Hansard Transcript 1988-Apr-14 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that organ transplants constitute a cost-efficient medical practice that has saved lives and improved the quality of life for thousands of Ontario residents, and recognizing further that hundreds of

Ontario residents wait desperately for organs that could give them a second chance at life, physicians should therefore be reminded, through their routine procedures, to consider whether a person who dies in a public hospital is a suitable organ donor and whether it is appropriate to approach the family of the deceased for consent to the transplant of any of the organs of the deceased, therefore the government should amend the regulations under the Public Hospitals Act to require every public hospital to include questions similar to the following in any form required by the hospital to be completed by a physician to record the death of a patient in the hospital:

1. Has the patient been considered as an organ donor?

2. Are the wishes of the patient regarding donation of his or her organs known?

3. Are the wishes of the patient’s family regarding the donation of the patient’s organs known?

4(a) Has consent for organ or tissue donation been obtained?

(b) If so, what organs or tissue have been donated?

Mr. Kanter: I would like to explain this item. It is a resolution asking the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to amend the regulations to the Public Hospitals Act to implement a procedure which will increase the number of organs donated for transplants in Ontario. Every time a patient is declared dead in an Ontario hospital, the attending physician would record whether that person was a suitable donor. This procedure is known as recorded consideration. It will help remind doctors to think about organ donation and to approach the families of the deceased, where appropriate, to ask for consent to donate the organs of the deceased.

Many people believe that organ transplants are a novel, experimental, perhaps high-risk procedure. It was only 30 years ago that the first experimental kidney transplant was performed. Many members of the House will recall in South Africa quite a while ago when Dr. Christiaan Barnard transplanted a heart. I can recall, as many members will, that people watched day by day, hour by hour. The operations were experimental, and unfortunately the first recipients of organ transplants did not live for a very long period of time.

We continue to be fascinated by news stories. For example, this week there was a heart transplant done to a 23-month-old baby in London, Ontario, at University Hospital. In fact, I consulted, among others, Dr. Calvin Stiller, who is the director of that multiple-organ transplant unit, in preparing my resolution today. The transplant in London was newsworthy because it was an innovation, but we do not hear as much about other transplants. There were 184 heart transplants performed in Ontario last year, 155 liver transplants, 20 lung transplants, 13 heart and lung, and more than 1,700 kidney transplants performed in Ontario in the past six years.

The reality is that many types of organ transplants have become a relatively routine medical operation, in fact the best treatment for final-stage organ failure. With better surgical procedures and more appropriate matching of donors and recipients and the development of antirejection drugs, such as cyclosporine, organ transplants are very successful. The five-year survival rate for heart transplants exceeds 85 per cent. For kidney transplants it is over 90 per cent. These success rates are better than the results for many other types of surgery done on those same organs.

Organ transplants are cost-effective. In 1985, the Ontario Task Force on Kidney Donations estimated that the cost of treating kidney failure by dialysis each year is about $40,000. A kidney transplant costs about $20,000 with about $5,000 worth of follow-up care.

We have, with Ontario’s multiple-organ retrieval and exchange program, a very good transplant system in Ontario. The Minister of Health recently provided $3 million for a central computer system which co-ordinates information on organs that are needed or available at Ontario’s nine transplant hospitals located in Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, London and Hamilton.

I recently had the very rare privilege of visiting the University Hospital, London, multiple-organ transplant centre. It is a very impressive facility, but the real stars are the patients. I was amazed to see people who had received a heart transplant 10 days before I spoke to them who were in very good health, who were active, who were on treadmills. It was absolutely amazing to me to see the tremendous recovery that these people had made in a very short time. It was a dramatic improvement, a dramatic return to their quality of life. I think that is the real miracle of organ transplants.

I would have to say that my visit to London also had its depressing moments. It is really depressing seeing people who have very little alternative other than to wait, day by day, in very weakened condition, for a donor to become available. I am sure all members of this Legislature agree that these people waiting for organs deserve the same second chance at life as those who have been fortunate enough to receive organ transplants.

I have tried to look at what we can do to help those who are waiting for organs. I think there are basically two things we can do. The first is to increase public awareness of the success of organ transplants and to develop an appreciation among the public for the need for organ donation. There has been quite a lot of work done in this area by the Ministry of Health, the coroner’s office, the Ontario Medical Association and a nonprofit organization, Transplant International, and its president, Bill Brady.

Many of the members in the House attended an information session breakfast sponsored by Transplant International for members of the Legislature in December. It was that session that really got me interested in this issue.

Part of this public education must focus on reassuring the public about the stringent safe-guards to protect a would-be donor. Under the Human Tissue Gift Act, post mortem organ donations will occur only after a diagnosis of brain death by two physicians who are not associated with any transplant team. This fact must be made better known to answer the fear people have that doctors will not do everything possible to save a patient before asking his family to donate the deceased’s organs.

There are publications, such as Organ Donation: The Greatest Gift of All, produced jointly by the Ministry of Health and Ministry of the Solicitor General, that discuss these matters and concerns in an honest and straightforward manner. Most important, this brochure contains an organ donor card similar to the one found on the back of one’s driver’s licence to encourage everyone to sign the organ donor card and to make his or her wishes known to the family.

1010

Fortunately, there appears to be considerable public support for the idea of organ donation. A 1984 survey revealed that 66 per cent of people would agree that their organs should be donated after their death. It is also interesting that another statistic in that same survey shows that 88 per cent of the same sample would agree to donate the organs of a family member under appropriate circumstances. This does say something, perhaps, about family relationships or relatives or the old adage, “You can pick your friends but not your relatives,” something like that.

However, it does appear that those families who have actually consented to the donation of the organs of a family member are happy to do so. I have heard some of them remark that they are relieved that some good has come out of the circumstances of the death, in some cases a sudden death like a car accident, the tragic death of a loved one.

The second problem in the area of organ transplants, the one I really want to focus on in the rest of my time this morning, is the fact that there are too few organs available for transplant in Ontario and in Canada. Health and Welfare Canada estimates that as of December 1987, 51 people were waiting for new hearts, 12 adults and 11 children required livers and over 1,000 adults and many children in Canada were waiting for new kidneys. These statistics are based on the most-active-transplant list, those individuals who most urgently need transplants to survive. Others could benefit from the procedure or may be able to do so in the near future.

Many potential donors do not become actual donors. Of the 34,000 deaths in public hospitals in Ontario in 1981, about 1,200 were judged to be suitable to be potential donors. Less than 10 per cent of these potential donors, or about 110, became actual donors. The situation has not improved in recent years. In fact, organ donations dropped last year in Ontario. The task force on kidney donations, an Ontario government task force, concluded that was the result of the reluctance of the medical community to approach families of the deceased in appropriate cases to ask for permission to donate the organs of the deceased.

It is quite understandable to me that many doctors are reluctant to undertake the sensitive task of asking grieving families for organ donations. The improvements in technology which have made transplants so successful technically have caught many people, including most doctors, by surprise. The technology has overtaken the essential social problem of encouraging physicians to ask.

To its credit, the medical profession is beginning to respond to the problem. The Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association, has conducted seminars in over 80 hospitals in this province. Topics such as the need for donation, determination of brain death and approaching the families of potential donors are now incorporated into teaching programs in hospitals and medical schools.

The Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation will seek, effective January 1, 1989, to require all hospitals seeking accreditation to have organ donation policies. It is hoped that each hospital will develop organ donation and transplant policies that meet the needs of that hospital and its staff.

In some cases in a hospital it might be a chaplin or a nurse rather than a doctor who discusses organ donation with the family of a potential donor, but no donations will occur unless the attending physician makes the critical decision that a patient who has just died is medically suitable as a potential organ donor.

That is where my proposal for recorded consideration comes in. The same attending physician will have to complete certain routine hospital records immediately upon the death of the individual. I am proposing that the records include a few short questions for the physician to complete. Those are the questions that are found in my resolution, which I read at the beginning of this morning’s session. Asking physicians to complete these questions on the routine records which they already complete each time there is a death in a hospital will reinforce the notion that asking for organ donations where appropriate should be routine medical practice, not the exception in the case of a doctor who is particularly interested in organ transplants.

Hospital organ donation committees should be established and they will benefit from this information recorded by physicians. For the first time, we will be able to assess the effectiveness of various organ donation programs.

Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to know that some hospitals such as University Hospital in London and the Toronto Hospital have already initiated such a procedure. It has been quite effective, but my view is that this problem is province-wide, it is significant, and therefore, if my resolution were adopted, this procedure would be put into effect by regulation throughout the province.

I think this is an idea whose time has come. I think it ought to be hospital policy across the province. The multi-organ retrieval and exchange program has endorsed this proposal. The Ontario Medical Association is studying the proposal as part of its ongoing consultation with the Ministry of Health. The idea is consistent with other initiatives now under way to increase organ donations and I believe it has considerable support because it respects the professionalism and independence of the medical profession and it is based on a voluntary approach.

I am not aware of any other jurisdiction which has adopted this precise approach. Some countries, such as France or Belgium, have adopted an approach known as presumed consent, where it is presumed that the medical profession can take one’s organs unless one specifically asks otherwise. I think this approach would be going too far for people in Ontario.

Recorded consideration: I believe this idea has a better chance of working because it is based on co-operation with the medical profession rather than coercion. There appears to be a great deal of goodwill to make this approach work. It is not a panacea to the problem of too few organs, but in conjunction with other initiatives that the Minister of Health and the medical profession are taking -- public awareness campaigns, medical education programs, the creation of hospital organ donation committees, improvements in the multi-organ retrieval and exchange program -- I believe it will really make a difference.

What kind of difference will it make? To the person waiting for a new heart or kidney, it will make all the difference in the world. I remember very vividly on my visit to University Hospital in London visiting with a woman -- she was a middle-aged woman, she had four children, I believe she was from Seaforth, Ontario, whose condition had deteriorated very substantially. She had very little energy. Basically, she could get up from her bed to a chair, and the only other energy she had, really, was to return from the chair to the bed at the end of the day. That was the only strength she had left in the world. A heart transplant would return her to good health, would return her to her four children. I remember that as a I left the room the woman said to me, “I hope you can do something.” She did not know what. She just hoped that I could do something.

l hope that in this modest way this small proposal will do something. I hope it will do something for that woman, for others like her or for some of us who in the future for some reason may be in this situation. I think it is an important problem. I think it is an area where we have to translate our goodwill into action, and I would urge my fellow members on all sides of the House to give this proposal their support.

I found in the preparation for this debate that a number of members on at least our side of the House want to speak to this motion. I would like to yield the rest of my time, and I would also ask that if members on the other side of the House could perhaps be a little briefer in their remarks, we might be able to hear from at least two other members of our caucus who are quite eager to speak to this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Since we are on the topic of transplants, with all due respect for our old traditional clock, the old clock might be a subject for a transplant in the near future, hence, members will be invited to rely on the electronic clock rather than the traditional clock.

Mr. Reville: I want to congratulate the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) for putting forward this resolution. Some members will know that the member and I had the pleasure of sharing seats on Toronto council over a number of years and, as I have done, he will soon be getting used to the more restricted opportunities to hold forth in this chamber than there were in that chamber.

I am glad he has chosen this particular topic to speak on today, because we all recognize the importance of the donation of organs and we all, I am sure, are committed to ensuring that the barriers to the donation of organs are broken down. All of us are walking inventories of usable organs and, should something unfortunate happen to us, in fact, we can create a condition where another might live. I know we would all want to do that.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick has referred in his remarks to a valuable study done under the auspices of the previous government. I would invite anyone who is interested to read the study. It is called Organ Donation in the Eighties. The task force in question was in particular respect to kidney donations, but the material herein is applicable to donations of any kind of organs and, in fact, is a very useful survey of the subject at that time. I think there has been some advance since this report was written. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick wants us to advance further and I think he is absolutely right.

1020

Incidentally, one of my old colleagues, Dr. Sue Corlett, was one of the consultants on this report and I remember having a number of very passionate discussions with her about the question of organ donation in the early 1980s.

One of the things that would be very useful for us all to do in support of the resolution of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick would be to take our driver’s licences out of our pockets right now and ensure that everybody has filled in the back, which is section 3, “Consent Under the Human Tissue Gift Act.” Mine is filled in.

I think the other important thing to do is to take the opportunity, maybe this evening, to go home and sit down and discuss this with our families. It is the sort of thing that in a crisis is sometimes difficult to bring up, but it is also the kind of thing that when you are planning your life and perhaps your death, it is a very important thing to have discussions about beforehand with your family and your family physician so that should you be unfortunate enough to succumb, all of those who are near and dear to you know what your wishes are, to ensure that some of the barriers that have traditionally existed to the timely retrieval of usable organs are broken down.

I want to share with the House a story today, and this is a story that was told by Bill Brady, whom people will know partly from his radio show Brady in the Morning and partly from his work in Transplant International. It is a recent story about a man otherwise in good health, 31 years of age, who suddenly collapsed at work in London and was rushed to hospital. The medical team promptly diagnosed the difficulty as being an aneurysm of the brain.

The man’s wife was summoned to the hospital. This was a situation in which the husband and wife had had long discussions about what would happen in this kind of eventuality, an eventuality they of course hoped would never happen. But in this case when it did happen, the wife hurried to the hospital, because she knew that her husband wanted whatever usable organs that could be determined to be retrieved to be donated. Regrettably, the physicians at the hospital decided that the patient was in fact brain-dead. By the time the wife got there, they had disconnected the life support systems.

The wife was extremely angry. She told the doctors that her husband had signed an organ donor card and his driver’s licence to make absolutely sure that another person could benefit from organs he no longer needed. No one bothered to consult the next of kin in time. This is a fairly common happening, I regret to tell the members, and it seems unfortunate that we cannot adequately break down hospital barriers to the timely retrieval and donation of organs.

I do not think it is necessary to speak at length on this matter. I want to applaud the member for bringing forward this resolution and indicate my very strong support therefor.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure also to rise this morning and speak in support of this resolution. I congratulate the member on putting forward the resolution. I thought we might talk a little bit about transplant history this morning.

The first organ transplant was performed, as I am sure all members are aware, over 20 years ago in South Africa by Dr. Christiaan Barnard, who transplanted the heart of a 25-year-old woman into a 55-year-old man, who unfortunately died 18 days later of pneumonia.

However, for the 10 years immediately after Dr. Barnard’s historic transplant, most transplant patients died. The drugs used to suppress the immune system to keep the patient from rejecting a new organ were leaving the patient defenceless against infections such as pneumonia. With the advent of the drug cyclosporine in the late 1970s and early 1980s, doctors were able to selectively suppress the immune system, warding off infection yet preventing rejection of the organ. With cyclosporine, transplants became a viable medical option. At present, some 80 per cent to 90 per cent of patients are alive one year after their transplant and most have a good chance of living for at least five years.

However, with transplant patients surviving, a new problem arose of where to get healthy organs for all the dying patients who could be given new life with such a transplant. The demand for transplants will continue to increase as organ transplant technology becomes more advanced and more transplants, obviously, are performed. Today, approximately 5,500 heart transplants alone have been performed, 3,300 in the United States and most of them since 1985. After the United States, Canada, France and Britain are the most active transplant countries.

However, organ donors dropped by some 26 per cent last year. A 1984 provincial task force found that while only 38 per cent of Ontarians sign their driver’s licence, 63 per cent said they would donate their organs and 88 per cent said they would donate the organs of a relative. The organ shortage will continue to grow more acute as people start to realize how successful transplants are. Currently, there are hundreds of people who could be saved. For example, Wilbert Keon of the Heart Institute, Ottawa Civic Hospital, has said that some 400,000 people in Canada have failing hearts and could possibly need transplants.

The problem has been identified by many experts and is not so much a problem of not enough donors as of not enough seekers. Understandably, doctors and nurses have been hesitant to approach a grieving family to ask them to donate organs of a loved one. However, it is reported by many in the transplant field that many families are very receptive to organ donation. For many it is a consolation to be able to help someone live and at least give some meaning to a loved one’s death.

In 1984, a provincial study found that doctors who make the effort to approach relatives of suitable patients are very likely to be well received. The survey found that only 10 per cent of the families refused such requests for the removal of organs.

There are 2,800 Canadians suffering from liver disease, but only 140 liver transplants are performed yearly. As well, there is a continuing demand for kidney transplants, as well as eye corneas to give sight to the blind.

In one recent case, which I am sure all members are aware of, an Orillia family went ahead with the birth of their daughter Gabriel, even though they knew she had a condition called anencephalia, which meant that she would be born with only a brain stem and no upper brain. Fred and Karen Shouten knew that their baby would die shortly after birth. The Shoutens brought their baby to term so that they could donate her organs so that at least one other child would have a chance to live. Happily, a dying infant of a British Columbia couple received Gabriel’s heart and all indications are that he will lead a healthy and normal life. The Shoutens are indeed to be commended for their caring and unselfish act. A side footnote, of course, to this was the recent death of Fred Shouten at age 36 of a heart attack.

Transplant cases such as this have raised a number of ethical questions. For instance, our current definition of death is that as long as a human is breathing on his or her own, he or she is considered to be alive. Anencephalic babies usually die slowly and their organs deteriorate so that when they are finally considered brain-dead it is too late to use them for transplants.

One argument is that such babies should be declared dead while they are still breathing on their own because their condition is incompatible with life. However, this would mean redefining the definition of death and has sparked much debate, not only in the medical community but indeed in the public at large. Another question about transplant ethics arises as to whether or not transplant donations should be voluntary or mandatory. In some countries such as France, doctors remove organs after death on their own accord without permission. In Canada, organ donations are only allowable if the deceased has signed a donor card, such as those on the back of driver’s licences, or if relatives have given permission.

In my mind, organ donation should continue to remain completely voluntary, with absolutely no profit motivation. Organ donation should be looked upon as a gift of life. But first we must solve the question of what constitutes death and maintain a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society.

As I mentioned earlier, many doctors are hesitant to approach a grieving family and broach the question of organ donation. I believe doctors and the medical profession should be encouraged to take a more active role in considering a patient for organ donation. However, in the final analysis it must be left to the doctor’s discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate or desirable to approach a particular family. The religious and personal desires and wishes of the family must be taken into account.

In encouraging doctors to participate in organ transplant decisions, we must also continue to encourage the public to look at organ donation as a positive and life-saving act. Signing donor cards and licences and making your wishes known to your family and loved ones are just two ways of promoting this concept.

I congratulate the member on his resolution here this morning. I know there are other members who wish to speak so I will not take up any more allotted time and will be pleased to support the member’s resolution.

M. Poirier: J’ai l’honneur d’appuyer mon collègue le député de St. Andrew-St. Patrick (M. Kanter) dans la présentation de cette résolution, pour plusieurs raisons, dont une en particulier. On se rappellera que, lors du dernier Parlement, j’avais été le parrain du projet de loi 91, une loi pour amender et modifier le Human Tissue Gift Act. Depuis ce temps-là, le gouvernement a aidé à mettre sur pied un système provincial pour assurer de la coordination entre ceux qui veulent léguer leurs organes et du tissu, et ceux et celles qui en ont besoin.

J’ai pris la relève du projet de loi 91 de l’honorable Ron Van Horn, qui, lorsqu’il est devenu ministre, comme nous connaissons le Règlement, n’a pu présenter le projet de loi 91, et c'est avec plaisir que j’ai pris sa relève.

1030

Le système en place est une chaîne excellente, mais il y a un petit problème. Un des maillons de la chaîne est faible. Ce maillon-là, c'est celui qui existe entre la famille du décédé et le médecin qui est sur place, souvent le médecin de famille, le médecin qui a vu aux bons soins de la personne qui vient de décéder; ce lien qui permettrait de compléter la chaîne et d’avoir une chaîne complètement forte de tout point de vue. En dépit de tout ça, c’est le maillon le plus faible.

Nous avons d’excellents systèmes en place: des systèmes locaux et régionaux, un système provincial. Nous avons d’excellents spécialistes -- mon collègue conservateur en a mentionné un tantôt, le docteur Wilbert Keon, d’Ottawa -- dont la réputation n'est plus à faire. Nous avons des gens prêts à donner leurs organes et du tissu. Cela, les sondages l’ont très bien démontré, et les collègues qui se sont adressés à la Chambre avant moi l’ont bien démontré également.

