day concept. She had it thrown in her face by the Premier. Regrettably, she did not stand up to that challenge. I have suggested why she may not have. She is in a rather comfortable pew. She has all of the perks that go along with that position, as well as some influence, indeed, in other areas related to her portfolio. Obviously, her influence is somewhat diminished based on what has transpired in this instance, but we would assume that with the title goes some influence in respect to decisions made within that ministry.

Obviously, the minister has suffered some embarrassment and it has had an impact in her own community. We saw that, of course, in the by-election in London North, where this issue was a major bone of contention and had an impact. We even saw, in the London Free Press on Wednesday, June 8, that the Solicitor General has now gotten herself into a feud with the mayor. She is advising the mayor to go home and look after his baby instead of being concerned about this issue which is going to have a major impact in municipalities across this province.

The Solicitor General had the effrontery herself -- I could use a different word, but I am going to be procedurally correct today -- to say: “Go home and look after your baby. Don’t bother yourself with this sort of thing.” What does the mayor say to that? The mayor of London, the home town of the Solicitor General, said: “The government is being dishonest. I have said publicly all along that the municipal option is dishonest. If pressure comes from the townships, London will have to open to protect its tax base.”

Interjection.

Mr. Runciman: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) is saying that the mayor has not read the bill. It is a slap in the face to the mayor of London to suggest that he has taken this position without even reading the bill. I have more confidence in the mayor and his abilities than to suggest what the minister has suggested. It is on the record: the minister has suggested that the mayor of the city of London had not read the bill before he expressed his concern. We will make sure he is aware of the minister’s views on the subject. We will make sure he receives a copy of Hansard.

Further, the mayor of London says, “Ontario municipalities are unanimously opposed to the local option and are offering to sit down with the province to come up with a workable solution in defining the so-called tourist exemption.”

I wish him luck. We talk about consultation. Of course, the Premier and the Solicitor General have talked about consultation on a number of occasions, but the proof is in the pudding, and CAOSS, the umbrella group for the opponents of this legislation, has been refused an audience with the Premier.

On March 21, CAOSS sent a letter -- and the Solicitor General received a copy of it -- requesting a meeting with the Premier; but the Premier did not even give the courtesy of a reply. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? A significant group which involves a great number of supporters of his own party, some aspirants for candidacy for his party, the Liberal Party of Ontario in the last provincial election, and the Premier will not even give them the courtesy of a reply, let alone a hearing.

The Premier’s only movement to this date has been a computerized form letter, and that is in response to an earlier letter from CAOSS dated February 10. In the form letter, he stated: “No new legislation has been introduced as yet, and we are currently consulting with a number of groups on this important subject. Please be assured your views will receive my careful consideration.”

We are all asking: Whom did they consult and how does total evasion constitute careful consideration? If the Liberals have an open and consultative government, what is a closed one? As CAOSS has noted, the government’s listening skills are severely underdeveloped on the Sunday shopping issue.

We know they have received about 70,000 petitions against Sunday shopping through our office alone. We do not know how many they have received through members of their own party or through the official opposition and through other sources, but we know that they are certainly significant.

Despite that, the government is determined and dogmatic -- it cannot be described in any other fashion -- about its decision to inflict its own prejudices, or at least its leader’s prejudices, and injustices upon the people it has refused to meet with and discuss this issue with.

I want to talk a bit about the lack of consultation, as well, in respect to some of the amendments that the minister and the government have introduced which fly in the face of a number of earlier promises of the Liberal Party and government. I would like, for the record, to review some of those promises.

In opposition the Liberals were against expanded Sunday shopping. During the 1985 election campaign, and up to November 1985, the Premier stated categorically that the Liberal government would not abandon the common pause day. In December 1986 the Liberals said they felt the current laws should be upheld.

In January 1987, although Sunday shopping had already been analysed by the Progressive Conservative task force, the Liberals sent the issue to a standing committee of the Legislature for study. The committee issued its report in May 1987. The Solicitor General sat on that committee. It recommended that Sunday be maintained as a common pause day and rejected the notion of a wide-open Sunday for the harm that would incur on family life and recreational pursuits. That was an all-party committee.