Nous avons une très longue liste d’attente de gens qui vont au chevet de la mort dans l’attente d’un organe, du tissu pour survivre, pour continuer à vivre. Nous avons aussi l’aspect urgence. On n’a qu’à se mettre dans les souliers de ceux et celles qui sont dans l’attente, dans l'incertitude, dans les souliers des familles de ceux et celles qui vont dans l’attente. On n’a pas besoin d’en dire plus long à ce sujet-là.

Nous avons toutes sortes d’analyses coûts-avantages qui démontrent qu’un système de dons d’organes et de greffes est économiquement viable. Nous avons toutes sortes de chiffres qui démontrent quel est le coût des soins pour ceux qui sont dans l’attente, des soins à long terme, ceux qui ont presque perdu le courage de pouvoir bénéficier d’une greffe qui leur sauverait la vie.

Je crois, à titre de parrain de l’ancien projet de loi 91, qu’il est primordial que tous les députés, mes collègues de tous les partis, appuient très fortement le projet de loi de mon collègue. C’est une question de vie ou de mort. Les Ontariens et les Ontariennes, les Canadiens et les Canadiennes ont démontré leur volonté. Tout est en place, et mon collègue le député de St. Andrew-St. Patrick est prêt, avec son projet de lot, à séparer ce maillon qui est le plus faible de la chaîne.

J’ai voulu, il m’a invité et ça m’a fait plaisir de l’appuyer. J’espère que Mme la Ministre et mes collègues nous appuieront. Je m’en voudrais de ne pas féliciter mon collègue de St. Andrew-St. Patrick de l’excellente initiative de cette résolution, et j’invite mes collègues à l’appuyer. Merci, Monsieur le Président.

Mr. Cureatz: I wonder if you would be so kind, Mr. Speaker, or the Clerk, as to indicate the amount of time available, the total time.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, you have nine minutes.

Mr. Cureatz: I know I do, but how much time is totally available for this debate?

The Deputy Speaker: We have until 11:01 a.m. The last person to address the House will be the member for St. Andrew-St Patrick at 10:56 a.m.

Mr. Cureatz: To my colleagues across the House, we have lots of time. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning at private members’ hour and to participate in the debate on the resolution of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I might say to him that I specifically asked in caucus to speak to it on two accounts.

The first is because I have got to know the new member a little bit. I am sure as the years progress we will get to know him better, but in terms of my position as the critic for the Solicitor General’s office and his position as parliamentary assistant to one of the ministers I am critic for, we have had some dealings, I might add, all amicable.

The second reason I wanted to participate was that I too am interested in this very serious field in terms of transplants, and indeed in terms of people dying. It is a little difficult to make light a topic such as this, but I think in the spirit of investigating the resolution before us, we will do our best to try not at all times to put such a serious tone on the matter but to bring it in light of the context so that people across Ontario would have an appreciation of the kinds of issues we have to face here at Queen’s Park.

I might also add, or I should be a little remiss in terms of my support of the resolution, because curiously enough as we all know the process at Queen’s Park, albeit this being private members’ hour and we trust everyone will selectively determine his support of the resolution according to its merits, the reality is that it does not happen that way. You discuss it in caucus and everyone decides in terms of how it affects the party policy as a resolution or bill is brought forward.

Mr. Callahan: We don’t do that.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, the member for Brampton South says that he does not do that.

Mr. Callahan: It is a fact.

Mr. Cureatz: I could almost say he is misleading the House with that statement, but I would never say that.

Mr. Callahan: No, no; we’ll invite you to caucus some day. You’ll see how things have changed.

Mr. Cureatz: I would be delighted to be invited to the Liberal caucus one day.

Mr. Callahan: Well, come on over right now.

Mr. Cureatz: In any event, I want to say to the honourable member that I should be a little hesitant, because I have some problems with the Minister of Health. She very kindly announced last night, through a letter to my hospital, a capital grant in the amount of $8.1 million for the expansion of the Bowmanville Memorial Hospital. Coincidentally enough, to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, she forgot to advise me of the grant after I have spent some six or seven years of hard work trying to ensure that the hospital gets its increase.

You would think, in the name of fairness, after me sitting over there and listening for years to the then Liberal opposition and its criticism of the then Tory front bench for running around the province announcing particular grants without including all members of the Legislature, that there would be a degree of sunshine on the front benches and that they would not play the same games they criticized the Tories for, but lo and behold, they are back at it. They learned well, the Liberals, over in opposition. They really learned well.

Mr. Callahan: Was that criticism appropriate?

Mr. Cureatz: Well, it ties in with the resolution, if we are talking about health problems. I am just saying to the member, notwithstanding my anxiety and disappointment with the Minister of Health, of which he will hear later from me, I have given serious consideration to the resolution before me, and we will be supporting it because, interestingly enough -- and it ties in a little bit -- I had introduced a motion for first reading of An Act respecting Living Wills. I know the member for Brampton would be most interested in this, being a learned member of the cloth. The purpose of the bill was to protect from civil liability and disciplinary action doctors and other health care personnel who withhold or cease life-sustaining procedures in accordance with the patient’s wishes as set out in a living will.

1040

This is not an innovative idea. Some of the states of the United States have passed legislation in accordance with the living will. That is not to say that we do not have some difficulties in Ontario. There is an organization called Choice is a Quality of Dying and there was a public forum held at the Royal York Hotel, and there are some concerns about dying with dignity and the problems of a living will.

Notwithstanding that, I think it is an issue, especially in terms of modern-day health care systems. The reality is we will all die eventually, and as a result, we should be putting our minds to that kind of situation because there is that possibility of our lives being prolonged to a greater length because of the present system than normally would be the case. That being as it is, then we should have the opportunity of investigating the alternatives that are available to us as human beings, on whether we want to prolong and face the inevitable sooner or later. We do not have any magic solutions or answers for that in terms of my proposed bill for living wills, but in any event, it is something that we should address.

Likewise, I feel comfortable that the honourable member who has brought forward this resolution is attempting not through a dictatorial process to tell the medical community what it should or should not do in terms of transplants, but more as he indicated in his address, he stated that he wanted to have an increase of public awareness of the success of organ transplants and develop an appreciation among the public for the need for organ donation.

I am of the age, as I know he is, that I can think of Christiaan Barnard and the first transplant and the kinds of criticism that he encountered, but the innovativeness of the idea has, of course, now taken hold and we almost take it for granted. But taking it for granted, I say to the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) does not necessarily mean the general public has an appreciation across the board of how it should or should not take place, and I think anything that allows the openness, allows some shedding of light into the system so that the medical community would be drawing to its patients’ attention -- not only the patients’ attention; I guess it goes one step beyond that, to relatives and friends of the patient -- the possibility of an organ transplant.

I am taking a look at his four points of the resolution:

“1. Has the patient been considered as an organ donor?

“2. Are the wishes of the patient regarding donation of his or her organs known?

“3. Are the wishes of the patient’s family regarding the donation of the patient’s organs known?

“4(a) Has consent for organ or tissue donation been obtained?

“(b) If so, what organs or tissue have been donated?”

I just quickly spoke to the member before I rose in my place, and he indicated to me -- of which I have a copy -- what takes place at the University Hospital: notification of death with the inclusion of those kinds of questions.

The problem I do have on a practical basis in terms of the medical profession and the business that they do have in terms of looking after their patients, I can see the system bogging down with another bit of paperwork. I say to the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams), notwithstanding the paperwork, I think it would be worth while to address our attention to this topic so that we could give some encouragement that the donation process should be encouraged.

I can think of Lorne Maeck, a former minister of the crown and a colleague of mine when I was first elected, from the Orillia area, brought in the legislation in terms of the driver’s licence, one of the first pieces of private members’ legislation that was ever passed in the House, brought in the aspect of the donation card, signing the licence, which I have signed myself, I might add.

There seems to be a gap between that signing and then the real process about organ donation and I have to admit that I think this kind of resolution would fill in that gap a little bit so that there would tend to be a more orderly process and the possibility of ensuring that the adequate organ that needed to be required in another area can be quickly matched up. Anything that can facilitate that process I think would be worth while and notwithstanding the Minister of Health’s neglect in advising me of the capital grant to the Bowmanville Memorial Hospital in my own riding, because I respect the honourable member I will support that resolution.

Mr. Fleet: I rise to support strongly this resolution and I congratulate the honourable member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick for bringing it forward. I also thank the other members from all parties who generously shared the time allotted to them so that I might speak today. Before commenting on this resolution, tradition requires that I digress momentarily.

Although I have spoken in this House on a number of brief occasions, this is my maiden speech. My election as the first-ever Liberal MPP for High Park-Swansea was a tremendous thrill. I will be forever grateful to the people who had faith in me, who worked diligently for me to be nominated and elected, and who voted for me. I will work hard to reward that faith and to serve well the community of High Park-Swansea. I give a special thanks to two individuals who are with us in the lower east gallery. Without their sacrifice, guidance and constant support, I would not be here today. I speak of my parents, Donald Earl Fleet and Olive Patricia Fleet.

We have before us a resolution concerning human organ donation and a standard procedure in public hospitals to encourage such donations. Of all the members in this Legislature, I may have a unique personal perspective not on the facts or the figures or the technical issues but on the human feelings involved. You see, I am a human-tissue recipient. It is not apparent from my appearance nor is it something I consciously think about very often. Perhaps that is part of the miracle. Yet I have somebody else’s bone in my body in one of my ankles.

When I was 10 years old, I had an accident. The trauma caused the bone in my left leg to crush part of the bone in my heel, leaving a depression. Dr. Donald Gibson and the staff of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto made a large incision half-way around my ankle and inserted living bone as a graft to fill the space. At that time, my parents were informed that this was the first-ever bone graft using the bone bank at the Hospital for Sick Children.

Since that operation, my life has been as full as anyone’s. In athletics I have been active in football, hockey, basketball, baseball, soccer, racquet sports, snow and water skiing, curling, running, swimming, wind surfing and scuba diving. The only sport I have deliberately refrained from is sky diving, to my mother’s eternal relief.

Who gave me a chance at life? Dr. Gibson and the medical staff to be sure, but also an unknown donor of a bone. Was that donor a man or a woman? Young or old? What nationality? I will never know, and I can never repay that person. When you receive such a gift you are compelled beyond description of words to give of yourself and to contribute back to society. I believe we have a moral responsibility to one another to participate in our society. In whatever world my donor rests now, he or she must rejoice that such a small but crucial gift yielded a miraculous result.

Currently tissue transplants are so advanced that organs such as kidneys, lungs and hearts can be used routinely if available. The only limitation is the number of donors. Now, the gift of a donor is even greater than before. It is the gift of life.

1050

I repeat the excellent suggestion made a few minutes ago by the honourable member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville). This is an Ontario driver’s licence. A donor consent card is attached. For those of you watching on television right now I urge you to take it out, check it, fill it out if you have not already and sign the card. I believe you will find it not only easy, but you will feel good about doing that.

In this House members can do their part by passing this resolution to enhance hospital procedures with potential donors.

I will conclude by recounting memories of over 20 years ago. In preparing this speech, it raised emotions in me that I had not felt in all that time. I recall the pain of the initial injury as well as the pain when lying in the hospital bed. It was hard to sleep at night in the hospital because of the cries of the other children in the room. But the boy in the bed to my right never cried and I soon learned that he was not going to leave the hospital alive.

You are afraid when you are 10 but you do not really know why and you do not know what is going to happen next. Never once in all the time I had the cast on did I let on that I was worried about what it was going to be like when it came off. After two long months the cast did come off.

My mother took me from the hospital to a restaurant so we could celebrate. I had a shoe on my right foot but I remember I could not wear one on my left foot. All I was allowed to wear at that point was a sock. All through the meal I walked around the restaurant with kind of an up-and-down motion because I only had on one shoe. Mostly I was just going around in circles for the pleasure of walking, with a huge grin plastered on my face. I kept repeating one sentence: “I can walk. I can walk. I can walk.” It was such a gift.

I urge all of you to help make such miracles possible.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I will be very brief because I know there are a couple of other members who wish to speak.

I would like to start by saying that I very strongly support the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick on this resolution and congratulate him for bringing it forward.

I took the opportunity to take a look at my driver’s licence card and I had not signed the consent form, so I did so and dated it today. I would suggest to the members that maybe we should encourage some of our constituents to take a look at their cards as well.

I would like to point out one concern that I have with the proposed resolution, and that is question 3, “Are the wishes of the patient’s family regarding the donation of the patient’s organs known?” I wonder if that will create a problem. I fully respect the fact that there are some religions -- I believe orthodox Jews -- who are very concerned about organ transplants.

I wonder if this would not be a delaying factor in the hospital. It is easy to say you can consult with the family and with the family doctor, but many accidents occur far from home and I am wondering if we could not in some way take a look at this section and see if it could not be addressed so that we would not have good potential organs not being able to be made available to needy people because of that section.

Miss Nicholas: I never thought I would have the opportunity to get up and speak on this particular resolution which my honourable friend has put forward today, but I too have been touched many times by friends who have had transplants.

One that comes particularly to mind at this time was brought to light the first time I ever filled in my driver’s licence about eight or 10 years ago when they started putting this on the licence. I remember going to my mom and dad and telling them that I had filled this out and the bit of scepticism they had that I was willing to donate my organs.

One thing in particular though, I did say I would donate all organs except my kidneys because I felt that my kidneys had failed me during my lifetime. And why should I give my kidneys, which I had never been happy with, to someone else?

I soon changed this exception on my form when a dear friend of mine was stuck to a dialysis machine four hours a day. While other children were out playing and I was swimming and going to school, this person was attached to a dialysis machine each and every day. I know the excitement this person felt when finally, a kidney became available. Now this person is living a free, happy and fulfilling life going around with this new kidney that someone, luckily enough, had donated with his or her death.

So I, too, want to join in supporting this resolution of my honourable friend. I will support it, as I see many of my fellow colleagues will as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick please wind up?

Mr. Kanter: Before I comment on some of the comments of members opposite, and they have been very kind in general, I would like to point out to all members of the House the presence of Dr. Calvin Stiller. Dr. Stiller is in the gallery. He is the director of the multiple organ transplant unit at University Hospital in London, Ontario, and has been one of the pioneers in this area.

It was at that hospital that this week’s heart transplant into a 23-month-old baby was per-formed, a first for Ontario and for Canada, and I certainly want to commend him and the work done at his hospital. That was the hospital I visited which gave me much of the inspiration for this resolution, which I am very pleased to hear seems to have the support of all members of the House, at least all of those who have spoken.

I am very pleased that this idea, which I certainly acknowledge, the idea of recorded consideration, which is not original with me, seems to have won approval from all sides of the House. I was particularly touched, as I am sure most members were, by the comments of my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) who has had such immediate, personal experience with a transplant, not of an organ, in this case, but of a bone in his ankle. I found that extremely moving, as I am sure all members did.

While all members expressed support in principle for the resolution, for which I am very appreciative, there were several concerns raised. I wish to comment very briefly on those. The member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) was concerned about the additional paperwork created for the medical profession. I was quite conscious of this concern. It seemed that, of the alternatives, it was, quite frankly, the least intrusive into medical practice. It was the least coercive. It was, quite frankly, a very small increase in paperwork for a very large social and medical benefit. It is my view that incorporating this request into an existing form, a form that doctors already have to fill out at every public hospital in Ontario, is maybe not a perfect way, but the best way of achieving this very desirable social objective.

I want to comment also very briefly on the comments of the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) who did raise a question about the wishes of the patient’s family. It is my view that it is important to consult with the members of a person’s family. There are individuals, some of whom are members of various groups -- the member opposite mentioned members of the orthodox Jewish faith. I understand Seventh-Day Adventists and some other groups have religious concerns about this procedure. I think those concerns have to be respected. I feel quite strongly about that.

The numbers that I indicated suggest that what we need is not a huge increase in the number of organ donors in Ontario but rather a modest increase which would be of substantial benefit to people involved. The figures that I read, which were provided to me, suggest that there were about 34,000 deaths in Ontario and that we might be looking at a number of potential donors, as high as perhaps 1,200. I think there would be considerable room, if I can phrase it in those terms, for the views of those who do not feel that organ transplants are appropriate. There would be considerable room for their wishes to be scrupulously observed, and I still think -- and I am, indeed, quite convinced -- that we could solve the problem of the shortages as they now exist and as they might be foreseen in the future.

1100

I want to conclude on a very positive and a very appreciate note. This is not the lightest of subjects, as the member for Durham East said. It is one that is deep and heavy. It is difficult for some members of this House, not only some members of the public, to address. I think it is important, I think it is essential and I think this will be a small step towards adding life to citizens of Ontario, something that we can do in a positive and constructive manner.

I thank members in this House for their support and I ask the Minister of Health to pursue this support by changing the regulation to the Public Hospitals Act as I have requested and as all members of the House have supported.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Miss Martel moved resolution 16:

That, in the opinion of this House, this Legislature condemns the government of Ontario for its failure to establish the northern Ontario heritage fund as outlined in the budget of May 20, 1987, and in the speech from the throne of November 3, 1987, therefore this Legislature strongly urges the government to: immediately establish the northern Ontario heritage fund; ensure that northerners, through committees representing northern communities, labour, native groups, women’s groups and local small businesses, control the disbursement of the fund; and provide substantial funding to help ensure long-term economic growth and diversification of the region.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for her presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Miss Martel: I do intend to reserve several minutes at the end to respond to colleagues’ concerns which I am sure will be raised during the course of this debate.

As a new member and as a member from northern Ontario, I am proud to move this resolution in the House today. I should point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of this House that my only regret is that the resolution itself is not half as strong as I originally wanted it to be. Unfortunately, when we sent the original draft to the Clerk’s office, it came back and forth several times because I was assured by the Clerk that if I moved with the original wording, I would be quickly ruled out of order here today. So while the resolution does condemn the government, it certainly does not go half as far as I wanted it to go in expressing my outrage at this government for its complete lack of action concerning the northern Ontario heritage fund.

We on this side in the New Democratic Party, and I can assume my colleagues, especially from the north, in the Conservative Party, have waited and watched and wondered when this government was finally going to come good on its commitment to northern Ontario. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, 11 months later, we are still waiting and we are still wondering when this government and when the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) are actually going to establish the fund promised some 11 months ago.

I want to say in particular to the Liberal members that we in the north are not asking for charity. We do not view this fund as once again our hands out at the trough in order to help our economic development. We in the north have particular structural and social problems that are inherent in northern Ontario which southerners do not experience. We require leadership and we require a fund in order to ensure that we have a pool of money in place that can be used for economic development in northern Ontario. That is why the question of this fund and of the money in the fund is so important to us in the north. That is why I am angry and my colleagues are angry at the inexcusable delay on the part of this government concerning such a fund.

For those new Liberals who are back there -- I see a couple of them in the corner over here -- who may be under the illusion that the northern Ontario heritage fund was a product of the Liberal front bench -- and this is in particular to the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) -- let me assure them that the idea of a fund is neither new nor Liberal. In fact, the idea of a fund is not a creation of the Tory party either. It was in fact --

Mr. Black: Now you are getting negative.

Miss Martel: It gets worse, let me tell the member.

Over a decade ago, during the debate on the bill to establish the Ministry of Northern Affairs, it was the NDP and, in particular, the former MPP for Sudbury East who moved in that debate that a northern Ontario heritage fund be developed. In an amendment to the act, Mr. Martel moved as follows:

“The ministry shall establish a fund, the Northern Ontario Tomorrow Fund, to consist of moneys derived from natural resources taxation or an assessment on the value of all nonrenewable resources extracted in northern Ontario which will be used to guarantee future economic activities.”

Unfortunately, over a decade ago, the Tory party, which was in power at that time, did not see fit to move those amendments to make the Ministry of Northern Affairs stronger and to actually provide a fund in northern Ontario. Let me say for the benefit of the Liberals back there, that the Liberals voted against the amendments too in committee.

This party indeed has talked about this fund for a long time. We have not stopped talking about it. We in this party by nature are a patient group but we have continued to hammer out the theme of the northern Ontario heritage fund, or a tomorrow fund for northern Ontario. Let me tell members why, because it is very important that they understand why we are committed to this.

Those of us who are from the north have watched in resource towns and single-industry towns, every time a problem hits that industry, there is devastation in single-industry towns. There is massive unemployment which is double and triple that which people in southern Ontario ever experience. There is a massive relocation of entire families to look for work somewhere else and there is a mass exodus of young people who move from northern Ontario to southern Ontario and never return.