In November 1987, as I mentioned earlier, the Solicitor General made her infamous comment that the municipal option would be the chicken way out.

So what have the Liberals done? They have changed their tactics and reasoning entirely and have decided that their previous promises and commitments were unimportant. They have refused to accept responsibility in resolving the Sunday shopping issue and have, as the Solicitor General suggested, taken the chicken way out.

What compelling factors caused the Premier to change his mind? So far there is no clear explanation. It appears to be a classic case of the Premier’s absolving himself of responsibility for controlling a sticky situation, one which, historically, has fallen under provincial jurisdiction.

We will never know, perhaps, just how the Premier arrived at that decision or who the significant influencing force or forces were in respect to him arriving at that decision. I really do not know. He did not talk to anyone, obviously, or to very few people. He obviously did not confer with his cabinet, his Solicitor General or his caucus in arriving at the decision.

Perhaps we will never know, unlike another decision made by a previous Premier referred to by one of the back-benchers for the government. We thought that times had changed, but obviously we are still dealing with an individual who wants to make decisions in a rather authoritarian manner.

I want to talk briefly about some of the arguments against Sunday shopping, and there are all kinds of them and I could probably go on at length, but I know other members want to have an opportunity at least to put some views on record. I know my friend the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) has been patiently waiting in here day after day to give her differing views. Maybe I should keep on talking, as a matter of fact. No, I will not do that to the member. I will be a few more minutes, though.

I want to put on the record at least a number of the arguments against Sunday shopping. Hopefully, I will not be running over a lot of ground that has been mentioned before.

We have obviously been talking about the quality of life being impaired, something that the government whip takes issue with without having experienced the same kinds of problems himself, I suspect.

With this legislation, many parents will need to work. Particularly difficult situations will arise for single parents who work in the retail sector, more than half of whom are women. They will have lost their only day to be with their children, and some will have to find and pay for additional day care services. Not only is this bad for parents, but an increased incidence of latchkey kids will also further weaken the quality of life for children in Ontario.

CAOSS’s quality-of-life statement emphasizes that the social fabric of healthy communities depends on more than buying and selling commodities. People are more than simply economic entities and their needs are complex. Increased economic activity will wreak more havoc and do more harm than good in this sense.

It is unconscionable for the Ministry of Labour to assume that personal friendships and family values have a price. It is completely unfair and unreasonable for the government to assume that a worker’s refusal of overtime pay to be with a spouse or children represents an unreasonable attitude towards the work ethic.

The proposed legislation denies workable protection for retail employees who want to spend time with their families on Sundays, particularly the most vulnerable, single-parent mothers and fathers, and it obliterates freedom of choice for all retail workers. The complaint mechanism in the bill we will talking about later, Bill 114, the independent referee, will largely be blackballed as nonunion and small retail employees will most likely be intimidated by the mediation processes set out in the bill.

The rights of workers have always remained at the provincial level to ensure that workers across the province can share and have equal access to the same rights. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) appears to agree with this principle in the district court of Ontario, but not in the Legislature.

If the government believes that legislation regarding Sunday work is a municipal responsibility, will it pass off other labour legislation, such as the minimum wage, pay equity and workers’ compensation, to municipalities? We wonder.

One final comment: The 675-member Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as we all know, is vehemently opposed to the local option. It has passed a resolution against the local option on the grounds that it does not make sense not to have a provincial standard on the common pause day, with appropriate exceptions.

In a brief response last week to one of the members of the official opposition, I railed against a number of things, as I am wont to do on occasion. I talked about this being essentially, as we have said in this party and I think the official opposition has said as well, an antifamily piece of legislation. I have stressed that this is a theme that runs throughout a number of pieces of legislation that this government and its predecessor government, in alliance with the NDP, introduced and passed.