After watching that, and some of us have watched it for years, we came to the conclusion that we in northern Ontario needed the economic tools to provide for our own development. We believe that if we are given those economic tools and if they are put into the hands of northerners, we best can provide for stable, long-term economic development and diversification in northern Ontario. I do not think it is too much to ask and it certainly is not charity.

Finally, in recent years, successive governments and some commissions and committees have finally moved and have finally seen the light and have finally seen the benefit of the idea that this party raised over a decade ago. In particular, in 1985 for example, the Tory-appointed Fahlgren Royal Commission on the Northern Environment adopted the idea of a fund for northern Ontario for development.

In 1986, the all-party standing committee on resources development recognized the idea and recommended the same. Also in 1986, the Liberals appointed the Rosehart Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario, which my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) sat on. The Rosehart commission looked at problems in northern Ontario, in particular single-industry towns, and it made this recommendation.

I am sorry the Minister of Northern Development is not here, because last week he was off on a tangent about how wonderful the funds in northern Ontario were at present and how we had benefited from all these wonderful funding programs in the north. Let me tell members what the Rosehart commission said about all the great programs in the north at present. The commission said this:

“At the present time a variety of government programs exist both federally and in Ontario that can be used to stimulate development of new business and industry. Such initiatives, although laudable, have failed to create a significant long-term focus for development in the north. It is the belief of the committee that the opportunity exists and the political will is present in Ontario to provide such a focus for development.” I do not know about the political will, but we certainly know that the need exists.

The Rosehart commission went on to recommend a second thing, one of its many major recommendations and one very important for us in the north. That was: “That there be established a northern Ontario fund for northern Ontario.” That says it all. We have had successive governments look at it since the NDP introduced the idea. We have had successive commissions and committees who have looked at it. Finally, Rosehart pointed out that it had to be done because the programs that were in place were not working and were not serving northerners.

On the basis of that, a former NDP MPP, this time the member for Port Arthur, moved in a resolution in this House in November 1986, that the government move to establish a northern Ontario economic diversification fund. Mr. Foulds moved its creation and he said at the time, and I quote, “The moneys to establish the fund would come from a consolidation of existing northern development funds and programs and, in addition, through an earmarked percentage of provincial revenue from resource industry taxation.”

I want to point out to the new members who are here that the resolution passed, and it passed unanimously, in November 1986. A year and a half later, we are still waiting for the government to come clean on its commitment in terms of this fund.

1110

Mr. Black: In the fullness of time.

Miss Martel: Well, we could go on for ever. What we are waiting for is another election.

I have reviewed the history of the fund to point out to members here and to prove that we in the north have really waited a long time for this initiative. Our patience continues to hold. I said before we are a patient lot but, quite frankly, the fiasco surrounding this fund has got completely out of control, and I do not see why we in the north should have to be patient much longer.

I want to continue because the members should recognize this fact. The new members would not have been here but the old members will recognize this next portion that I want to quote from concerning the fund. It is this:

“For decades, many northerners have believed that a larger share of revenue derived from their resource heritage should flow back into the region.

“We are establishing a northern Ontario heritage fund to help ensure long-term economic growth and diversification in the region. The fund will have an initial allocation of $30 million.

“The heritage fund will operate under the guidance of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He will be assisted in his decisions by a heritage fund advisory council with representatives from each of the northern development councils.”

This is not another example of Liberal rhetoric. This is in fact the budget of May 1987. I ask the Liberal back-benchers, are we on this side not to believe that when their government commits money to and announces a program, that indeed is what it is going to do, and in the near future, not 11 months, 12 months, 13 months down the road? I say to the Liberal back-benchers again, is it not unfortunate that the government was unwilling or unable to establish the fund before the September 1987 election?

But it really did not matter because it gave all the northern Liberals a chance to run around across northern Ontario talking about this fund, about the great Liberal commitment to this fund, and I am sure a number of them were elected on that premise. Just in case anyone missed it in the budget or anyone missed it during the election campaign, the government reiterated the promise again. In the throne speech, in November 1987, the government took another kick at the can of the northern Ontario heritage fund. They said this, and I quote again:

“We recognize that the issue of northern growth and development is one that will require ongoing attention.

“In addition to our existing northern programs, such as the northern development fund, we have been receiving input from northern Ontarians, and particularly northern development councils, on the role and mandate of the northern Ontario heritage fund. An advisory council will be established to help identify priorities in the distribution of the fund.”

A decade later, after numerous promises on this fund, is it any wonder that northerners have become impatient? Is it any wonder to the members of this House why we cannot believe that the Liberals are going to move on this promise? I say to the minister -- it is too bad he is not here -- where is the advisory council promised in November 1987? Who are the members? Where is the money? We have not seen the heritage fund. We have not seen a dime of that fund put to work in northern Ontario yet, and the commitment was made almost a year ago.

Surely the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Northern Development have had more than enough time to name a council. There are thousands of northerners who are willing and would be able to advise this government on northern development. In fact, the Premier has had two conferences on northern development in the north and there have been a number of approaches put forward on how this kind of money can be spent.

Since the minister has not seen fit to name a council and the Premier has not seen fit to do the same, I am going to point out to the minister that there are a number of groups who have to be represented on this council in order to speak for the north. Those committees have to have members from northern communities, labour, native groups, women’s groups and small local businesses, and they must control disbursement of the fund. It has to be in northerners’ hands and northerners have to have the control.

We in the north are more than capable of providing intelligent strategies for development, so I have to ask the government: What is the problem? Why the delay? Why the insult to northerners, who have waited so long, who have believed in this promise and who have yet to see the government deliver?

We are in a position today where I have to use my private members’ hour to put forward a resolution in the hope of embarrassing this government into some type of action in northern Ontario. I say quite frankly to the members of this House that this government has misled northerners by recycling the same promise over and over again. I would like to know why the government is stalling. After all, the budget commitment was not excessive. It was a mere $30 million; inadequate at best.

That is why we in the New Democratic Party proposed that adequate funding had to be put into the fund in order to ensure long-term development. That is why, during the election campaign, we proposed that at least $500 million was going to be required over a three-year period in order to put into place an adequate fund that will continue over the long term. Ongoing funding, we said, would come in part from resource companies, particularly from stumpage fees and particularly from mining profits tax.

I find it most distressing in fact that after almost a year the northern Ontario heritage fund, which was firmly committed by this government and firmly committed by the Minister of Northern Development, has not yet been put into place. We in the north and we in this party are left to ask: Where is the money? There has been no shortage of proposals. There has been no shortage of interest or of identification of priorities by various groups and committees. There has been no shortage of prodding and pleading by members on this side to urge the government to put this fund into place.

Frankly, as a northerner I am appalled, but more so I am offended, by the insensitivity of this government on this particular question. How much longer does this government expect to pay lipservice to people in the north? How much longer do they expect this charade to continue? How many more election promises will have to be broken? Perhaps the government is waiting for another election, yet another one, so the Liberal members can tromp off across the northern part of the province again and tell everyone about this great fund that is coming.

The government spent more money locating the Toyota plant in southern Ontario than it has provided for all the north. Yet we still have not seen a penny of it. I must say, when I look at the comparison between the amounts of money the Premier has spent in southern Ontario, whether it be on the Toyota plant or whether it be on the domed stadium, and the paltry sum we are given for all of northern Ontario, I have to ask: Is there not a double standard operating here?

Perhaps an 11-month wait is not too long for this government. We in the north have been waiting for over a decade for this type of funding anyway, but I think we have come to the point where we are sick and tired of waiting and we are really sick and tired of being patronized by this government. We are tired of being deceived and we are sick and tired of broken promises. The delay and the contempt that this government has demonstrated to northerners on the question of the northern Ontario heritage fund deserves the unanimous condemnation of members in this House. I urge all members to vote with me on this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: May I bring members’ attention to the presence of the former member for Sudbury East in the members’ gallery, Elie Martel.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of the motion of the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel). We should go back to a year ago today. It was on May 20, 1987, that this announcement was made in the last budget. I think it is somewhat appropriate that next week, on April 20, 1988, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will again be rising in his place and introducing a budget without having delivered on the promises or commitments he made in the last budget.

The government missed the opportunity, in my opinion, to make any real inroads into equalizing disparity between the economies of northern and southern Ontario. In the 1985, not 1987, Liberal election campaign, tax credits for northern Ontario residents were promised. They have been ignored for three years now. As well, last year’s budget did nothing to lower gasoline prices or hydro rates in northern Ontario, even though a private member’s resolution calling for a lowering of northern hydro rates was unanimously passed by all members of the Legislature last May.

Interestingly enough, when this resolution came to a voice vote, some government members in the House voted against it. But when a recorded vote was called for, these same members apparently changed their minds or had to use the washrooms because they voted for it when a recorded vote was asked for.

1120

The budget did nothing to address the fact that the government has yet failed to deliver $35.9 million worth of promises made over the two years between 1985 and 1987 to the northern development funds, small business development corporations and the community economic transformation agreement. Northern Ontario has been further deprived of the promised $30-million softwood lumber rebate and has been paying, through higher gasoline taxes, in the neighbourhood of $150 million a year in gasoline tax alone.

The government last year spent $35 billion in its budget, $8 billion more than in 1985, when it assumed office. The government’s answer to helping northern Ontario is to add some $26 million in its highway budget last year which, if it knows anything about highway construction in northern Ontario at all, will build exactly 13 miles of highway in the north, and to create a northern Ontario heritage fund, which it still has not delivered on and which is the subject matter of the private member resolution of the member for Sudbury East here today.

Even if it has delivered on that commitment, the government is merely returning to northerners the sum of $30 million, a very small percentage of moneys extracted by this government from the north as a foundation for a fund. Last year this government had a $1.3-billion revenue surplus over its projections. Compared to its surplus revenue alone, the northern Ontario heritage fund is exactly 0.023 per cent of the government’s surplus revenue left over at the end of the March 31, 1987, fiscal year. They cannot even deliver on that minuscule commitment in the period of one year.

I find it somewhat disturbing that the Minister of Northern Development is not present in the House this morning. I do not know what more pressing matter he could have anywhere than to be here for this debate this morning and to be accountable for his lack of action, and his government’s lack of action, on this commitment made by this government over a year ago.

Mr. Black: Where have you been for the past 42 years?

Mr. Eves: I am not even 42 years old. I do not know where the member has been for 42 years.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) had a question, number 93, on the order paper:

“Would the Minister of Northern Development indicate the costs incurred in establishing the northern heritage fund, which was announced in the April 1987 throne speech, a list of all projects approved for funding under the fund, the amounts for each project and the administration costs to date of this program?”

The date of that question was February 9, 1988. The response from the minister was:

“No identifiable costs have been incurred since development work for the fund is being carried out within the regular public service. No projects have been approved for funding as yet. No identifiable administrative costs have been incurred.”

I think that says it all. I think that says a lot about this government’s and this minister’s commitment to the northern Ontario heritage fund: one year of inaction.

I have a bit of a stake with respect to northern Ontario as well. There is the small issue of whether or not the district of Parry Sound should be included in northern Ontario for the purposes of all provincial government ministries.

Mr. Black: And Muskoka?

Mr. Eves: I do not believe that the regional municipality of Muskoka, answering the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, is a territorial district. That was the original definition of what was supposed to be northern Ontario. When the Ministry of Northern Affairs was established in 1977, the member would know that ministry acknowledged the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario, and always has. As a matter of fact, we have a northern affairs office in the town of Parry Sound itself and it serves our constituents very well.

Only nine ministers over the years have seen fit to include Parry Sound in northern Ontario. Despite the fact that the Parry Sound District Municipal Association for three consecutive years now has passed resolutions petitioning and asking this government to include it in northern Ontario, despite the fact that for three years we have been getting promises from the Premier and whomever is Minister of Northern Development of the day that this will be done and that they will look into it, we still have not had a commitment delivered on that three-year-old promise that this government made.

As a matter of fact, on Monday morning I had the opportunity to speak before the Parry Sound District Municipal Association at its spring 1988 meeting and again the same resolution was passed. I am sure it will find its way to the Premier’s desk and the minister’s desk, and hopefully, some three, three and a half or four years later, they will get around to delivering on the commitment that they made.

I find it very disturbing that officials from this government, ministers and the Premier himself, can make these commitments to the constituents in my riding and turn around and renege on them year after year after year. I think that the lack of regard for northern Ontario is very, very serious indeed. I think my colleague the member for Sudbury East hits the nail right on the head: the time for action is now. A $30-million fund, as far as I am concerned, is inadequate to start with, but the least they can do is deliver on a commitment in a year when they had a $1.3-billion surplus in revenue.

I would like to read into the record some responses I have received from various ministers with respect to the northern Ontario status of the district of Parry Sound.

In response to last year’s resolution by the municipal association, the Premier’s office informed my staff that my letter of December 8, 1987, concerning the Parry Sound municipal resolution was not answered by the Premier because it was considered to be a duplicate of an earlier letter of August 5, 1987, to which the Premier had already responded on November 12, 1987. The Premier’s response of that November stated that he was again looking into the matter.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has said for two successive years now that he has been reviewing the matter but would be unable to provide a definite answer until a report on the goods and services weighting factor is received from the Ministry of Education. It is the same report that he has been waiting for, I presume, for over two years.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) says: “If the district has any recommendations on the administration of the Ministry of Natural Resources programs, I will have my staff work with those involved to consider changes. We can address the issue on a piecemeal basis.”

In February 1986, the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities -- which, by the way, regards the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario -- passed a resolution to have the district fully included for the purposes of all provincial government ministries.

On June 25, 1987, in this House, every single member of this House unanimously supported my resolution to have the district included in northern Ontario. To date, this government has not delivered on that commitment either.

The Minister of Northern Development was recently in our riding, in the town of Parry Sound, and again reaffirmed his commitment to having Parry Sound included in northern Ontario but to date has done nothing.

The federal government regards the district of Parry Sound and Nipissing as being part of northern Ontario with its development fund.

An hon. member: What a surprise.

Mr. Eves: It is not a surprise to me. They are listening to what is going on and they are listening to people in northern Ontario. At least they are trying to do something about it. They are delivering on their $55-million fund. This government has had this commitment outstanding for over one year and to date has not done one single thing; it has not spent one red cent for the people of northern Ontario.

Mr. Kozyra: I welcome the opportunity today to illustrate this government’s commitment both political and financial to northern Ontario, its people and its issues.

Today’s resolution deals with the northern Ontario heritage fund, and as the Minister for Northern Development said last week, he plans to introduce legislation pertaining to the fund very soon; in fact, in a matter of days. Over the last year the minister has consulted extensively with northerners receiving grass-roots input on the shape and scope of this fund.

The introduction of the heritage fund legislation will no doubt generate considerable discussion in this chamber, and I urge the honourable members on all sides of the House, who over the past weeks have indicated a concern that the fund be in place as soon as possible, to ensure that we expedite debate surrounding this historic and significant initiative.

Today I shall take a few moments to review this government’s record of accomplishments in the north. This considerable list of accomplishments will prove to this House that this government is concerned and acting positively on developments in northern Ontario.

1130

Among the first actions of this government was the establishment of the cabinet committee on northern development. Since its inception, its membership has grown to include over 15 ministers. It was established to help guide government actions in the north. Its influence encouraged more cabinet meetings in the north and more visits by cabinet ministers to the north.

This government-appointed committee of all three parties, as well as business, labour, municipal and academic representatives, resulted in the Rosehart report, an early blueprint for government action.

Key recommendations were as follows: the establishment of a long-term development strategy for the north; the establishment of a northern Ontario fund, more familiar now as the heritage fund; the relocation of civil service jobs to the north; the use of crown land as a development tool; accelerated government spending in the north; increased tourist funding; and the establishment of a forest industry in the north. All of these recommendations have been addressed with commendable speed and are showing very positive results.

Perhaps among the most successful initiatives undertaken were the Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay conferences on northern business and entrepreneurship. We are still receiving positive feedback on the highly successful Thunder Bay conference held in November 1987. The Minister of Northern Development has recently finished mailing the conference report, An Agenda for Action, to over 2,000 people.

Under the northern relocation program announced by the Premier in July 1986, close to 1,600 positions will move to the north, bringing with them an annual payroll of approximately $48 million. Eight different ministries and agencies in whole or in part will move to six new buildings in four northern communities.

The head office of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will find a new home in Sudbury, along with the mining health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour. Over 525 positions and an annual payroll of approximately $16 million will go to Sudbury alone. Other government ministries will move from Toronto to the north: North Bay, 355 positions; Thunder Bay, 230; and Sault Ste. Marie, 441. Wherever possible, the province intends to use northern expertise and suppliers in both the construction and ongoing requirements of the new buildings.

The northern Ontario regional development program, Nordev, has committed much to northern Ontario. It has assisted more than 900 projects worth more than $160 million and created an estimated 4,000 permanent jobs. It was refinanced in 1986-87 with $20 million from the northern development fund.

Nordev is undoubtedly one of the most successful incentive funding programs, showing a very high rate of return compared to any other deferral or provincial program. Nordev has one of the lowest cost-per-job-created figures at $5,500.

Two million dollars created chairs in forestry and mining at Lakehead University and Sudbury’s Laurentian University. This represents a commitment to northern higher education and the development of more competitive and safer resource industries in the north.

Four million dollars started a northern forest biology institute, currently under construction by the Ministry of Natural Resources at Lakehead University.

Five million dollars will be directed to technology development units to be constructed next year in Thunder Bay and North Bay.

Fifteen million dollars has been dedicated to the northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program. This will strengthen the north’s $1-billion-a-year tourism industry.

Six and a half million dollars has been put into television extension to northern Ontario. It will provide cable extension to 85 northern communities not currently served by either cable or TVOntario’s satellite extension program.

Finally, one further example of the northern development fund being put to good use is the $1.1-million high school of science and technology co-operative program of the ministry with Lakehead University and Laurentian University. It provides summer classes in science and technology for secondary students showing exceptional aptitude in these areas. Last summer the school was so successful that it will be continued again this year.

Funded through the northern development fund and the Ministry of Culture and Communications, the $8-million northern native small business development program provides eligible native business ventures with funding for feasibility studies, startup costs and capital costs.

The ministry has also initiated many programs in the education, health and social areas for example, Contact North, the northern Ontario distance education network officially opened in the fall of 1987. It provides for the establishment of learning centres in up to 30 communities across the north. Currently, 700 students are taking courses at all course levels through Contact North.

Bursaries for dentists and medical doctors have been increased from $5,000 to $7,500. The number of these bursaries has also been increased to 48 from 36 the previous year. New bursaries have been added for chiropodists, psychiatrists and psychometrists. The total number of bursaries for health and social professionals has been increased to 190 from 105 just three years ago. Incentive grants for rehabilitation professions have been increased to 59 from 35 last year. The incentive grants have been extended to include occupational therapists and speech pathologists and audiologists.

I am sure most members are familiar with the AgriNorth program which to date has provided 382 land drainage projects, 345 grain storage and handling projects, 281 forage storage projects, 66 technology demonstration projects and so on.

I have already mentioned NOTICE, the successful northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program, which is just one of many tourism initiatives sponsored by the ministry. We are involved in ski resorts, information centres and waterfront developments. The ministry currently is funding seven waterfront development projects in the north.

The northern community economic development program has provided funds for the creation of six municipal economic development agencies. Funded over five years, the MEDA officer works within the municipality to develop long-term planning strategies to identify and develop local business opportunities and attract new businesses and investment.

I also want to speak today about the northern development councils, whose main role it is to provide advice to the Minister of Northern Development and, through him, to the cabinet committees for northern development.

There are currently nine northern development councils operating in the province. They have addressed many issues since their inception, including north-south gasoline pricing, norOntair, northern rural land use and creating a recently released document which was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) on crown land as a development tool. The councils have already submitted a report to the Minister of Natural Resources on the cottage lot study and are continuing discussion on this issue.

There is also the Woodbridge, Reed and Associates report on the forest products industry; the councils here are currently responding to a request from the Ministry of Natural Resources for input on this report.

Each council is also involved with issues within its own region, such as the Kenora-Rainy River council’s involvement with the Atikokan-Minaki waterway and the Timiskaming council’s not-yet-released report on education.

I feel that many members here today are surprised at the breadth of the initiatives this government is responsible for. However, I am certain that after hearing this brief overview of this government’s record in the north, the member for Sudbury East and the members of this House cannot help but be impressed with the commitment and direction this government has taken in northern Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: It is indeed an honour to be able to speak in support of the resolution of my colleague the member for Sudbury East on the northern Ontario heritage fund. I intend to go over some of the things she has mentioned again and also to talk about a few subjects that she was unable to mention.

However, at this point in the debate, I think it is only fair and only reasonable that I respond to the comments made by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra), because while I may agree with two or three of the things he has said in his speech, there are at least a dozen that deserve a fair bit of critical comment.

First of all, let me say this. As I listened to the member for Port Arthur, it really struck me that I was listening to one of Leo Bernier’s retread speeches from about 10 years ago. Coming from the town of Fort Frances, which is located not far from the community of Sioux Lookout, I had the honour of listening to the former member for Kenora and former Minister of Northern Affairs many times.

Perhaps I should go back and look at one of Mr. Bernier’s speeches and be sure that the member for Port Arthur has not taken it and merely updated it a few years, because many of the things that the member for Port Arthur mentioned were, in fact, things that were begun under the former government. I was never one to compliment that government -- in fact, I was one to criticize it all the time -- but I am surprised that this government that sits here now would try to take credit for some of the things that were introduced by the former government.

1140

Let me just point out a couple of them. The member for Port Arthur mentions the northern Ontario regional development program. The Nordev program, in effect, has been around since 1966. That is really when it got under way and it has been around in various forms and through various changes and alterations of names since 1966. If I remember, back in 1966 the government that is there now might have claimed to be the official opposition, although at that time I do not think it was called the real opposition. The newspapers called the New Democratic Party the real opposition at that time, even though the Liberal Party was the official opposition.

I think we ought to be quite clear that many of these things are programs that were, in fact, begun by the former government. That illustrates where this government falls down, because even though the former Conservative government put many of these programs in place, the fact of the matter is they were a lot of Band-Aid solutions. They did not address the problems. Now we have this government taking those Band-Aid solutions, dressing them up a little, giving them a new name and saying, “Here it is folks.”

Mr. Wildman: More of the same.

Mr. Hampton: More of the same; exactly.

In fact, I noted with interest that the member for Port Arthur spoke in glowing terms of the Premier’s conference held at Thunder Bay last fall. I was at that conference. Afterwards, I had an opportunity to speak to many of the people who were there: some municipal leaders, some people from the local chambers of commerce, some people from some of the mining companies, even some of the media.

I said, “What did you think of this?” The overwhelming opinion that came back was: “It struck me that this was really a wine-and-dine affair to convince all of us who used to support the Conservative Party to come on over and support the Liberal Party. There was no policy developed here. There were no serious programs introduced here. This was a wine-and-dine affair at the expense of taxpayers to convince us that having supported the Tories for 20 or 30 years, now it is time to get on side with the Liberals.”

That is what it was. It was an expensive party. There was not anything done there in terms of serious policy development. There was not anything done there in terms of serious program development. It was a nice party at the expense of Ontario taxpayers and the Liberal Party hopes it will derive the benefit of it three years down the road when another election is called.

Again, if that is what they call serious northern Ontario development policy, it is sad, it is really sad.

I want to go a little further, because there was some talk here about the relocation of jobs to northern Ontario. So far, we have seen some relocation of jobs to Sudbury. It is long, long overdue that some of the aspects of the Ministry of Natural Resources dealing with mining policy should be located in Sudbury. Some of the forestry policy and programs have, in fact, been relocated to Thunder Bay. That is long overdue.

Mr. Black: Who did it?

Mr. Hampton: I will give this government credit for some of those things, but we must remember there was a minority government there. They have been here now since September and we have not seen a thing on their own initiative; not a thing. Many of these things are leftovers from that two-year accord period.

I will give this government credit for being forced into doing something during the two-year accord, but since then -- we saw it the other day with the Minister of Northern Development when he answered to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), “The heritage fund is not there yet, but maybe it will be there;” and the Treasurer, even later on, saying, “Yes, we do have this softwood export lumber tax.”

Mr. Wildman: He threatened me.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, and he also threatened the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). When the member looked at him and heckled him for the disappearance of the northern Ontario heritage fund, he had the gall to threaten the member for Algoma and to say, “If you do not quit criticizing me, I will make sure that none of this fund gets into your riding.”

This sounds very much like the Mulroney government.

Mr. Callahan: You cannot compare that government to anything.

Mr. Hampton: I have to respond here to the heckling of the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. Callahan: He should not do that.

Mr. Hampton: -- because really the Mulroney government, I think we would agree, is known for its capacity to say that white is not white, grey is not grey and blue is not blue, but this government is equal to that when it insists that everything should be a local option. There is an example of subterfuge at its best. Everything is a local option.

Mr. Wildman: A heritage fund local option.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, a local option on the heritage fund; that is what we will be talking about next, no doubt.

I want to refer to the relocation of the offices of the Ministry of Northern Development. It is true now that some of these offices are being moved into the Sudbury area, but really this amounts to taking what the former Minister of Northern Affairs, Mr. Bernier, established in Kenora: taking it out of northwestern Ontario and moving it to northeast. That is what this government calls progress. Do not develop the north; take it from the northwest and give it to the northeast. That is what this government calls progress.

I want to go just a bit further, though, because there was some mention here about the under-serviced area program for medical practitioners, the fact that the tax-free grants for doctors who will practice in northern communities have been increased. There again is an example of the out-of-touch, out-of-place policy of this government. At this very moment there are nearly 37 communities in northern Ontario which either do not have doctors or do not have sufficient numbers of doctors.

That problem has existed over the last three years. The increase in the grant structure has not had an effect and is not going to have an effect because it is not a question of money. Any doctor who goes to northern Ontario can make enough money out of his or her practice that the additional $10,000 a year in grants is not going to assist in any way whatsoever. The problem is not money. The problem is that the medical schools we now have in Ontario, five of them in southern Ontario -- count them -- with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, do not train doctors for northern Ontario. They just do not provide the kind of training you need to practise there.

I say, after having listened to the member for Port Arthur, that all the initiatives he has mentioned do not meet the needs of the communities of northern Ontario. What will meet the needs of the communities of northern Ontario is a northern Ontario heritage fund which will let us do the development ourselves and not be dependent upon piecemeal government hand-outs that do not meet the needs of all our communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing, for I think up to about six minutes.

Mr. Harris: It is a pleasure for me to rise and support the resolution. Let me say that I am delighted to see, finally, after my time in the House, a positive, meaningful resolution come from the member for Sudbury East. Listen, I say that with tongue in cheek, only to acknowledge the presence of the former member for Sudbury East in the gallery. I do compliment the present member for Sudbury East.

Six minutes -- of course now five and a half -- is not nearly enough time to talk about the tragedy: what this government has said it would do for northern Ontario, the image it has tried to present for northern Ontario versus what it has actually done.

I do want to acknowledge one thing, the northern relocation program. I want to say two things about it. First, we support it. It is the one new thing they have done. We support it, but I will tell the members, there are some problems with it. There are problems of equity of benefit throughout northern Ontario, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, throughout the northeast and the northwest.

1150

Second, this government now has in excess of 6,000 new civil servants and 1,000 of them are being relocated to the north. That is our share. Let us not think this is something that dropped right out of the sky. I acknowledge that the former government was trying to restrain the growth of the civil service. It was trying to deliver programs more efficiently. It was trying to cut back. In spite of that, it still relocated some jobs to the north. So we have 6,000 new ones, 5,000 more in the south and 1,000 in the north. We think that is our share. It is not very much more than that.

I tell members, and I serve notice right now, that the Provincial Auditor is going to have fun when he looks at the cost of some of these buildings and the cost of what is going on here. We are not saying there are not going to be some costs in relocation, but I will tell the government that stories are coming out now about $200- and $300-a-foot construction costs for, in many cases, land that was donated or the government owned that was free.

An hon. member: You supported the program.

Mr. Harris: I am in support of delivering programs efficiently. I said I supported the program.

There are rumours now in North Bay of the costs of construction there, which never went to tender, being double -- or perhaps even triple by the time you are finished -- what it is supposed to cost. I just serve the government notice on that right now.

About a year ago, we had an emergency debate on a motion that I moved. It talked about seven things.

First, the government’s failure to propose in its speech from the throne any solutions to deal with the serious problems of unemployment. This was a year ago and it was before the budget. In that budget, one thing came that was new for the north. That was the northern Ontario heritage fund of $30 million. The tragedy is that not one cent was spent over the year.

Second, the government’s failure to deal with the problems of the forest products industry. There is about $30 million that this government has in softwood lumber tax on which the Premier personally made commitments in northern Ontario that that money would go back to help laid-off workers in the forest industry, would go back in support of the forest industry. Not a cent was spent. There is $60 million, just like that.

Third, the government’s failure to provide direction to the northern regional development councils. Everybody knows they were a joke and they are still a joke but we still have not heard anything since they were set up.

Fourth, the government’s failure to follow through on its promise to equalize gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario. The government promised that in 1985. Surely, if it could not dream up anything for the $30 million, it could have used it towards reducing gasoline prices in northern Ontario. That would have benefited tourism, it would have benefited travelling, it would have benefited trucking, it would have benefited all the industry. That was not difficult to do.

Fifth, the government’s suspension of plans to create four-lane highways in the north. It could have added $30 million to the transportation budget. It could have said: “Look, I know we announced it. It is more difficult than we thought. We cannot seem to get something in place that we think is going to work. The former Tory programs are working so well that we cannot find a niche for the $30 million. The northern Ontario regional development program is working well, thanks to Leo Bernier. The Northern Ontario Development Corp. is working well, as is the EduCap program. All the things the government talks about were all in place. You guys had it covered so well, we cannot find anything new to spend the money on.” It could have put more money into highways. We wished we could have.

Sixth, the government promised in 1985 to follow through on an election promise of a $100 rebate to northern taxpayers. That is a program where -- the government has covered all the bases -- we will just give $100 back because it costs more to live in the north. I did not think it was the greatest program; but administratively, what does it cost to put into place? I would take the cheques back. There would be no cost at all. We would do that. I mean they would be very minimal. So the government did not do that.

Seventh, the continued delay in providing equitable health care for northern Ontario. We have had some discussions and some have talked about that.

The government has done nothing from this emergency debate resolution of a year ago and it is a travesty that the government continues to advertise all the good things it has done in the north when it could not spend one cent of this $30 million.

Miss Martel: I want to thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party for the support they are going to give me on this resolution. I do want to make a couple of comments to the Liberal Party. I know my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) has responded for the most part.

Let me go back to the programs that were in place, which the Liberals have made so much of a comment about. Let me go back to Rosehart -- and this is why the heritage fund was then re-announced -- who said:

“Such initiatives, although laudable, have failed to create a significant long-term focus for development in the north. It is the belief of the committee that the opportunity exists and the political will is present in Ontario to provide such a focus for development.”

Clearly, what was in place was not working, or not working well. That is why we need a specific fund run by northerners to be put in place so that we determine our own economic destiny.

Second, he made a comment about the northern development councils, how they were meeting and how the minister was meeting with them to determine some kind of priority and some type of order. Let me tell the House how many of those councils had even met by June 1987: Kenora-Rainy River, no public meetings, one meeting of the agricultural committee; Thunder Bay, two public meetings, one meeting of the agricultural council; Algoma-Manitoulin, no public meetings, two meetings of the agricultural committee; Cochrane and area, no public meetings, one public meeting of the agricultural committee. The list goes on and on of the nine councils.

So I say to the Liberals, I cannot believe that they are meeting. If they are, we are not hearing about it and we do not hear what they are saying. In terms of the minister meeting with these types of people, we do not know what is happening and, quite frankly, I cannot believe that anything is happening.

I talked about the two economic conferences we heard so much about. My colleague said it was just a big party for all the former Tories who are now going to be Liberals. I would call it a Liberal love-in, and that was about as far as it got. The minister would have been better off taking some of the proposals put forward by my colleagues in Sault Ste. Marie, the 10-point plan for economic development in northern Ontario. Had he taken that and put that into place, he would have been a lot further ahead than he has been after two conferences in northern Ontario.

Let me talk about the relocation of offices. I want to say that finally we do have some movement. Some of those offices should have been in northern Ontario a long time ago, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the opening of those offices will be in conjunction with the next provincial election so we can have another fanfare and some more hoopla in the north by northern members.

The minister stood in his place last week and said: “Wait until next week. We are going to have some legislation and tremendous movement for northern Ontario.” Let me just tell the minister what the Premier said in North Bay. In March he was having an interview with the North Bay Nugget, and the reporter asked him, “Any specific plans for northern Ontario?” The Premier said: “No, I have no specific plans for northern Ontario this year. I realize the position you are raising and I would love to give you a big scoop but I am not in a position to do so. “ Well, is that not a commitment for northern Ontario? Is that not wonderful? Maybe the Minister of Northern Development knows something the Premier does not.

I want to say in concluding that we have waited long enough in the north for this type of fund. The Liberals promised and repromised and announced and reannounced this fund so many times that we cannot even remember any more how many times. We have waited 11 months. We have seen no movement by this government. That is why I say this government deserves to be condemned for that, and I expect that my colleagues, and at least my northern colleagues in the Tories, will vote with me on that question.

ORGAN DONATIONS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kanter has moved resolution 17.

Motion agreed to.

1205

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

The House divided on Miss Martel’s motion of resolution 16, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McCague, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pollock, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Kanter, Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuinty, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson.

Ayes 26; nays 47.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

Mr. Pouliot: I have a message from the citizens of the Big Trout Lake Indian band, a translation from the Ojibway language:

“The people are our people, the children are our children, the resources are our resources, the land is our land. PCBs are yours. PCBs are destroying our people, our children, our fish, our land. We demand action. We want protection for our children, we want preservation for the future, we want our fish and animals to live free of PCBs, we want proper medical care and we want PCBs cleaned up and we want it done now.”

I would also like to present, on behalf of the children in the community of Big Trout Lake, located some 1,200 miles from Toronto, a donation, which represents considerable savings, to the tune of approximately $50. I would like to make the presentation to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to initiate the cleaning up of that dreadful substance.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Eves: I rise in the House today to remind everyone of the double standard of this government. When a number of incidents arose where public safety was threatened by residents of halfway houses under the jurisdiction of federal parole boards, this government demanded that the federal government launch an immediate inquiry into the system, which it has done and completed. Yet when an incident equally as devastating happens in the Premier’s own back-yard, an internal inquiry will be sufficient, according to this government.

I am talking, of course, about the brutal attack on a 14-year old London girl. Two inmates of the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital have been charged with the attack. This government is awaiting the outcome of an internal review of the case. It is ignoring the public calls for a public inquiry into the procedures and practices of the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review. They claim it is out of their jurisdiction. Yet when the federal parole board cases came to view, this government demanded a public inquiry.

Lieutenant Governor’s warrants are recommended by a provincially appointed board and approved by this province’s Lieutenant Governor in Council. Patients are covered under warrants. This government changed that procedure. It repealed section 34 of the Mental Health Act during the debate on Bill 7. This was included in Bill 7. Nobody bothered to point it out. This was repealed by this government. It used to be the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and now they pass it back to the Lieutenant Governor. When are you going to launch a public --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired. Order. Would the honourable member take his seat?

EDUCATION WEEK

Mr. McClelland: As members of this House will know, we are drawing to the conclusion of Education Week. In Brampton, the Peel Board of Education and the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board have organized activities that include seminars and special opportunities for the community to be involved in the schools and for people of the community to be involved generally with education. I have had the opportunity and privilege of being involved in some of these activities and want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the young people and students of Brampton North.

In our society, where we all too often hear about problems and the activity of that very small segment or that very small portion of students and young people who get into trouble, I want to draw attention to the very positive young kids we have in our community, indeed across this province. My ongoing interaction, and I am sure the interaction of all members with young people, is a source of encouragement, and their vitality and contribution are very much appreciated.

I want to say to the students of Brampton North, and indeed to the students across this province, but more particularly to the students of Brampton North, thank you for your contribution in a very positive way and for all the good things that you do. Thank you for what you do for us.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr. Mackenzie: Just recently, a small plant in Toronto, Trigild Ltd., copper products, closed down, just one of a whole series of plant closures we have had recently. In this particular case, the plant has since gone into receivership. There are 13 employees in this plant who end up getting three days’ pay rather than the two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and have no possibility of collecting from the receivers, or so they are told, because of the bank’s prior claim.

The reason I raise this again is that it is an issue we have been raising for about 10 or 11 years in this House now, and over that period of time we have had a number of indications that the government might be prepared to look at changes in the bankruptcy legislation so that legitimate wages and benefits of workers are considered a priority rather than the payment back to the banks.

Nothing has happened, and we have these cases coming up on a monthly basis, sometimes more often than that. I guess the question the members of this House have to answer for people like the 13 families involved in this particular small plant is: where is the justice for those employees? When is this government going to take a look at changes in the bankruptcy legislation so that workers’ wages and benefits are recognized as a priority?

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: I would like to take this opportunity to offer my party’s endorsement of the city of Scarborough’s decision to amend its official plan, allowing the Rouge Valley to be saved for recreation, wildlife preserves, hiking trails and research farms. I would also like to congratulate our federal Minister of the Environment, Tom McMillan, for expressing his concern for the Rouge Valley and committing his support for a joint federal-provincial park to be created at this site.

In the past, I have asked our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to make a commitment to the preservation of the Rouge Valley, but he has lacked the courage to come forward with a firm response. It seems that when it is politically convenient to throw responsibilities to the municipalities, this government is quick to move. However, when municipalities have shown leadership and have made a strong commitment, the province wants to wield the sceptre of power above them.

In the past, the province had said it wanted to consult with Scarborough on the use of the land. Scarborough said it wanted recreational uses, and now the province is indicating it may not even listen to the citizens of the area as it has, to quote the government, “a larger constituency to answer to.” Today I am calling on the government to accept the decision of the city of Scarborough to preserve the Rouge Valley.

LE PÈRE GEORGES-HENRI LÉVESQUE

M. Poirier: À la veille de la Semaine de l’éducation en Ontario, j’aimerais informer les membres de l’Assemblée que ce soir, dans la ville de Québec, se fera la remise du premier Prix du mérite canadien Jeunesse-Éducation. Ce prix sera présenté au révérend père Georges-Henri Lévesque au cours d’une cérémonie qui aura lieu au Château Frontenac.

Le père Lévesque a eu 85 ens en janvier dernier. Il est né à Roberval, dans la province de Québec, et il a étudié à Chicoutimi avant de se joindre à l’ordre des dominicains, à Saint-Hyacinthe. Son ordination a eu lieu à Ottawa, en 1928.

Le père Lévesque a enseigné à Lille, en France, ainsi qu’à Ottawa et à Montréal, avant de fonder, en 1938, l’École puis la Faculté des sciences sociales et politiques de l’Université Laval.

Il est également cofondateur de la Société d’éducation des adultes de l’Université Laval et de la Commission canadienne sur la jeunesse. Le père Lévesque a fondé l’Université rationale du Rouanda en 1963. Il est Chevalier de la Légion d’honneur de France, Compagnon de l’Ordre du Canada et « Pater Patriae », ou Père de la Patrie, au Rouanda.

Le père Georges-Henri Lévesque a consacré sa vie à l’éducation de la jeunesse et ce, au Canada, en Europe et en Afrique. Il mérite pleinement que le premier Prix du mérite canadien Jeunesse-Éducation lui soit décerné. Il est un exemple dont pourront s’inspirer tous les éducateurs durant la Semaine de l’éducation, qui débutera ce dimanche-ci, en Ontario. Merci.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sending you a copy of an announcement made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert). This announcement was released on April 11. It states, and I will read it in part: “According to the recent Comay report, this site has the potential to be developed for office-commercial, limited ancillary retail or government uses.” The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere made this announcement two days prior to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) announcing that this same site was now being made available for housing proposals. There is obviously some confusion.

1340

I tried to sort this out last week by means of a map, so that the government House leader would know where these announcements ought to be made. I did not envisage it would have to include Scarborough.

I believe there is a privilege matter involved here. I believe that announcements of this kind should be made in this chamber by the minister. They should not be made previously and add to some confusion by means of having ordinary members make similar but contradictory announcements in their own ridings.