I especially mentioned Bill 7, the amendment to the Human Rights Code last year and the sexual orientation provisions in that code. When I mentioned that in a rather speedy fashion, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) took exception to it and made some rather unparliamentary remarks, which I gather were not picked up by Hansard, thank goodness. But he obviously felt quite strongly about it. I want to tell members that I have no apologies to make in respect of those comments and the belief I have.

I suspect all the current sitting members of this caucus, those of us who were fortunate enough to be re-elected, opposed that particular amendment, as members may recall. I am sure a significant number of members of the Liberal ranks also felt so inclined, but for a variety of reasons that I will not go on at length about, decided either to vote with their leader or to stay out of the House on that day.

There was no question in my mind and in the mind of many of my colleagues that the bill represented a significant slap in the face to family values in this province. I felt it was quite appropriate to raise it as part of a continuing theme in terms of initiatives of this government. Obviously, members on the opposite side are going to have some difficulty with that.

Another one that I raised -- and it has not been raised in this House, but it has been raised in a column; I have seen it in one column by Eric Dowd, who does a column out of Queen’s Park -- was the comments of the Premier to students in northern Ontario. He has been applauded by the Toronto Star for those comments as being mature and being the first Premier who is not concerned about saying that magic word “sex.”

Mr. Ballinger: All across the province.

Mr. Runciman: I do not know about all across the province. One of the members suggests that the Premier is being applauded all across the province. I want him to know that the feedback I received was very much negative. I know times they are a-changing, but I am not sure they have changed to that degree and I am not sure I would want to see them changed to that degree.

If the Premier himself had indicated, “Look, I was caught off guard and my response was one I would like to expand upon in respect to the conduct of children” -- I think they were grade 7 students sitting in that group, according to press reports. In any event, I think it continues along the theme in terms of the views of the key players in that government, especially the four or five people on the front benches, the people I like to describe as social engineers who want to have a significant impact over the next few years on the way we in this province feel about ourselves and the way we feel about family.

In conclusion, I want to repeat something I said during the Bill 7 debate and something that reflects, in terms of the initiative of Bill 7, the initiative on the comments of the Premier and a number of other things that have happened or are occurring as a result of initiatives by this government.

Comment is appropriate in respect to the legislation on Sunday shopping, and that is that supporters, when we take a look at the bigger social picture, have as their goal to reshape what we in this province are into something we are not. They repudiate virtually all of the values out of which this country has emerged. They debunk our religion and undermine our families. I am proud to be a part of a party that is opposing this legislation.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I just want to clarify this municipal option matter because I think it is important to understand it. Indeed, I do accept that I did not understand the legal implications of trying to define tourism. I have said this before, as the member has made his accusation before, but I would want to explain again that the select committee and I myself, as a member of it and later as a member of this House, did not understand the legal difficulties of defining “tourism” in a way that be meaningful in the courts. That was a problem.

Having faced that problem, which I did, it became apparent that since we could not control Sunday shopping in one way, either we had to go the Alberta route of simply saying, “We will just leave it all open and you do with it what you can in the municipalities,” or we had to do as we did and give the municipalities a very good provincial framework which they can use and a way in which they can enforce it well. This was the option.

I think we worked hard on making the bill do that. We did consult very widely in doing so. We consulted with many different groups and certainly with our own caucus. They are quite satisfied that we did consult with them. That is why, by and large, I find them very supportive of the bill.

We did what was possible to make a law that was enforceable, flexible enough to allow for tourism where it was needed; and controlled enough that municipalities can have control, if they want, as they ask in so many other areas.

Furthermore, just very briefly, we did not hand down the worker protection to municipalities, as the member suggested. That is a provincial bill, as is other worker protection, and we left it with the province.

Mr. McCague: I know that anything I have to say is supposed to be directed squarely at the remarks made by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman). I might just sidestep that a little bit, but maybe the member, in winding up, would ask a couple of questions of the Solicitor General.

Mr. Mahoney: Nice suit.

Mr. McCague: I thank the member very much.

The Solicitor General in her remarks just a few moments ago would have us think that the reason for the bill she has before us was that she was having great problems with the tourist exemption. Maybe the member could check that out. I do not believe that for a moment. It is one of the things that I think she is using -- and that is her right -- to help sell an ill-conceived proposal.

I am not sure what happened to the minister. There was a time when the caucus of the Liberal Party here in this Legislature was completely split on whether or not this was good legislation, but we have had only one member so far get up and speak in any kind of terms that would indicate he might be wavering on whether or not he should vote for the bill or absent himself from this House. I cannot quite understand what happened, unless the chief government whip was really out there whipping them, but they sure have fallen into line. If the kind of job he is doing is judged on whether or not he can whip them into line, he deserves five stars.

Ms. Poole: I too will address my comments to what the member for Leeds-Grenville has said. He has once again brought up the family and he has implied that this government is not committed to quality of life for the family. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like specifically to refer to his comments about the Premier. The member for Leeds-Grenville brought up the Premier’s comments when he was speaking to students in northern Ontario. As the mother of a 13-year-old son, these comments struck very close to home, because I have very strong moral values which I impart to my children, but I also am very forthright with them. When they ask questions, I respect their intelligence enough that I give them honest answers. I think people across this province did applaud our Premier when he stood up and gave forthright answers.

Quite frankly, I say to any parent in this room or any parent in this province, if they are going to stand up to children and teenagers and say, “No, you should not have sex under any circumstances,” while it might be something you feel in your heart would be desirable, it is not going to happen, and they are going to lose all their credibility in pursuing that avenue. I think the Premier was forthright. He specifically was addressing the topic of AIDS, and I do not think he was in any way derogating from family life by the comments he made.

I do support this Sunday shopping legislation. I do not feel it is going to depart from family life and I feel the Premier’s comments were in keeping with our government’s commitment to the family in this province.

Mr. Ballinger: I would like to pass on some comment to the member for Leeds-Grenville, as it relates to the proposed bill. As one of the new members of the back bench -- the opposition always feels we sit over here like a bunch of trained seals and do not have opinions or minds of our own -- I would like to make this point to the honourable member, that this piece of legislation, in my opinion, has been a long time coming.

My background is municipal. It is really interesting for me in my riding to speak with some of the municipal councillors and the mayors who say they like it; however, they are certainly not going to say that publicly. In fact, they think it has been a long time coming as well.

If we have made any one mistake, I guess, it happens to be an election year from a municipal point of view --

Mr. McCague: That doesn’t mean it is right.

Mr. Ballinger: I just happen to think that it is right and that is why I am standing here and why I am speaking to the specific speech made by the member from Leeds-Grenville.

One thing that has concerned me most of all is the attitude of the opposition, which has utilized the fear technique of trying to convince everyone that there is a bogyman out there they should all be afraid of. Quite honestly, that bogyman is just not in this act at all.

They have utilised all kinds of examples. The opposition is always talking about the domino effect. I understand and respect the role of opposition; they are supposed to be opposed. However, this specific piece of legislation is very objective, I think. It address the needs of Ontario, and I am more than quite pleased to stand up here publicly and support Bill 113.

Mr. Runciman: I will make a few brief comments. The member for Eglinton indicated that the Premier’s comments in respect to the high school speech he made were forthright. I do not doubt at all they were forthright and I do not question her moral values at all, but I think the Premier’s comments were ill-thought-out and if he had an opportunity to do it again, he himself would expand upon his views. I like to think he would, in any event.

The member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) talks about the opposition parties using fear techniques. I want to say I do not believe we are, but if any party is an expert in respect to fear techniques, it is the Liberal Party of Ontario. We just have to reflect back upon the election of 1987, when the Premier ran across the province trying to scare the bejabers out of every citizen of this province in respect to free trade -- trying to scare the farmers, trying to scare the industrial workers, trying to scare everyone. Those guys are experts at fear tactics; there is no question about it.

The Solicitor General said she made this decision because of the definition problems in respect to tourism. I find that I have a lot of difficulty with that. She made a decision, in effect, to swallow her pride on this whole matter. She is saying it was a problem with the tourism definition, but she was surprised by the Premier. She was totally surprised by the Premier, as was the caucus.