Mr. Faubert: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a matter of privilege? On this correspondence, I would ask this House to refer the matter to the Speaker, because it is the second time that a piece of correspondence which was taken from my garbage from my office has been used in this House. I suggest I would like to have this matter referred to the Speaker for a judgement on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: Just a small point of privilege: I know nothing about the member’s garbage. I do know that I have here a letter that was addressed to residents of his riding. That is the matter that I raised. What he does with his garbage is his own business.

Mr. Cousens: The outrage that we feel on this side of the House for members opposite having information given to them in advance of other members of the House is that it is, in fact, an insult to the whole process of this government.

It is a failure of this government to live up to the openness that it promised. It is a failure of this government to respond to written order paper questions. I had a written question in Orders and Notices as of December. I was promised a response on March 6 and did not get it. This member had the information and was sending it out to his constituents in advance of this House receiving it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter has been drawn to my attention. I have just received a copy. I will take a look at it and report back to the House.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I may, I would like to inform all members that we have a special guest in the Speaker’s gallery today. I would like to introduce to all the members His Excellency Ziad Shaw-waf, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency.

Mr. Pope: I believe we also have another distinguished guest in the government members’ gallery. Some of us knew him as the ex officio chairman of Ontario Hydro. Others knew him for his rigorous adherence to the rules of procedure of this Legislative Assembly, but the former member for Grey-Bruce, Eddie Sargent, is among us.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES OUVRABLES

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as legislators --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Where’s the applause?

[Applause]

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Why, thank you.

As legislators, we know that society cannot function fairly with legislation that cannot be fairly administered. It is up to us to review the laws that are not working, identify the problems and fix them in order to ensure that people of this province have fair, enforceable standards to guide their actions.

The Retail Business Holidays Act has long needed such a review. Its history is a catalogue of abuses, especially in our larger cities. Stores have been roped off and barricaded to meet size regulations; department stores have billed themselves as drugstores; the same street purports to be a tourist attraction on the west side, while, on the east side, it remains closed.

These instances may be within the letter of the law. They are not within the spirit of the law. That is a clear signal that the law needs to be changed. It needs to be fair, coherent and workable. It needs to reflect the values and traditions of the people of the province. Today, we are proposing such legislation.

We are retaining a provincial framework to regulate retail shopping on Sundays and holidays under our legislation. The provincial framework will be fair and enforceable. Municipalities are free to choose to enact bylaws to adapt that framework to their local needs. They may permit to open such additional businesses as they consider appropriate. They may close businesses, if that is their choice. They may choose not to act at all, but to live within the provincial framework.

Ontario is a diverse, multicultural, dynamic mix of communities, each with its own unique set of values. These communities will now have greater freedom of choice over an issue that is so closely tied to these values.

Local decision-making is not a new concept in Ontario. In fact, it is an Ontario tradition. Communities already have the power to regulate store hours throughout the week. Sunday sports and liquor availability have both been matters of local decision-making. Many communities have exercised their existing option to designate tourist areas and, as a result, have extensive shopping on Sundays and holidays already.

The legislation we are proposing will allow local self-determination in Ontario to continue. The key is flexibility coupled with fairness. That is why the government intends to permit the regional level of government to exercise the local option. Regional government has the scope to balance the needs of the varieties of communities within its boundaries. Local government must have the right to make its retail business regulation reflect the reality of its own marketplace and values.

Take the example of the tourist exemption. This government recognizes the need to protect and expand tourism throughout the province. It is one of our largest industries and provides jobs and money for thousands of Ontarians, yet we all know that the tourist exemption is not always used in a fair or consistent manner.

Under the proposed legislation, the tourist exemption is phased out over a five-year period. Communities will be able to allow Sunday and holiday shopping in whatever areas they wish, for whatever purposes they wish, including the promotion of tourism. But they will not have to stretch credibility by manufacturing a tourist area. It is a more coherent, honest and fair approach.

This brings me to the framework law that applies to the entire province. The framework is directed at fairness and enforceability. As soon as the law is proclaimed, some significant changes will take place.

There will be a strengthened Sabbatarian exemption protecting retail business owners who recognize a Sabbath other than Sunday. Provisions in leases and franchise agreements which require tenants to open their stores on Sundays and holidays will no longer have any effect. This protection applies to both existing and future leasing arrangements.

As you will hear from my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), the government will introduce today protections for retail workers. Also, Boxing Day will be an official holiday and will always fall on December 26.

The government has ensured that the new law will be more enforceable. We have eliminated abuses. We have simplified the rules regarding drugstores. We have phased out roping-off. We have increased the maximum fines to $50,000 and provided effective deterrents to breaking the law.

In conclusion, the proposed legislation provides a fair and enforceable framework for the regulation of Sunday and holiday shopping throughout Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As my colleague the Solicitor General has indicated, the government is proposing legislation that offers a fair, coherent, workable law that allows the people of Ontario freedom of choice. It replaces an unworkable law whose application, as members know, was becoming increasingly difficult to enforce, particularly in many of Ontario’s urban centres.

I will remind the members of the Legislature that last December 2, I committed, on behalf of the government, to “bring forward the necessary protections for affected workers” at the time when the promised amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act were introduced. Today, I want to affirm that commitment and to describe how it is to be fulfilled.

Later on this afternoon, I will be introducing an amendment to the Employment Standards Act to create new protections for employees of retail business establishments that open on Sunday. The bill will provide protection to all retail workers and thereby ensure a coherent and fair application of the law throughout the retail sector. Consequently, I am confident that all employees of Sunday-opening retail establishments, including those, like students and some part-time workers, who prefer Sunday work, will stand to benefit.

As a result of this amendment, employers will be encouraged to work out co-operative arrangements for Sunday work that take into account the interest of those individuals who wish either not to work on Sunday or to keep Sunday work to a minimum. This will be accomplished through the establishment of a right for all retail workers to refuse Sunday work which, in their view, is unreasonable. The bill will protect workers against reprisals for such refusals.

The new law will also provide a process to help employers and employees resolve disputes over what constitutes unreasonable Sunday work or over allegations of reprisals against employees.

Monsieur le Président, cela sera accompli en donnant le droit à tous les travailleurs du commerce de détail de refuser de travailler le dimanche, s’ils jugent que cela n’est pas raisonnable. Ce projet de loi protégera tous les travailleurs contre les représailles prises contre eux pour avoir refusé de travailler . La nouvelle loi fournira un processus destiné à permettre aux employeurs et aux travailleurs de résoudre des différends relatifs au travail le dimanche jugé non raisonnable.

The act will provide for simple and effective mediation. If no settlement is reached through mediation, the matter will be referred to an independent referee appointed under the Employment Standards Act.

Referees hearing disputes in these matters will be able to weigh a number of factors in reaching a decision about the reasonableness of an employer’s approach to scheduling of Sunday work.

Mr. Pope: We would have thought you would have done your job and protected the workers.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would have thought the opposition parties would have wanted to know the content of this statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: These factors will be set out in the bill and will include such criteria as the existence of a premium pay arrangement for Sunday work and the recent history of employment, including any previous requirement to work on Sunday.

An employee will have the right to refuse Sunday work unless and until a referee decides that the assignment of work is reasonable.

The One Day’s Rest in Seven Act currently applies in the hospitality industry and will continue to do so. The government will therefore be bringing forth a regulation that excludes the hospitality industry from the provisions of the new bill.

As my colleague the Solicitor General has indicated, the bill will make Boxing Day, December 26, a public holiday for the purposes of the Employment Standards Act, and I know my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) will welcome that initiative. That will mean that the special premium pay and right-to-refuse provisions for public holidays will be extended to Boxing Day.

This bill augments protection provided to all employees in Ontario under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The code requires that employers reasonably accommodate the need of a person whose religious beliefs and practices limit his or her ability to work on a particular day, including Sunday, except where this would result in undue hardship for the employer.

In addition, Bill 51, which I introduced in December and which was passed in January, continues to give retail workers the right to refuse to work on Sunday if the store employing them is open in violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

The bill I am bringing forward today is a fair and enforceable law that provides new protection to every worker in the retail sector in Ontario.

The approach the government has adopted will, in addition, encourage the workplace parties themselves to seek innovative solutions that work for them. As a result, a higher standard for Sunday work than has existed in the past will be established throughout the retail sector in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The legislation that is being introduced by the government today will, we believe, provide the people of Ontario with fair, coherent, enforceable legislation which allows the freedom of choice to reflect local needs in each of Ontario’s communities. The legislation also provides important new protections never before in place for all retail workers. I want to underline that the government’s amendments have been carefully drafted so as to fully respect and protect rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Over the past several years, it has become obvious, more so year by year, that major changes are needed in the regulation of Sunday and holiday shopping in the province.

One of the main reasons the government decided to change the previous legislation was precisely because it was abused. The existing legislation, a political compromise in place since 1975, has been flagrantly and systematically violated by numerous retailers and was particularly violated during the Christmas and post-Christmas shopping season.

Mr. Brandt: Ian, this is the camera that is on over here.

Mr. Jackson: Ian, the camera is over here.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Camera 2, take 2.

Mr. B. Rae: Take 2.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Leader of the Opposition is mesmerized by the camera. I wish he would pay attention to this statement.

Each year, as all of us know, disrespect for the existing law has become more widespread. As a former Attorney General said years ago, the act was a law whose application was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres.

The new legislation proposed, on the other hand, is based, I believe, on a solid foundation of fairness. It allows freedom of choice for Ontario communities to determine their own unique needs while providing a gradual, orderly transition over a five-year period. It is workable and enforceable, so it will not be subject to wide-spread abuse. It provides, for the first time in Ontario, fair and effective protection for all retail workers. It protects religious groups. It treats retailers all across the province more equitably. It provides a consistent, rational framework for Sunday and holiday shopping in the province. In this sense, it responds to the demands, the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The central feature of the legislation is a provincial framework for the regulation of Sunday and holiday shopping. If a municipality wishes to play no part in the regulation of Sunday and holiday store hours, the provincial framework will continue to govern. The amendments also grant municipal governments the power to override the provincial framework if they wish to do so. Local governments will thus, if they wish, be able to pass bylaws allowing the opening or requiring the closing of retail establishments on Sundays and holidays.

1400

This change recognizes the value of community autonomy and local choice in the matter of regulating Sunday and holiday shopping. Ontario is a vast and diverse province. The regulation of store openings must be sensitive to this diversity and recognize the differences among our communities. The government’s proposal will provide communities with the freedom to choose, if they wish, for themselves.

As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) repeatedly emphasized in his discussions of the issue, providing for local option does not require or assume wide-open Sunday and holiday shopping. Local option simply allows municipalities more scope to make decisions which respect the unique nature of their own communities.

The government’s proposals also ensure that the new framework is sensitive to individual rights under the charter.

In the Edwards Books case, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that Sunday-closing legislation must protect the religious freedom of retailers who observe a Sabbath other than Sunday.

The government’s amendments contain a broadened Sabbatarian exemption which will protect the religious rights of all retailers without any restrictions as to their size, the number of employees or the day of the week on which they close. This broadened exemption will apply whether the local option is exercised or not. It furthers the government’s commitment to respect minority rights and recognizes the evolving multicultural character of the province. This reinforces the protections of religious rights of employees and workers which are found under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Mr. Pope: Oh, sure. Tell us how.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I refer the honourable member to the case of O’Malley v. the Robert Simpson Co., decided in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The courts also have made plain that extending special protection to retail workers is fully consistent with the charter. In recognition of this, the government has granted all retail workers the right to refuse Sunday and holiday assignments that they consider unreasonable.

We believe that this package of amendments provides, for the first time, a workable, fair, flexible solution to the issue of Sunday and holiday shopping. The amendments are grounded in the belief that what is appropriate for Toronto or Windsor may not be appropriate for Tillsonburg or Thunder Bay or Pembroke. In this important matter, the citizens of this province are entitled to the freedom to choose for themselves.

RESPONSES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I think all of us who heard these three statements, and those of us who have been here for some time, would be hard pressed to match a sense that words have been twisted, commitments have been broken and promises have been unkept that were made in this House to many of us who are here today and to the people of this province by the Premier of this province (Mr. Peterson), by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara).

What the government is proposing is not fair, is not right and is offensive to literally thousands of families in this province. It is going to represent a hardship and a burden on working people and their families. It is going to represent a major change in the way in which Sunday is observed and treated in literally dozens of communities across this province.

I want to tell the government on behalf of the official opposition, and indeed I think I can safely say on behalf of all the opposition members in this House, that the government members are going to have a fight on these measures such as they have never seen in their political careers before. That is what I can tell them right now.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: No, you might not like to hear it, but hear it for a moment; hear me out.

First breach: the Liberal Party of Ontario did not campaign in the last election on this issue. In fact quite the contrary; the position that was taken by the Liberal Party of Ontario in the last election was that the previous compromise that had been reached was the one that was acceptable to it.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General, who is shouting now from his seat, has said on many occasions, and he said again today, that the law is not enforceable. I want to suggest to the Attorney General that one of the reasons the law is unenforceable is because he was not prepared to enforce it when the Supreme Court said he could and he should. That is the problem. He has never supported this legislation, and even when it was the law he turned his head to it. Then he turns around to his caucus and says: “It cannot be enforced. I guess we will have to go another route.” I cannot imagine an approach more calculated to bring about a disrespect for the law.

Then we have an approach taken by the Minister of Labour. I heard the Premier myself say on a television broadcast in December that no worker would have to work on a Sunday in the retail stores who did not want to. I heard him say that and he was asked yesterday to repeat it and he did not repeat it. What does the Minister of Labour say today? Listen to this unadorned statement of the workers’ rights in Ontario: “An employee will have the right to refuse Sunday work unless and until a referee decides that the assignment of work is reasonable.”

If that is not a weasel word and a sucker clause, I do not know what is. That offers no protection to working families in this province when it comes to Sunday working. It offers no protection at all.

Let me compare this legislation. In Massachusetts, the law which provides for Sunday opening after 12 noon says, “No employee shall be required to perform such Sunday work and refusal to work for any retail establishment on Sunday shall not be grounds for discrimination, dismissal, discharge, reduction in hours or any other penalty.” Now, that is a protection.

What the Minister of Labour has produced for us is work for lawyers on Saturdays, Sundays and every other day of the week, work for arbitrators and more bureaucrats in the ministry running around trying to do something, but it is no protection for the working families of this province when it comes to them wanting to mend time on Sundays.

Finally, we have the statement of the Solicitor General. I can only say, whenever I hear her speak, that I feel an enormous sense of sadness because she was on that committee and she knows perfectly well what that committee said about the importance of a common pause day for all of Ontario. She agreed with that and she went along with it and she knew what she was saying. She is now in cabinet and she is now speaking a very different tune.

Those of us who have been involved in politics and watched the wonders of the effects of power on some can hardly be surprised. One becomes, if not cynical at least sceptical, in observing the varieties of human behaviour in this regard, but when somebody says one thing as a private member and then turns around as a cabinet minister and says the opposite, I think something is wrong with respect to telling it straight and telling it like it is.

We are going to be fighting this bill all the way.

Mrs. Cunningham: On behalf of our party, I want to say to the Premier and the ministers that maybe they have not started listening to the people of the province and maybe they have not got the message yet, but they are going to. Families in this province are frustrated and angry. They do not want to work on Sundays. They want a common pause day.

Our party will be forcing this bill into committee and we will be demanding that every individual, every group, every organization and every municipality that wants to be heard on Sunday shopping be heard; luckily not in this arena, but they will be heard.

The people of Ontario deserve to have their wishes and their concerns put before those who represent them, particularly the Premier.

1410

Mr. McCague: The people of the province can still be heard on this issue. I suggest that the people of Guelph call their member at this number and remind him who he is supposed to represent. The people of Cornwall can call their member and remind him who voted him into office and who can vote him out. In Peterborough, call the member there and remind him that he called the municipal option a copout. The people of Kingston and The Islands can call their member and remind him.

Mr. Brandt: Among many flaws in the legislation we have before us today is the fundamental flaw that, in some fashion or another, the municipalities are going to welcome this so-called municipal option. Let me say to the Premier he could not be further from the truth. In checking with local municipalities, including his own today, the city of London, I have yet to see one municipality that has indicated it wants to take this particular responsibility under its area of concern at the local level. They simply do not want it. The vote at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was 58 to three against what the Premier is proposing to do.

The Premier, members of cabinet and particularly the Liberal members in the back benches, who in fact campaigned against this very concept on September 10, 1987, are doing the wrong thing by supporting this legislation. What they are doing is promoting wide-open commercialism seven days a week in this province as a result of the kind of laws they want to bring forward. They are not providing protection for workers, they are not providing protection for small retailers.

The association of municipalities, organized labour, church groups -- virtually every single voice in Ontario that could come forward and tell the Premier he is doing the wrong thing -- have expressed their dissatisfaction to the Premier and he and his people will now pay the political price for it.

Mr. Harris: I want to respond in general to the statements, and I want to respond specifically to the statements by the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General.

The Attorney General indicates that there would be a provincial framework, but municipalities can override it. Therefore, there will not be any provincial framework in those municipalities.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: No, it says it can be overridden.

Hon. Mr. Scott: They can override it now.

Mr. Harris: You know, the real tragedy here this whole shemozzle, this five-year phase-in the government is talking about, and perhaps 10 years of confusion, of schemozzle, of unenforceable laws, of a ridiculous, embarrassing day for the Minister of Labour, is all brought about because the government does not want to or is afraid to define “tourism.” That could have been done very simply. I volunteered to do it for them. It would have cost nothing. The government is going to tie up lawyers and millions of dollars in stuff that will not work, instead of going to the problem and solving the problem, to satisfy these four guys on that front bench.

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

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I have been asked to inform the members that we have a visitor with us today, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Quebec, Roland Morin, in the lower west gallery.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. He indicated in December, and his Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) certainly indicated in December, that there was going to be real worker protection legislation introduced at the same time as the government moved with its plans to allow municipalities to let people shop till they drop.

The minister announced today a proposal which, I am sure the Premier would agree, falls far short of a statement in the Legislature that in fact workers will have the right to refuse and that this right will be untrammelled.

I wonder if the Premier can explain why it is that instead of giving workers that kind of right, the government in fact chose to limit the right in such a serious way as in the legislation proposed today by the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Minister of Labour can explain the law to the honourable member.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It was your promise. What a gutless wonder. He makes a promise and won’t even follow through.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been referred to the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, he is rather a pile of contradictions on this matter. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say in this House as recently as yesterday that he was going to give his party an opportunity to vote freely on this. Today I hear him say, in response to ministers’ statements, “Our party is going to fight to the death on this issue.” Now what is it? Is his party going to be free to vote wherever they want on this issue, to look at this bill? I invite the Leader of the Opposition to now end the rhetoric and study the legislation.

This is the first time in the history of this province that workers have been given a right to refuse work on a particular day. This is a new right that has never been offered before. I invite the Leader of the Opposition and all of the opposition parties to study it, because when they study it, they will see it is a new right that is important for the retail workers of this province.

Mr. B. Rae: In my response to the minister’s statement, I quoted to him the law in Massachusetts, which is very clear. It does not talk about reasonableness. It does not talk about mediation. It does not talk about employers and lions and lambs sitting down together to work out a co-operative arrangement. It talks about giving workers rights. The government has not done that. That is a very different kind of approach.

My very simple question to the minister is, why did he not do that, when both he and his leader, who was afraid to answer my question directly, stated in December very clearly and categorically that those were the rights they would be attaching to working people who are working in the retail trade? Why did the government take that right away and substitute for it a mealy-mouthed sucker clause that does not give the workers the kinds of rights the government pretends to give them?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There, again, I think, is another perfect example. My friend the Leader of the Opposition has not even read the bill yet, has not read the fact that it will have a prohibition against dismissal, against discipline, against imposing any penalty, against intimidation.

Even more to the point, when we look at the contradictions of the Leader of the Opposition and that party, this matter of regulating retail business holidays goes back to 1976 in this Legislature. In 1975 his party, as it is now, was the official opposition, when the bill we are amending today was brought in. We did not then hear that party talking about worker protection as Sunday shopping was expanded. It was never mentioned. Now, when we bring in a law that is reasonable and will work for the retail workers of this province, they have nothing to say and no apologies to make.