Mr. Ballinger: That is an assumption.

Mr. Runciman: That is not an assumption. She said two weeks beforehand, “This is a chicken way out,” and now she is trying to tell us that it was a problem with the definition of tourism. That is just too much for this group to buy.

Mr. Chiarelli: I am happy to enter this debate on Bill 113, the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act, the so-called wide-open Sunday shopping bill.

This bill has absolutely nothing to do with wide-open Sunday shopping. What it will do is bring order where none exists, make enforceable a law that is now unenforceable and restore the rule of law where the law is now being flagrantly abused.

Over the past two years there has been much thoughtful debate on this issue in committee, in the House and across the province, but I think some of the less thoughtful debate is now in the full bloom of exposure. I believe even some of the opposition recognize that their polemic of saying this bill promotes wide-open Sunday shopping is a distortion which has enabled opposition members to come out shooting from the lip and to move straightforwardly into dodging the real issues.

I want to say from the outset that I am personally opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping, and I am particularly opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping in the Ottawa-Carleton region. I am fully confident that the Ottawa-Carleton area, for one, will not see wide-open Sunday shopping under Bill 113.

There exists in our region the Eastern Ontario Coalition Against Wide-Open Sunday Shopping, which has been co-chaired by Ottawa alderman Mac Harb and Ottawa businesswoman Sue LeBrun.

I have had regular and ongoing dialogue with this committee of outstanding representatives from my community and I am pleased to say that these fellow citizens embarked upon their task in as nonpolitical, nonpartisan and professional a manner as one could expect under the circumstances. They were truly looking for solutions to this difficult problem.

The coalition arranged a meeting with myself and other area MPPs to discuss the issue of retail business holidays and store hours. I believe the coalition members left the meeting with a truer understanding of the very real difficulties under the old legislation.

An Ottawa area example illustrates one major loophole of the old law, and I would like to go through it. As some honourable members may know, Ottawa has a traditional and historic market area just northeast of Confederation Square. For a number of years, this area has been designated a tourist area and has been successfully open for business on Sundays, with wide public approval.

However, on the west side of Confederation Square, Ottawa is blessed with the mile-long Sparks Street pedestrian mall. Under the old legislation, the municipality could very legitimately decide to declare it a tourism area, which it surely is most of the year, particularly in view of the fact that it is a block from Parliament Hill.

Still again, those members of this House familiar with Ottawa will know that Bank Street bisects the Sparks Street mall and terminates at Parliament Hill. The Bank Street merchants’ association has in recent years completed an outstanding project of revitalizing the street for an extended number of blocks. Bank Street is host to a tremendous number of tourists to the national capital area every year.

Under the old legislation, the municipality could very well designate not only the present market area as open for Sunday shopping but also the Sparks Street mall, Bank Street and, I might add, the downtown Rideau Centre complex as well. Under the old law, virtually all of downtown Ottawa could legally be declared open for shopping on Sundays.

The bottom line of advice of the eastern Ontario coalition members was that any proposed legislation should be applied on a regional basis, where regional governments exist. I was happy to make representations to the Solicitor General in this regard, as many of my colleagues did. The minister has taken this advice, so in our case the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton will have the delegated authority to deal with retail holidays. I am happy to say there is an overwhelming consensus in the Ottawa-Carleton area to prohibit wide-open Sunday shopping, and this can be done effectively through our regional government.

Particularly for the previous speaker, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), who referred to the mayor of Cornwall, who is active with the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, I refer to our mayor in Ottawa. Jim Durrell has stated, “It is better that municipalities be able to decide on their own rather than have a decision imposed on them by the province.”

If the mayor of Ottawa is not sufficient for the honourable member, I would like to quote from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. The member for Leeds-Grenville is a great one at quoting editorials and comments. I quote, “The decision to give regional governments the option of setting their own Sunday shopping rules is a reasonable solution to a controversial and complicated problem.”