Mr. B. Rae: On page 7 of the statement which the minister has given us, it sets out all the factors that are calculated as being “reasonable.” It talks about the existence of a collective agreement covering Sunday work, the recent history of employment, including any previous requirement to work on Sunday, and so on.

Would the minister not agree that if an arbitrator finds that under a previous law, people were working on Sunday perhaps because the law was unenforced, people were working on Sunday because the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was not prepared to enforce the law, so that the existence of a previous practice, which might have been illegal, condoned by the minister’s government, that somehow lends credence to an employer who says, “Our employees have always worked on a Sunday”?

Does the Minister of Labour not understand in dealing with the real world of the relationship between employers and employees in the workforce that by limiting the right, by padding it, by cutting away at its essence, what in fact he is doing is ensuring that the power relationship stays with the employer, the process of time -- everybody having to be a hero to go to mediation, to be a hero and a troublemaker to go to mediation and then to go to arbitration -- what in fact the government is doing is changing the working lives of thousands of people in this province who may live in municipalities where they have decided to allow --

1420

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

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Once again, the Leader of the Opposition speaks from both sides of his mouth on these sorts of issues. When we talk about occupational health and safety, the New Democratic Party is saying to me on any occasion that it can, “You’ve got to reinforce the right to refuse.”

Here, for the first time, we have brought in a law which will contain a number of statutory indicia of a reasonable assignment of Sunday work. The entire thrust of this law is to bring about a situation where, by and large, the workforce in the retail sector on Sundays is a voluntary one. I am telling my friend the Leader of the Opposition that that will be the result of this provision. It is designed to work, and designed to work in a fair and effective way.

Mr. Speaker: New question. To whom?

Mr. B. Rae: The Magna Carta did not talk about “by and large.” John Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights did not talk about “by and large.” The Charter of Rights does not talk about “by and large.”

Mr. Speaker: To the Minister of Labour.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour this, going back to page 6, which again is where he completely guts the meaning of an enforceable right on the part of working people. What he says, for example, is, “the existence of a premium pay arrangement for Sunday work,” and the existence of a policy of rotating Sunday work assignments. Is this what it means, that if a mediator or an arbitrator hears from an employer, “I do not make them work every Sunday; I make them work only on some Sundays,” does that satisfy his “reasonable” test? Is that what he means by “reasonable”? Is that what he is saying is reasonable?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition talks about what, by and large, John Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights said and what the Magna Carta said. Well, I can tell him, by and large, that when this parliament several months ago passed an amendment to the Employment Standards Act which provided for the opening of bookstores in the province, there was not one word from the official opposition about providing protection for the workers, not one word.

The system that is provided for in this bill will give employers and employees a context within which to work out assignments of Sunday work. I remind my friend the Leader of the Opposition that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of workers in the province of Ontario, in his own office indeed, have to be available and can be called upon for Sunday work. Here we are creating a new standard, a higher standard for workers in the retail sector, and I think it should be welcomed right across the province.

Mr. B. Rae: I did not hear an answer to my question. I asked the minister a question about the legislation. He said to me in one of his answers to my earlier questions: “Stop being rhetorical. Let’s get down to specifics.” So I turned to page 6 and said, “Fine, let us get down to specifics.” I have asked him, I think, about four or five specifics and have not heard one answer. I have heard insults. I have heard statements about all kinds of things. I have not heard an answer. I would like to hear an answer. Is the minister saying in his legislation, when he speaks in his statement of the existence of a policy of rotating Sunday work assignments, that if an employer says, “I do not make them work every Sunday; I make them work only some Sundays,” that makes the assignment of Sunday work reasonable? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The bill sets out a number of statutory criteria that a mediator, and indeed, if necessary, a referee, can refer to. The bill provides simply this: if a retail worker is required to work on Sunday, if that worker considers in his view that the assignment of Sunday work is unreasonable, he can refuse that assignment of Sunday work and the bill will provide protection against dismissal, against discipline, against the imposition of a penalty or intimidation or coercion.

Obviously, there ultimately has to be a determination of whether the assignment is reasonable or unreasonable. We have provided in the legislation a fair, easy system for workers and employers to present their differences and develop a solution that is mediated, and if not mediated to be determined finally and in a binding way by a referee.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can tell us, if an employee loses his case at arbitration and an arbitrator finds that the existence of a premium pay arrangement for Sunday work or the fact that it is rotated -- I know he is getting his instructions from the Attorney General; I would appreciate an answer from him.

I would like to ask him a question. If the arbitrator finds that in fact it is reasonable for the employee to do that work, and if the employee continues to feel that it is unreasonable and in fact says to the employer, “I do not agree with your decision and I do not agree with the Liberal-appointed referee’s decision either,” can the Minister of Labour tell us what protection the worker then has when he says to the employer, “I do not want to work on that Sunday”? Would the minister confirm in this House that the clear meaning of the law in Liberal Ontario will be that the worker will be without a job?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition suggested I was getting my instructions from the Attorney General. I can tell him that what I hear from the Attorney General is, “Greg, I like your bill more and more.”

Mr. Pope: That says it all.

Mr. Breaugh: That should be a warning signal, Greg.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am just telling you what I hear, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: And now the response to the second part of the question.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: To answer the final supplementary of the Leader of the Opposition, he will know that virtually all sectors have the capacity to require workers to work on Sunday. We have determined that in dealing with amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act it is appropriate to provide a special and higher standard for retail workers. If a referee looks at criteria within the act and determines, after hearing from the worker and the employer, that all reasonable accommodation has been made to provide for those who would prefer not to work on Sunday or who, for one reason or another, cannot work on Sunday, then the work will be determined to be reasonable, and at that point the right of the workers to refuse Sunday work will expire.

That worker also has the possibility --

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Do members want to hear an answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Brandt: Let me just say to the Minister of Labour that, as I read his bill, unlike the Attorney General, I like it less and less, not more and more.

My question is to the Premier and it is with respect to the fundamental premise upon which this legislation is constructed. The suggestion from that side of the House is that the municipal option will allow freedom of choice to the various municipalities, as I understand the point he is bringing forward with respect to this legislation, and the individual municipalities, based on their individual objectives and goals in their part of the province, will now make the decision.

Contrary to what the Premier might think -- and I know this is a position that he does not agree with -- the municipalities, which are going to be charged with the responsibility of carrying out this legislation and enforcing it, have said with virtually a unified voice that they are incapable of doing it. But more particularly -- and they have read it and they know exactly what is coming up in this legislation -- the fact of the matter is that there are no changes in this legislation from what has been proposed all along. There is no genius, as the Premier suggested there was going to be.

The bottom line and the question I want to ask the Premier is simply this. The municipalities have indicated they are incapable of withstanding the pressure from competing municipalities that may wish to go for wide-open Sunday shopping. They have indicated that the pressure that will be placed on those municipalities will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to resist.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: What is the Premier going to say to those municipalities?

1430

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend argues on the one hand that there are no changes and on the other hand that there are changes. Obviously, he has not read the bill. My honourable friend would want to do that so that he can explain to his friends in municipalities what is in the bill.

I think it is very clear that there is a framework law in place. The previous law was unfair and unenforceable. As my honourable friend knows, this bill is very clear, and any municipality that wants to do so can be part of that framework law. However, if Sault Ste. Marie would like to take a different approach, then it is entitled to do so, as can Point Edward. Surely that is clear to my honourable friend.

Mr. Brandt: It is not clear, and it is not clear to the municipalities or others who know of the direction the Premier is taking with respect to this legislation today.

In light of the fact that we are going to have a chequerboard of laws across this province, obviously, with various municipalities being either open or closed depending on the local determination, how is this going to bring some semblance of sanity into the understanding that the people of this province have relative to the conditions that will exist in their own municipalities, particularly when one recognizes that in the more populated parts of Ontario we have many municipalities which are adjacent to each other, which are in fact influenced by the shopping centres, the commercial activity and all of the activities that go on in those municipalities? How are those municipalities in any way going to withstand this kind of competition, which he seems to think is not even a factor?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Brandt: How are we going to have any kind of uniformity of laws in this province with what he is suggesting?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend talks about sanity in the situation. He would obviously imply that there is something irrational or not sane about the Point Edward situation vis-à-vis Sarnia in his own constituency. All my experience is that the people of that area are extremely sane, except for the choice of their representatives perhaps. But let me say that the situation works very well. What is so irrational about what happens in Sault Ste. Marie, Niagara Falls or Niagara-on-the-Lake, for all that matter?

Again, I say my honourable friend should look at the jurisdiction where this happens. He should look at what is happening in Alberta today. Is there anything particularly lacking in rationality there?

Mr. Sterling: It isn’t working.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend says they do not like it. Then again, he is prepared to stand up here in this House and say what people like and what they do not like. He is prepared to make laws for everybody from Sault Ste. Marie to Kingston, as well as Alberta it appears, while we respect local autonomy. That is what this law is all about, and it works very well in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier has some local autonomy when it is convenient to him; he withholds local autonomy when it is inconvenient to him. That happens to be the reality.

I also recall very clearly the Premier’s words in August 1987, prior to a very important date in this particular province, namely September 10, when he indicated the people of this province needed a common day of pause and a common day of rest. That is what we on this side of the House are fighting for. That is what the Premier is destroying. He has gone back on the word that he gave to the people of this province in August of last year. Why has he changed his mind?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again, we have gone through this issue, and my honourable friend keeps shifting his ground for the argument that he wants to make. He should look at the bill that has been brought forward. It is completely consistent with what we think is good policymaking. It respects the individuality of the various communities and is going to work very well. This is fair, it is understandable and it is enforceable, unlike, may I say, the law that his government brought in.

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Let us zero in on what is reasonable. We have Follis Shoes. It has three employees. They all require day care, and they all say they do not want to work on Sunday. That is the total staff. Is it reasonable for the employer to ask one of them to work on Sunday, to ask the three of them to share it every third Sunday? Where do they find day care?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let me start off by suggesting to my friend the member for Nipissing that perhaps back almost 12 years ago now, more than 12 years ago, it might have been fair and reasonable when his party brought in the original Retail Business Holidays Act to provide for the fact that workers would be called upon to work on Sunday. I tell him, as I told the leader of the official opposition, that the fact is that many, many workers in this province, whether in the steel industry or the transportation industry, whether in manufacturing or any sector one can name, are subject to be called upon for work on Sunday.

This is the first time in the history of this province that we have provided a reasonable right for retail workers to say, “We would like, to the greatest extent possible, to make our commitment to Sunday work voluntary.” It has not been done here before.

I would suggest to my friend the member for Nipissing that he now study the legislation. It is time for the rhetoric to be over and for us to sit down and try to pass this bill, which will be historic in this province.

Mr. Harris: The minister is right, some do have to work. They do not appreciate it, but they appreciate it when their spouses do not have to work on the Sundays they do get off. The minister is trying to expand what is a difficult situation for some people right now.

Let me follow up with my question, since he did not answer the First one. I think the answer is obvious. Somebody is going to spend $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 on lawyers and arbitration and there will not be any answer, as there will not be for many of the situations.

Let me ask the minister this. North Bay does have wide-open Sunday shopping. Follis Shoes does have to open on Main Street on Sunday. Somebody has to go in there and work. The day care centres have to open. More bus drivers have to drive. What protection is the minister offering, not just for the retail workers, but the day care workers, the bank tellers, extra service industry staff, gas attendants, municipal workers, cleaners, baby-sitters, transit workers, utility workers, postal and courier service workers, delivery service workers, who, the estimate says, are more than the number of retail workers put together in this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: You’re the trade union’s party. You’ve just switched places.

Mr. B. Rae: You’re just laying the groundwork for when you go to private practice.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Mr. Speaker, I do not think they want to hear an answer.

I guess if, as an opposition member, when you are looking at a piece of legislation like this which really does break new ground, if you do not have anything bad to say about it, you will say that it should do a whole lot more.

In this initiative, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and I were given the responsibility for dealing with a particular sector. This bill deals with that sector. The fact is that it deals with that sector in appropriate ways.

Mr. Harris: The fact is that when a responsible government is dealing with 10 per cent of the workforce and a massive change in direction for 10 per cent of the workforce, and that impacts on another 20 per cent of the workforce, somebody should be thinking about that other 20 per cent. I think that is being responsible.

Really, I think most objective observers would say that what we have seen today is a political charade, particularly from the Minister of Labour. First, I ask him, to carry out this political charade, who is going to pay the costs of the arbitration and the lawyers to take it through that one-year or two-year period? Who is going to pay that cost for the employees and the employer? Second, could he tell us the estimate that he has of how much it is going to cost to implement this whole charade and shemozzle in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: When the member talks about charades, I think the spotlight is going to fall squarely on the Progressive Conservative Party. That party has been attempting for the past several months to declare the end of civilization, the end of family values if municipalities are given the opportunity to expand or indeed contract from a provincial framework. It has been trying to defend a provincial framework for Sunday openings that they know is unworkable and that has been the subject of abuse in virtually every single community around the province.

Mr. Harris: For the last two years since this Attorney General assumed office. That’s when it started. Since you took office.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I invite them now to end the charade and get down to work, as the reasonable parliamentarians they are, and examine the legislation, make comment on it, here during second reading and indeed in committee. I think when they do that they will find that both the Solicitor General’s bill and my bill have resolved an issue that has, frankly, been very difficult for us all.

1440

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General confirm that the cabinet will be responsible for regulating Sunday shopping in the many small unorganized communities in northern Ontario; and if so, can she indicate whether or not Sunday shopping will be allowed in those small communities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The areas will be governed exactly as they are governed now in other areas of hours, and so on and so forth, by request to the cabinet.

Mr. Wildman: If we could help the Solicitor General, an unorganized community has no municipal council. Who, therefore, is going to request to the cabinet with regard to the regulation of Sunday shopping? Who is going to extend that request to the cabinet; and can she tell us now what her response would be if some individual store owner, for instance, in an unorganized community requested the right to stay open on Sunday?

Mr. Eves: Never thought of it. They don’t know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I gave an extensive answer to this before, and I am glad to remind the members of how this works. We have had no problem with it and no complaints.

The unorganized territories can make a request of the Lieutenant Governor. They can write a letter, they can pick up the phone -- whoever wishes the change. The MPP can make the request. The store can make a request. By and large, the unorganized territories’ stores are in the reserves and they have no problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: You don’t even know what you’re talking about. That’s bloody silly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, it is not --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: It is sad.

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Premier. In the Ottawa-Carleton area and in eastern Ontario, there is overwhelming opposition to this legislation. In fact, the Ottawa Board of Trade is about 70 to 75 per cent opposed to it.

Under the legislation as proposed, as I understand it, the government is offering to the various municipalities across the province the option of taking this as a municipal option or leaving it in the provincial sphere. If we all consider the fact that it is necessary to protect employees, for instance, in terms of working on Sundays, etc. -- and I do not see that the needs of a family in Toronto are any different than they are in Manotick, where I live -- if there are two options, why do we not just stay with one option, the provincial option, and work together to create a fair and equitable law? If the government claims that this is enforceable, why do we not just go with the provincial model? Who wants the municipal option?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We needed a fair, enforceable, clear law. My honourable friend says that people in Ottawa-Carleton county do not want it. That is fine. If they do not want to bring in a bylaw, that is quite all right; but if they want to have a bylaw to open up the market, as they have in the past, as a tourist exemption, they can. If they come to the conclusion they want to open up Sparks Street but not other areas, they can do that. Now tell me what is so unreasonable about that.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I hope by way of supplementary.

Mr. Sterling: I wish the Premier would address himself to the question in terms of the provincial versus the municipal model. It is no secret that, in the eastern Ontario area, many of the Premier’s caucus members oppose his moves with regard to opening up Sunday shopping. In fact, I was told this morning by two prominent Liberals that well over 50 per cent of the Ottawa and eastern Ontario members oppose this piece of legislation.

An hon. member: They could not have been Liberals.

Mr. Sterling: I am talking about the Liberals. When we force this out to committee, there are going to be seven Liberals on the committee, two Conservatives and two New Democrats. Will the Premier permit his Liberal members in the committee to vote with their conscience on this particular bill or is he going to hamstring them in terms of following the government line on this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not hamstring anybody and they will all express their own views in this situation. The committee will function as they usually do around here. It goes back to my honourable friend’s first question. He puts it in the context of his own community, and surely that is an example that we can all understand and one that illustrates the point of this government. We had a law that was unenforceable. We had people jumping over ropes, people changing the size of their store, putting up crates, crawling under ropes, crawling over ropes and all of that kind of thing.

Now it is clear and defined for all. It also allows those exceptions. Is the member prepared to go back to his colleagues and friends in Ottawa and say, “Close down the market on Sundays?” Does he think that is a good idea? If he does, then he is superimposing his views on the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region. They have the right to make that determination. If they choose to open or open parts of it, then they will do so. That does not interfere with the people of Gananoque, who choose to open, or Kingston, who do not, or Picton or Niagara-on-the-Lake or anywhere else. It is working extremely well in other provinces.

I know there is a temptation for my friends opposite in the opposition because, Lord knows, I toiled a long time there and, with any luck, will not be back. I understand the temptation to overdramatize. I understand the temptation just to oppose for the sake of opposing. I understand the desire to overdramatize all of these issue, but my honourable friends are wrong in the way they are characterizing it. I invite them to look at this legislation fairly. Look at other jurisdictions.

Mr. Brandt: We have.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member has not looked at it because he has not seen the legislation yet.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Look at the legislation. Look at how it works in other --

Mr. Brandt: The legislation is bad and you’re wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought the Premier asked me a question. Could I respond to that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

PHYSICIANS’ LIABILITY

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last weekend I took part in a long-term planning session of the Queensway-Carleton Hospital, which is located in my riding. In this exercise, which, by the way, I hope will be repeated in Sarnia and across the province, we were asked to chart the health care future in our community for the next 20 years. A major focus of our attention was, of course, the rising cost of health care. In this regard I was informed that a significant reason for this increase is the fear doctors have of litigation.

In other words, just to be on the safe side in terms of possible negligence suits, doctors will order expensive tests and procedures for which there is no immediate or reasonable medical need. Does the minister agree with this partial explanation of rising health care costs and has her ministry done any investigation into this matter?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue that the member raises is really quite an interesting one. We are often comparing our system of health care to that of our neighbours to the south and what we know in fact is that the United States has a much more litigious society than we do here in Canada and we do not in fact have the kind of experience that it does in these matters. I know that many medical professionals have expressed this view, and I think there should be an opportunity in several forums to have that kind of discussion and debate and determine whether this is an issue for Ontario health care.

1450

Mr. Daigeler: The leaders of the medical community who were with me last weekend argued that doctors would reduce significantly the number of medical procedures to be per

formed if the government were willing to share in some way in malpractice insurance costs. I would like to ask whether the minister has considered such a possibility and what her reaction is to this idea of providing some government protection for physicians from the threat of unreasonable litigation.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The information I have, and I stand to be corrected, is that the discussions and negotiations between the Ontario Medical Association and the government have included a factor for insurance coverage for doctors. I believe last year we funded some 50 per cent of the cost of liability insurance for physicians, and I believe that is a matter for ongoing discussions and negotiations. The broader issue of litigation within our society is one that I think has broader public policy implications. Those discussions are ones I believe will be fruitful in the future and should be part of a broader public debate.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Premier. The various trade associations appearing before the select committee on store hours testified that Sunday working legislation, such as what he is introducing today, would increase food prices between six per cent and nine per cent; some estimates were as high as 15 per cent. Does the Premier agree that the retailers, who should know their businesses better than he does, are correct in their estimates of the inflation that would be created by this kind of legislation, and how can he justify passing this kind of inflation and food price increases to the consumers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member assumes that the whole place is going to open up, and again his assumption is wrong.

Mr. Philip: The municipal option in terms of social policy of this government has been that thousands of people in this province are being fed at least in part by food banks. How can the Premier justify a situation where so many of the people of this province, in London, in Toronto, in Etobicoke, are obtaining part of their food through food banks? How can he possibly justify putting an increased burden on these people by increasing food prices even further?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be controversial, but I do not think the two have anything to do with each other and I think my honourable friend knows that.

Mr. Pope: My question is addressed to the Solicitor General. I think this is an issue with respect to unorganized territories in this province. It is an issue in which, despite what the Premier said -- another one of his inaccurate statements on this, among many others -- and despite what the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said, the cabinet will have to apply some values to the issue of Sunday shopping and Sunday working in the unorganized areas of this province. What will the government’s policy be? We are entitled to know and so are the people who live there. What is the policy going to be when it is asked by a merchant or a resident to open up for Sunday working? What is the policy going to be in cabinet? We are entitled to know.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Where there is no organization to act on behalf of the people, we would have to consult directly with the people in that territory to see what their wishes were and how best we could fulfil those wishes in keeping with their life.

Mr. Pope: In this new Ontario, where process is more important than values, as the Attorney General is wont to say, from 1983 on, where nothing is absolute and everything is comparative, when society and families cannot look forward to a day of common pause because the Attorney General and Premier want them to work, what rights are the government going to allow the people of unorganized territories? Are they going to have a referendum and the winner takes the issue? If that is the case, why do they not do it province-wide, have a province-wide policy and bring some sanity to the issue? The Attorney General and the Premier are making a hopeless mess out of this and it is affecting workers and families across the province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The members of the opposition keep referring to us listening to the people and consulting with them. I would remind them how many communities in this province have already made tourist exemptions a part of their bylaws because this was their wish. They suddenly wish to imply that the province should not listen to those people and not respect what they have already enacted in their bylaws. This is nonsense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again I will just have to wait, I guess. I have no choice. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you wish to waste the time of the House, go ahead.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Education. There are a number of teachers, teacher organizations and other professionals in the education system who are concerned about the rising cost of education.

They are also concerned about the lack of a reduction in the gap in the grants between the elementary and secondary school students. In recent years this gap has increased. While the minister’s recent announcement to increase grants is appreciated, it appears that it did little to reduce the gap. Could the minister tell this House why the recent grant announcement by the Ministry of Education does not reduce the gap substantially?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to indicate to the member that indeed the issue of the gap in grant ceilings between elementary and secondary students in this province has been a matter of ongoing concern. I would point out to the member that the reasons for the differences are indeed well founded in the fact that costs in the secondary panel, such as those relative to plant operation and maintenance, are higher; the instructional costs are higher. Members will be aware that there are also salary differences as a result of differences in qualifications and experience.

I know the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) will be very interested in this. This year’s general legislative grant announcement contained a number of initiatives in elementary education, such as a reduction in classroom size in grades 1 and 2 to 20 to one. Rather than put those funds under the grant ceilings, this government chose to place those funds and flow them to boards outside of the ceilings in an effort to ensure that those funds would be applied to the purposes for which they were intended.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be most helpful if members would allow other members to speak and to be heard.

Mr. Mahoney: I knew the member for Scarborough West would appreciate a supplementary. I am glad to see him get excited about something in this House.

The same professional groups who have been meeting with a number of us have indicated that they want many of these moneys provided in new dollars for new mandated programs to be tied directly to those programs. So I am sure they will appreciate the minister’s answer today.

Can the minister tell us to what extent the gap that I referred to has been reduced by the government and indicate if he sees this as a future trend?

1500

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member indicates, indeed members of the teaching profession and boards throughout Ontario have consistently been insisting that funds which are mandated as a result of new initiatives be provided in full. In an effort to tie the funding to those initiatives, this year we did extend additional elementary funds outside of the per capita grant ceilings. The impact, for instance, of the 20-to-one initiative results in something in the neighbourhood of $220 additional funds per additional grade 1 and grade 2 student.

Over the course of the past several years, in real terms the gap has been reduced some 50 per cent. I will try to keep my answer brief, if the member for Scarborough West would stop provoking me. I want to ensure the member for Mississauga West that indeed this government is committed to improving the quality of elementary education in this province and will continue to do so.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I will try to be both laid-back and nice to him in my question.

The minister is aware that the vast majority of workers in the retail field are unorganized, and certainly the smaller shops that will be affected as well are unorganized. He will also be aware, if he has picked up his business in terms of Ministry of Labour work at all, that defining and arguing “unreasonable” has been one of the real problems from day one in terms of the labour movement. With the kind of openings he has given, previous Sunday work and so on, as some of the criteria, it means that ordinary workers are going to have to have guts to begin with to challenge this legislation. They are not going to have a union to help them.

I think the question from the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was a legitimate one.

Mr. Speaker: What about your question?

Mr. Mackenzie: How are they going to finance this? Will the lawyers’ bills be paid by this government, or will the government set up more employment standards officers so they can take the complaints? If the government will, how will it deal with the fact that you now wait three, six or eight months to get a case looked at by the employment standards office in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let me begin by saying that I, for one, would welcome a new era of co-operation and lower tones with my friend the member for Hamilton East, and I think we are going in that direction. He is right, of course, that the vast majority of retail workers are unorganized. He will note, however, in the statutory criteria that will be able to be referenced by a referee, that the question of whether the issue of Sunday work has been considered in the context of a collective agreement is one criteria.

I would also point out to him, because he mentions perhaps the time it might take to get the matter before a mediator, that until the question has been the subject of mediation and, if necessary, the subject of a referee’s decision, then the right of the worker to refuse the Sunday work which in his or her view is unreasonable is absolute. I am not terribly concerned about that time frame, although obviously our employment standards officers will have to be there, ready and available.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister obviously has not answered the question as to whether we are going to have a substantial increase in employment standards officers. We need them for the current workload, never mind what will happen here.

In another case, what is the minister going to do? Once again, will the bills be paid in a very long case where a worker currently, and this is a problem in the retail trade, has been working 16 or 20 hours at most and refuses Sunday work, the employer is very nice about it and says, “Fine, you do not have to work,” but the worker finds subsequently that he is only working eight or 12 hours? That is going to be extremely difficult to prove and it is going to be expensive as well.

Are those costs going to be covered or is it just, “Tough luck, we can’t do anything about it for you”?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In designing remedies under this act, we have picked a system that both organized workers and unorganized workers are familiar with.

The employment standards branch deals with issues similar to this on innumerable occasions. There is a different point to be made under this bill. What we are doing here, among other things, along with providing statutory relief, is to send out a clear signal to the employers of this province in the retail sector whose businesses are open on Sunday that there is a different standard. We expect that under this system, we will have a workforce working on Sunday in the retail sector which, by and large, is a voluntary one.

ONTARIO CREAM QUALITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will be aware that grants under the Ontario cream quality assistance program ended on March 31. Phase 3 inspection of those same cream producers began only in November. Does he think it is fair to cut off this grant system when indeed the producers did not really know they had to meet these standards?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is the first sensible question that has been asked in the Legislature today. The answer will be very brief so we can give the opposition members a chance to ask more questions on retail store hours.

The cream quality assistance program was not taken up to any great extent by the cream producers. It ran for three years. They chose not to use it, for reasons I do not understand. Therefore, we brought the program to an end.

Mr. Villeneuve: I wish I could say what the good minister said about me regarding his answer, but I am afraid I cannot.

We have some 1,800 cream producers in Ontario, most of whom did not know the government was going to change the requirements to be a cream producer. We have about $80,000 taken up out of the $1.5-million program. Would the minister not consider extending it for at least one more year so that these people can rightfully use money that was allotted for them?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am prepared to consider anything that is reasonable. I will have a look at it, but again it was no surprise that this program was coming to an end as far as the cream producers were concerned. There was a deadline put on the program. It ran for a period of years. They chose not to use it. Very little money was spent under the cream quality program. What is the sense in keeping a program in place if the producers do not choose to use it?

ACID RAIN

Mr Adams: I have a second sensible question, and it is for the Minister of the Environment. The Canada-US summit is to be held shortly. What does the minister hope to gain from that summit in terms of acid rain and snow?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please do not take up all the minister’s time.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Peterborough has asked appropriately, as he stated, a very good question. We have the summit between the Prime Minister and the President taking place and it is our hope as a province, and I am sure it is shared by all of Canada, that one of the issues that will be high on the agenda -- and I think the Prime Minister has indicated this will be high on the agenda between the President and the Prime Minister -- is that of some good, strong acid rain control south of the border.

Unfortunately, to this time, it has been the United States Congress, through members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate which has taken the leadership in providing the kind of initiatives necessary to have a meaningful reduction so that the programs we are undertaking in Canada are going to be effective.

It seems to me that if the Prime Minister were to take a very strong stand, if in his post-summit press conference with the President he were to very publicly indicate to the American public and to ours how high a priority Canadians see acid rain abatement as being, we would certainly be satisfied with that, particularly if it were to result in a meaningful program south of the border -- not just a declaration, but a meaningful program.

1510

Mr. Adams: I guess we could describe that as the long from the short of it. It is often pointed out that our strength in argument at summits of this type depends on the cleanliness of our own house. Is the minister sure that this time we can argue from a position of strength with respect to what we have done about acid rain and snow?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think it is important for us to note that, as members of the House on all sides know, south of the border they watch very carefully. Members in the House over the past couple of years have been of assistance in this regard through a committee process in helping us to come out with the best possible environmental policies.

Yes, I can say to the member that I was in Washington just a couple of weeks ago and one of the things that was noted south of the border, of course, was the very strong acid rain program -- the Countdown Acid Rain program -- that we have in Ontario which will have the effect of reducing by 60 per cent in Ontario by 1994 the amount of sulphur dioxide produced from sources in this province. There is not another jurisdiction in North America that can match that.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have another question to the Solicitor General. Am I to understand correctly from her previous answer that in unorganized communities in northern Ontario she is saying she will somehow consult with the local community if she receives a request from someone whether it be a store owner or whoever? Could she explain how she will consult and can she confirm that, in effect, what she is saying is there will be wide-open Sunday shopping in the unorganized communities of northern Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I do not know how the first half of that question tied into the second at all. It seemed to jump from a reasonable question to something that followed nowhere.

However, let me repeat that we would consult with the people in a way that was appropriate to the particular circumstances of the petition and of the nature of the petition, just as any municipality would do within its jurisdiction. In the capacity of a local government, we would do whatever we considered wise under those circumstances. I would remind the member that this has never been a problem in the past. It is a problem largely created to talk about for the sake of just talking here.

Mr. Wildman: Would the minister agree that in many cases today there is wide-open Sunday shopping in unorganized communities and, if that is the case, can the minister explain how this government and the cabinet, which is taking the responsibility, will protect workers who believe it is unreasonable for The Bay or whatever store in the unorganized area to require them to work on Sunday? In terms of what is reasonable or unreasonable with regard to my question, she demonstrates the problem with her colleague’s bill. What is reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind the member, concerning the openness that exists, where it exists, in the unorganized territories, that they will, for the first time, have in their hands a piece of legislation which came from my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) which will protect the workers in those stores. The stores that he is referring to that are presently open have never had such protection for their workers before. Now, indeed, under this new bill, they will finally get some protection.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I have a number of petitions that have been signed by literally thousands of Ontarians. Pursuant to the standing orders, I would like the opportunity to read the petitions as they have been signed. I know that a number of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party have also received a number of petitions.

I just want to inform the public that this is a historic right of citizens in the province to petition the Legislature, that it is a right that is untrammelled -- it is not a by-and-large right, it is established in our own standing orders -- and that I would encourage citizens to continue to sign petitions dealing with this question of working on Sunday.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Mr. B. Rae: The petition is as follows:

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows, ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows, ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation relating to holidays should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“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.”

That is the first petition. It is signed by delegates to the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

I also have a petition which I would like to present to the House that is signed by over 4,000 people. It states, quite simply, as follows:

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

“We love our families. Don’t legislate employees to work on Sundays. We don’t need wide-open Sunday shopping.”

It is signed, as I say, by some 4,000-plus individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I think I will leave it at that for the moment but would advise you that I do have other petitions to read and would appreciate the opportunity of being recognized as the proceedings of the House unfold in presenting to you this petition, reminding you, sir, of the historic right of the citizens of this province to petition in an unlimited and untrammelled fashion the legislators of this province when they feel their rights are being abused, as they so clearly are by the Liberal government of Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There are a number of petitions, I believe, from what I can see, in both parties. I wonder if it might, in fairness, be better and more organized if we were to move between the parties and allow the official opposition to go first, and then we could rotate to the third party? Would that be agreeable?

Mr. Speaker: It seems like a most fair request.

1520

Mr. Brandt: In light of that, I thank the members of the New Democratic Party.

I would like to place before the House a number of petitions, the first of which is:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s plans to change retail store hours will transfer Sunday into just another day for doing business, we request that consideration be given to the views of the 6,248 people from the Kingston area who have signed a petition circulated by the Kingston Canadian Tire store, which reads, in part, as follows: ‘Give me a break. We don’t need wide-open Sunday shopping.’”

The second is:

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

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

“Whereas Ontario’s municipalities are opposed to the Peterson local option for Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of over 400 persons, collected by the township of Kingston, who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows: ‘Do the right thing. Say “No” to Sunday shopping.’”

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

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

“Whereas the all-party committee of the Legislature on retail store hours unanimously recommended a common pause day so that families can get together, and;

“Whereas the Solicitor General, Joan Smith signed that committee report but now has failed to live by its recommendations, we request that consideration be given to the views of several hundred persons employed by Eaton’s in the Toronto area who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘The public currently enjoys about 80 shopping hours per week. By adding half a dozen more, it won’t really improve their lifestyle but it will certainly impact on ours. We urge you to seriously reconsider your proposal to pass responsibility for the final decision to the municipalities.’”

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

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

“Whereas David Peterson’s wide-open Sunday shopping will erode the tradition of a common day of rest and the cohesiveness of the family unit, we request that consideration be given to the views of several hundred persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which, in part, reads as follows: ‘We, the undersigned, feel that Sunday is a common day families are able to plan and spend together.’”

With the consideration of my friends in the official opposition, I have three short ones containing a few hundred more names, and if I could go through those, then, certainly, they may have the floor again.

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s plan to change retail store hours will transfer Sunday into just another day for doing business, we request that consideration be given to the views of several hundred persons from the session and congregation of Eastmount Presbyterian Church in Hamilton, Ontario, who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘The undersigned of this congregation consider that legislative authority should remain the responsibility of the provincial government. Furthermore, the Eastmount congregation does not support the extension of Sunday shopping in Ontario.’”

An hon. member: There are lots of Presbyterians.

Mr. Brandt: There are lots of people who are in opposition to a certain piece of legislation that is coming forward as well, as you can see.

Mr. Speaker: And the petition reads?

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

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

“Whereas the Liberal government of David Peterson does not support the principle of a common pause day in Ontario, we request that consideration be given to the views of several hundred persons from the London area who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘It is our moral belief that the Sabbath remain a family day. In this fast-changing world, let us not become so money oriented that we forget to use this day as it was intended.’”

Mr. Speaker: And finally?

Mr. Brandt: And finally, Mr. Speaker, and I know my colleagues in my party have many more and I am sure the members of the official opposition have others as well --

Mr. Speaker: And the petition is?

Mr. Brandt: This too is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of 300 persons from the Frontier Fruit and Nut Company in the Kingston area who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“When the shopping centres decided to stay open for five or six nights a week as opposed to two nights, there was very little or no more money made. The customers spread themselves out. It is also costly to the retailer to stay open. Sunday openings are not going to help sales at all and it takes the retailer away from home and family

‘“Surely people can do the necessary shopping in six days, not seven.’”

Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and members of the New Democratic Party as well.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a petition from certain individuals in the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto. It reads:

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

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’, and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’, and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

Mr. Speaker: That is signed by the member?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes, according to standing order 31, and I have tried to maintain my remarks to just 31(b).

Mr. Harris: I would like to present a petition. It reads:

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

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

“Whereas the Liberal government of David Peterson does not support the principle of a common pause day in Ontario, we request that consideration be given to the views of these persons from North Bay who have signed a petition which reads in part 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.”’s

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by, I would say, 35 residents of the city of North Bay. It is duly signed, although not witnessed, by the member for Nipissing, but I assure you it is my signature.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition from 26 members of the MacNeill Baptist Church at 1145 King Street West in Hamilton. It reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“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.”

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have a petition as well, on another subject though, from an organization in Windsor known as Save Our Children, petitioning the Legislature to bring forth legislation which would make mandatory now discretionary sexual abuse treatment programs for the child victims of sexual abuse. It is signed by 1,506 residents of Windsor and is addressed to this assembly.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pope: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“Whereas the member for Middlesex, the member for Durham Centre, the member for Peterborough and the member for Cornwall, all Liberal members of this Legislature, have endorsed petitions opposed to Sunday shopping; and

“Whereas the Premier has chosen to push on with legislation contrary to the personal wishes of his own caucus, we request that consideration be given to the views of three persons from Timmins who have signed a petition which reads, in part:

“‘I am writing this letter to the proposed opening or closing of stores on Sundays and statutory holidays. Exception to this is convenience stores, which would lose their small businesses if larger stores were to open.

“‘I disagree very much as to store opening on Sundays. This is and always will be, to most people, a family day. People have adequate time to shop, I feel, within the six day-and-night shopping hours that we already have now. Isn’t it time to put your foot down and say enough of this?

“‘Working parents right now have too much time away from their family without making them work on Sundays too. Most working parents have a hard time as it is finding adequate day care, without having to find it for their children on Sundays also. There is so much problems and stress for our young people. Wouldn’t taking their parents away from them to work on Sundays create even more of a problem?

“‘This being a national issue, I feel that the federal government as well as the provincial government should not pass in any way the buck of Sunday openings to the municipalities to decide on this issue.

“‘I vote no for Sunday openings. Please add my name to the list of those who oppose Sunday store openings. I believe that the opening of retail stores on Sundays can result in higher costs of operation, therefore higher prices. It can also hurt those convenience store operators who depend on these days to do their business, and especially, I feel that Sunday shopping can take too much away from the time families can spend together. We do not need to have stores open seven days a week.

“‘I feel we, the working people, should indeed have a day of rest. Sunday should remain as it is, closed, and I emphasize the word “closed”.’”

Mr. Speaker: That is signed by how many people?

Mr. Pope: It is signed by myself as the member, and as I indicated in my preamble, it is signed by three residents of Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South.

I have another petition:

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

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

“Whereas David Peterson’s wide-open Sunday shopping will erode the tradition of a common day of rest and the cohesiveness of the family unit, we request that consideration be given to the views of seven persons from Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“I feel we, the working people, should indeed have a day of rest. Sunday should remain as it is, closed, and I emphasize the word “closed”.”’

That petition is signed by myself, as the member for Cochrane South, and the papers attached to it, not all of which I will read, have been signed personally by seven residents of Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South.

I have a further petition:

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

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

“Whereas David Peterson’s plan to change retail store hours will transform Sunday into just another day for doing business, we request that consideration be given to the views of seven persons from Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South who have signed a petition which reads in part, as follows:

“‘...we, the working people, should indeed have a day of rest. Sunday should remain as it is, closed, and I emphasize the word “closed”. ’”

That petition is signed by myself, as the member for Cochrane South, and attached to it are documents, not all of which I will read, signed personally by seven residents of Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South.

I have a further petition which reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation, and whereas an open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly, we request that consideration be given to the views of four persons from Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“I feel we, the working people, should indeed have a day of rest. Sunday should remain as it is, closed, and I emphasize the word “closed.” I feel that there are enough shopping hours Monday to Saturday and evenings without being open Sundays also.”’

That petition is signed by myself as the local member and the documents attached to it, which I will not read into the record, have been personally signed by residents of the city of Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South.

I have a further petition:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of five persons from Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South who have signed a petition which reads in part as follows:

‘“I feel we, the working people, should indeed have a day of rest. Sunday should remain as it is, closed, and I emphasize the word “closed.” Sunday is the only day that families have to relax and be together. Shopping hours on Sunday would take away from this as various family members would have to work.”’

That petition is signed by myself as the local member and attached to it are documents personally signed by five residents of the city of Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South.

I have a further petition addressed as follows:

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

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

“Whereas Ontario’s municipalities are op-posed to the Peterson local option for Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of 12 persons from Timmins in the riding of Cochrane South who have signed a petition which reads in part as follows:

‘“I feel we, the working people, should indeed have a day of rest. Sunday should remain as it is, closed, and I emphasize the word “closed”.’”

There are additional notes attached to this, but suffice it to say that I have signed the document as the member for Cochrane South. Attached to it are documents that have been personally signed by 12 residents of the city of Timmins who have indicated their displeasure on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: There is some agreement on rotation.

Mr. Pope: Then I will continue later.