The regional chairman for the Ottawa-Carleton area, Andy Haydon, is on record as saying that delegation of this matter to regional municipalities is a reasonable way to deal with the issue and that he expects Ottawa-Carleton to maintain a shopping ban in all 11 area municipalities, and that is under the proposed new legislation.

Outside of Ottawa-Carleton, Mayor John Gerretsen of Kingston said he would welcome the opportunity for local municipalities to set their own rules to ban or not ban Sunday shopping. If I may quote, “I feel that some things that are good for Kingston may not be good for Toronto and vice versa.”

Ottawa-Carleton is the second largest and, other than Metro, the fastest-growing municipality in the province. I believe the leaders of my community understand the fine points of Bill 113 and, although they remain staunchly opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping, they also feel comfortable controlling their own holiday shopping under this legislation.

While Ottawa-Carleton is opposed to extending Sunday shopping, I believe we should respect other communities, as the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has indicated, such as Bayfield and Port Stanley, towns along the edge of our Great Lakes, which have developed streets of small boutiques which open on Sunday, quite legally, because their local governments, under presently delegated law, chose to allow this.

In eastern Ontario, Gananoque has declared itself a tourist area. Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay have all developed local bylaw solutions to Sunday openings. I think it is about time the opposition parties started to show some respect for municipal councillors. While many councillors, for their own varied, legitimate reasons, may prefer not to have the local option, many members of the public are getting just a little tired of opposition innuendoes that local councils cannot be trusted with the responsibility; that somehow they will be corrupted by big business or that they will not act in the best interests of their electors.

I take particular exception to statements made a couple of days ago by a member of the third party who indicated that Bill 113 and Bill 114 were too complex for rural councillors to deal with. Since rural councillors deal with the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the Assessment Act, three of the most complex statutes one might deal with, I find that member’s comments particularly irrelevant and patronizing.

I believe that the local councillors who approved Sunday shopping in Ottawa’s Byward Market, in Bayfield, in Port Stanley, in Gananoque, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay have as much respect for a day of pause and for religious observance as any members opposite.

I also believe that councillors across the province appreciate the fact that this government has had the strength of purpose to put teeth into the law, so that, whatever the preferences of the community may be, at least they will be enforceable. In particular, where a community chooses to keep a common pause day, this legislation, among other things, increases possible fines and permits injunctive powers for the courts to order stores to close, a significant improvement over the old legislation.

The problem with this debate is that the opposition parties invested all their political capital in opposing a bill before they even saw it. They are now left to fill the air with speeches and to fill their speeches with air. They are giving us in length what they lack in depth. As the Ottawa Citizen stated in an editorial on April 23, 1988, “The only thing that vaguely resembles an NDP or Tory policy on Sunday shopping is the notion that there should be public hearings on the issue.”

We all appreciate responsible debate on this issue. To quote from a letter I received from Ottawa alderman Mac Harb, co-chairman of the Eastern Ontario Coalition Against Wide-Open Sunday Shopping: “I would like to commend you and the government of which you are a part for the recent decision to proceed with the public hearings into this matter. The government’s willingness to listen to the concerns and opinions of the people of Ontario on this issue should be noted and will not, I am sure, be forgotten. I am confident that the public hearing process will result in a solution satisfactory to the people and the government of Ontario.

We expect that sooner or later these bills will be sent to the standing committee on administration of justice for public input and detailed review. As a member of that committee, I look forward to constructive suggestions and debate by all parties and members of the public, to the end that the bills will indeed be fair and enforceable and will appropriately address the economic and cultural needs of all the people of Ontario.

Mr. Mackenzie: I trust that the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) has his health insurance paid up to date. I can warn him that even a good dancer, when he tries to straddle a fence the way he has done, can sometimes slip, and he could end up with one heck of a hernia in a situation like that. I am always suspicious of somebody who says, “The opposition is all wrong” and “I oppose wide-open Sunday shopping but I am supporting this bill.”

I would like to know from him whether Ottawa -- and it may be; this one is a legitimate question -- was one of the three municipalities of the Association of M