Mr. Laughren: After all these years here, I am pleased to be a part of such an historic occasion.

Mr. Speaker: And the petition reads?

Mr. Laughren: The petition reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to challenge the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario” -- commonly known as AMO -- “has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals, have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent” -- some of them as recent as today -- “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.”

Mr. Runciman: I have a number of petitions from my riding. This is one from residents of Brockville.

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of 57 persons from Leeds-Grenville who have signed a petition which reads in part as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees, who will have to spend Sunday at work instead of with their families.”’

That was 57 persons from the Brockville area.

I have another petition. This one is from residents of the Merrickville area, which is on the Rideau system.

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

“With reference to the above” -- Sunday opening of business -- “the undersigned members of Merrickville Senior Citizens Club 74 wish to state that we are opposed to Sunday opening of business, except for essential services. We make this appeal to you on humanitarian grounds, as well as our religious beliefs.”

That is signed by in excess of 40 members of the Senior Citizens Club 74 of Merrickville, Ontario. It is on the Rideau system, just east of Smiths Falls.

1550

Another group of petitions: From the Prescott IGA store in that wonderful community, which reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of persons from the Prescott area who have signed a petition as follows:

“‘Dear MPP, we do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families. Show us you care about your constituents. Stop Sunday shopping.’”

I have one more, again from Brockville. This is again addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the majority of Ontarians want family time together and not wide-open Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of 55 persons from the Brockville district who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

That is signed by 55 residents of the Brockville area.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I will try to pick up the pace but not too much.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Tell us what you really think, David.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What I really think? Well --

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Windsor Star has one version of that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That was before the select committee. The one thing about this party is that when we refer it out to committee, we go along with the committee and the unanimous decisions of select committees in this parliament.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will address his petition to the Speaker.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I am being provoked by a government House leader who ignores the committees of the Legislature.

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

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

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’ -- I think we should be pausing a lot while we are reading these petitions.

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported” -- and I have already read this paragraph -- “unanimously in the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of “wide-open” Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that “wide-open” Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our “fast-paced society” and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that “wide-open” Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly it is recognized that on Sunday child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent” -- and in fact today’s legislation -- “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.”

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of 47 persons from the First United Church, Port Credit, Mississauga, who have signed a petition which reads as follows;

‘“We love our families. Don’t legislate employees to work on Sundays. We don’t need wide-open Sunday shopping.”’

1600

I have a second petition:

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

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

“Whereas the Liberal government of David Peterson does not support the principle of a common pause day in Ontario, we request that consideration be given to the views of the following persons, who state in this petition:

‘“As a family, father, mother, son, 20, and three daughters aged 18, 16 and 14 years, we would like to voice our opposition to Sunday shopping. We feel that Sunday should be a day of rest, when no one should feel or be obliged to work. Opening stores on Sunday will not increase the volume of business done, only spread it out over seven days instead of six. This has been proven by numerous banks, which now have longer hours during the week.

‘“Employees of all grades will feel the pressure of having to work Sundays or some Sundays and face possible or probable discrimination if they do not wish to do so. Sunday, as the traditional day when families meet and relax, will be destroyed slowly but surely.

‘“Think, too, of the numerous small, independent merchants who cannot afford the expense of hiring more staff just for Sundays. They will either have to work seven days a week or continue to work six days a week and lose to the larger stores.

‘“Finally, as Christians, we feel that Sunday is a day of rest and prayer, a special day that should not be allowed to become just another day in this materialistic world. We can appreciate that it is difficult for some people to get their shopping done, but this is not true of all people all of the time. There must surely be other ways of resolving this problem without having to resort to Sunday shopping.

‘“Necessity is the mother of invention. Let us try to be inventive and not destructive. The family unit faces so many other disruptive forces in this modern, progressive age. Let us not add another.”’

That is signed by two people.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a petition, prefaced by a letter signed by Dr. Michael Farris, who is the associate minister of St. Andrew’s Church, 75 Simcoe Street, Toronto, and cosigned by Dorothy Herbert, who is an elder and member of the presbytery church and society committee, which contains some 246 signatures in a petition, which petition reads as follows:

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

“The undersigned are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for the following reasons:

“1. As Christians in the reformed tradition, we value Sunday as a day for worship and rest.

“2. Regardless of religion, families need a regular patterned opportunity for the whole family to share time.

“3. Regardless of religion, individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation. An open Sunday will erode that greatly.”

I have a petition signed by individual delegates to the Metropolitan Toronto Labour Council which reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of “wide-open” Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to ‘wide-open’ Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition signed by 34 residents of Ontario and addressed as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of “wide-open” Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire’; and” --

The House leader is very distracting as one reads these very important petitions into the record.

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it would lead precisely to ‘wide-open’ Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

Mr. Cureatz: Surprisingly enough, I have the wonderful opportunity of being present in these chambers this afternoon so that I might participate in the democratic process which falls under the business for Thursday, April 14, 1988, the rules of business whereby --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: I can only say to the honourable House leader that if he were the Speaker, he would have the opportunity of calling me to order --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Cureatz: -- whereas, you are the Speaker.

1610

The Acting Speaker: You have had many years of experience in this House, and I am sure the member is coming quickly to the petition he has to present, or the many petitions he wishes to spend his time on.

Mr. Cureatz: Coincidentally enough, Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted in terms of your prescience of my presenting a petition, and I can only say it must be some intuitive woman’s intuition that has brought you forward in anticipation of what I am about to do. You are, of course, exactly right that I am about to follow the order of business, which, if you notice, takes place under “Afternoon Sitting, Routine Proceedings,” whereby, of course, we followed through members’ statements, statements by the ministry, oral questions, poor responses and, lastly, petitions.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of standing in my place here representing all the people of Durham East --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: -- notwithstanding interjections, so that I might participate in this democratic process. I appreciate your calling these chambers to order so that I might be heard.

The Acting Speaker: I would also call the honourable member to order and to complete his dissertation and get on with his petitions. Thank you.

Mr. Cureatz: Funnily enough, Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Did I understand you to imply that somewhere in the order list of proceedings there is an item for dissertations as well?

The Acting Speaker: No. Thank you very much for your comments. I would request the member for Durham East to continue.

Mr. Cureatz: It reads:

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

I ask the House leader to listen attentively to this petition, since he is the only minister of any kind of capacity here in these chambers.

The petition reads as follows:

“Families their with of instead work at Sunday’s spend to have will who employees retail province’s the of position the in yourself put. Shopping Sunday want nor need not do we. Follows as, part in reads which petition a signed have who persons 50 of views the to given be consideration that request we, caucus own, his own wishes. Premier that whereas in shopping Sunday to oppose petitions, endorsed have Legislature this of members of the Liberal Party of Cornwall” --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I assume the honourable member is aware that he is responsible for what is in the petition, as you look at the standing orders. I hope you know that you are reading it in a manner which I assume is written in front of you and that you are responsible for that.

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am glad you have brought that to my attention. It is my responsibility, therefore, to re-examine the said petition so that I might in a manner make it clear to you so that you might understand. I have no other choice then but to start again:

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

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

“Whereas the member for Middlesex, the member for Durham Centre, the member for Peterborough, and the member for Cornwall, all Liberal members of this Legislature, have endorsed petitions opposed to Sunday shopping and, whereas the Premier has chosen to push on with this legislation contrary to the personal wishes of his own caucus” -- I bet they had a vote in there and it was against it -- “we request that consideration be given to the views of 50 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

Coincidentally enough, I had the opportunity of being approached by one of my own colleagues of the assembly, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), who was predisposed with an appointment in his office with a delegation concerning educational problems, as he is critic for the Ministry of Education. My colleague has asked me to bring forward a further petition, which reads, to refresh members’ memories, as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

In case members have forgotten, it is on behalf of my colleague the member for Burlington South.

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

“We ask the government to consider the views of hundreds of people whose names are attached hereto and who have written to the member for Burlington South to express their opposition full-heartedly to Sunday shopping;

“And we ask the government to respect the wishes of these hundreds of citizens from in” -- surrounding, close to, nearly associated -- “and about Burlington South who have written to express their opposition to the so-called municipal option and whose names are attached hereto.”

Madam Speaker, for your further information and for that of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Sola) and the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), we have here a petition of 10 pages, and on each page there are nine names, approximately 90 people from the riding of Burlington South.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to present a petition which was circulated in Oshawa by Alderman Brian Nicholson and presented to me. It is signed by 9,988 residents of Oshawa:

“Whereas the province of Ontario has announced its intention to allow municipalities the right to permit retail shopping on Sundays, and

“Whereas retail shopping on Sundays is disruptive to the personal lifestyle of employees and their families and has a negative impact on the social fabric of our community,

“We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to the city of Oshawa allowing retail shopping on Sundays within the boundaries of the city of Oshawa.”

1620

I have a further petition which reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of “wide-open” Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that “wide-open” Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led single-parent families’, and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly it is recognized that on Sunday child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

Mr. Villeneuve: I, too, have a number of petitions that I wish to make this Legislature very well aware of. The first is from the London area and it reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson wants world-class Sunday shopping, but the people of Ontario do not, we request that consideration be given to the views of 57 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

Respectfully submitted.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: You say that’s from London.

Mr. Villeneuve: Yes, that was from the London area.

I have another one which is spread further across the province. I am sure it covers many areas which Liberal back-benchers represent. It reads as follows:

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

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

L’hon. M. Conway: En français, s’il vous plaît.

M. Villeneuve: J’en ai en masse en français, Monsieur Conway, et je vais vous les lire prochainement.

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s plan to change retail store hours will transform Sunday into just another day for doing business, we request that consideration be given to the views of 56 people from across Ontario who have signed a pension which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

Respectfully submitted.

I have a further petition very much in the same vein.

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

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

“Whereas Sunday shopping will impact negatively on single-parent families, we request that consideration be given to the views of 55 people whose names are attached hereto, from across Ontario, who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need or want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

Respectfully submitted.

These are all signed by residents of Ontario, taxpayers and voters.

Interjections.

Mr. Villeneuve: If it is a joke with the Liberal back-benchers, it is not a joke with this side.

The next petition reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas the member for Middlesex, the member for Durham Centre, the member for Peterborough, the member for Cornwall, all Liberal members of this Legislature, have endorsed petitions opposed to Sunday shopping;

“And whereas the Premier has chosen to push on with legislation contrary to the personal wishes of his own caucus;

“We request that consideration be given to the views of 50 persons from across Ontario whose names are attached hereto, who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

Interjections.

Mr. Villeneuve: This is not a joke. It is respectfully submitted.

Mr. Laughren: Madam Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if you and other members in the assembly this afternoon would join with me in welcoming to the assembly this afternoon the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell).

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Reville: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays, and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours,” on which I sat, “representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays should remain that of the provincial government;’ and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of “wide-open” Sunday shopping for Ontario;’ and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to ‘wide-open’ Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“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.”

I have signed this according to the custom. It has also been signed by two residents of Toronto.

1630

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have several petitions that I would like to read.

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

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

“Whereas the all-party committee of the Legislature on retail store hours unanimously recommended a common pause day so that families can get together and whereas the Solicitor General, Joan Smith, signed the recommendations, we request that consideration be given to the views of 56 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

This is signed by myself. I think it should be delivered to the table, and maybe the Solicitor General should have a copy for her own information.

I have another petition:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson has refused to listen” -- can members imagine that? -- “to the people of Ontario and has chosen to impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of 49 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping.” -- Does the House leader hear that? -- “Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

That too is signed by myself.

I have one more petition at the present time.

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

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

“Whereas Ontario’s municipalities are opposed to the Peterson local option for Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of 55 persons from St. Thomas who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

I hope that the House leader picked up at least a part of the petitions that have been presented.

Mr. Mackenzie: Just as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has his Earl’s Shell station to gauge the feeling of the public, I have my Hamilton Mountain ladies’ bowling league to drop in on. I get a very good sense of what the public is saying.

This particular petition, one of several that has come from this group, is from the Hamilton Mountain ladies’ bowling league, the Monday night league in Hamilton. It simply says:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and” --

Mr. Swart: Who was on that committee?

Mr. Mackenzie: I think the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) was on it.

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’” -- unanimously -- ”and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to ‘wide-open’ Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

That is signed by 10 women, mostly the team captains and the Hamilton Mountain Monday night bowling league.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Under clause 31(g) of the standing orders, I wonder if it would be possible to ask the Clerk to reread that petition because the member for Hamilton East spoke so quickly I was not able to follow it.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Having reviewed that order, it does not indicate that it must be read out loud. It indicates it must be read by them, whether they read it at the table or thereafter. I rule that indeed it is not necessary for it to be read out loud.

Are there any other petitions?

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition. Surprisingly enough, it is on Sunday shopping.

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

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

“Whereas individuals need a regular consistent opportunity for rest and recreation and whereas an open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly, we request that consideration be given to the views of 52 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

I have signed this and, as I said, it was signed by 52 people.

Mr. Cureatz: What is it again?

Mr. Pollock: It is a petition on Sunday shopping.

Mr. Cureatz: Oh. Thank you.

Mr. Pollock: I have another petition. Does Madam Speaker want me to wait until she gets done visiting?

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

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

“Whereas Ontario municipalities are opposed to the Peterson local option for Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of 54 persons from London who have signed the petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

That is signed by 54 people and I have signed it myself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have another petition?

Mr. Pollock: Yes, I have one. Can I present it now?

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr. Pollock: The official opposition wants the floor, but I only have one petition to present right now.

Mr. Speaker: Place your petition.

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of 44 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

As I mentioned, this is signed by 44 people and I have signed it myself.

I have more petitions but I am going to give up some of my time to the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I believe there was an agreement earlier.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, you will know that it was I who first presented a petition in this Legislature with 20,000 names on it from the Niagara Peninsula in opposition to Sunday shopping. I sort of started this avalanche and I would like --

Mr. Speaker: Would you continue, please.

Mr. Swart: Thank you. I thought maybe you were going to shut me off. I am glad to see the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) here because he knows how seriously this is considered down in the Niagara Peninsula, where there is tremendous opposition to it.

Mr. Speaker, I have to inform you too that somehow or other I just mislaid my glasses, but I am going to do the best I can.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the petitioners would like you to place it on the record.

Mr. Swart: They would. That is why I am going to try to do the best I can even though I have lost my glasses or misplaced them. This says:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and” --

Mr. Pollock: Can we have that in writing?

Mr. Swart: Thank you, but that will not help any. I have misplaced my glasses and I am trying to do the best I can.

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature” --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: My eyes are not normally that bad. If you will give me a minute to get them focused, I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: As soon as I find the spot I was at.

“...representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

1650

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly intimated their opposition to the government’s intentions on the basis that it will lead, ultimately, precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people’’ --

Mr. Ballinger: I gave up a job for this?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The member can go back whenever he wants.

Mr. Swart: When this is over, the member will be back there.

This is signed by six people. At the rate the petitions are coming in on my desk, I may not be able to read them as fast as they are coming, so I had better sit down and let somebody else do the next one.

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition from the members and adherents of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Markham.

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave” --

Mr. Faubert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: According to section 1(b) of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, you have the right to rule on any contingencies not provided for in the standing orders.

I understand this reading of petitions on a continuous basis is a clear abuse of the process of this House and I request --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faubert: So that we can get on with the business of debating this legislation, may I, Mr. Speaker, request that you rule on this and that you accept these petitions as read, both those that are read and presented, and pending.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am absolutely flabbergasted. I am shocked that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) is asking you to consider for even one instant shortening or deleting or cutting off the most democratic right the people of this province have; that being the right to petition this parliament and this Legislature in Ontario.

There is no right, absolutely no right, which is more important to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have made your point.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The previous member for that riding would have defended the rights of ordinary people. It has taken less than two hours for this member to try to move a form of closure in this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that you, as members, agreed and formed the standing orders that are here before you. The Speaker is here to maintain those orders and to make certain that all members have the right to speak and to be heard. It is very difficult for the Speaker to stop a member from presenting a petition until that petition is heard.

I know in the last instance I was almost ready to suggest that we should go to 31(g), “Every petition that is in order should be brought to the table and read by the Clerk if required.” However, the member got through it all right, and I think we will continue. I recognize the member for Markham.

Mr. Cousens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. I think it is important that the democratic rights of all the people of this province continue, regardless of what party they are in.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe I should just read to you 31(b), “A member may present a petition from his place in the House during the routine proceedings under the proceeding ‘Petitions.’ He shall endorse his name thereon and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, the number of signatures and the material allegations.”

Please present your petition, and we would appreciate it if you did not make any other comments.

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of the 15 persons from the town of Markham from St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“The undersigned are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for the following reasons:

‘“1. As Christians in the reform tradition, we value Sunday as a day for worship and rest.

‘“2. Regardless of religion, families need a regular, patterned opportunity for the whole family to share time.

‘“3. Regardless of religion, individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation. An open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly.”’

Ms. Bryden: Last night I attended a recognition night for senior citizen volunteers, and I must say that without even raising the subject, the question of Sunday shopping came up to me.

Mr. Speaker: And the petition is?

Ms. Bryden: This petition was signed by those people who spoke to me at that meeting.

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

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

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

1700

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need ‘to ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them;

“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.”

I present this petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30(b) the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) gave notice last Tuesday of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and this matter will debated at 6 p.m.

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES OUVRABLES

Mr. McCague: I have a petition signed by 76 residents of Stayner and Wasaga Beach which reads as follows:

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

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

“We are writing in regard to our disapproval of Sunday openings in larger retail outlets in Ontario. The people who are being overlooked in this debate are the ones who have to work. Inconsiderate people are stealing precious time meant to be spent with our family. We feel that there is ample time to shop from Monday through Saturday. Next election, we hear the NDP has a good candidate.”

That is dated December 16, 1986, and in most respects they were right.

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

J’ai une pétition à présenter au lieutenant-gouverneur de la province de l‘Ontario.

My petition is in both English and French but, realizing that time is of the essence and French is somewhat longer in its translation, I will read my petition in English. It is very, very small printing. I am asking for patience. English is not my mother tongue.

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

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties” -- namely, the Liberal Party of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and the one party with a social conscience, the New Democratic Party of Ontario; where was I? This is an important matter here -- “in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’, and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families, ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“And whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and wide-open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as the key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together and the need to ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intention can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them,

“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, not to pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families of Ontario.”

I have included my signature with the two signatures from the city of Toronto.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. Pelissero: I would like to present to the Legislature a petition in the form of a resolution from a number of individuals in the riding of Lincoln who wish to express their opposition to proposed changes to the representation of municipalities on school boards as defined under Bill 76.

“Whereas county school boards were established to administer to the needs of the county; and

“Whereas members are now elected by taxpayers in Lincoln county from all municipalities within the county to make up a representative board; and

“Whereas the board must reflect the diversity and uniqueness of the municipalities which it represents; and

“Whereas Bill 76 has the potential of eliminating existing representation in municipalities which are sparsely populated but cover large geographic areas;

“Therefore, be it resolved that the provincial government amend Bill 76 to maintain representation by municipalities on school boards where such representation is presently in effect.”

It is signed by 35 individuals.

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES OUVRABLES

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition, and some of the people who signed this petition are actually from the riding of Lincoln, but they have directed these particular petitions to a Conservative member of the Legislature because perhaps they do not feel the government members properly represent them in this fashion.

1710

Mr. Speaker: And the petitions?

Mr. Sterling: “To the Honourable the Lieu-tenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas David Peterson’s wide-open Sunday shopping will erode the tradition of a common day of rest and the cohesiveness of the family unit, we request that consideration be given to the views of 53 people from across Ontario, including the community of Brampton, including the community of Kingston, including the community of Goderich and including the community of Grimsby, who have signed this petition, which reads, in part, as follows:

“‘We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.’”

Mr. Charlton: I have a petition opposed to Sunday shopping from Westmount Baptist Church, signed by 29 members of the congregation.

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“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.”

I have added my signature to this petition.

M. Villeneuve: J’ai une pétition qui se lit comme suit:

À Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur et l’Assemblée législative de la province de l’Ontario:

« Nous, les soussignés, soumettons la pétition ci-jointe au parlement et à l’Assemblée législative de la province de l’Ontario:

« En autant que le premier ministre de l’Ontario, David Peterson, projette un changement majeur aux commerces et aux détaillants de l’Ontario, avec l’intention de transformer nos dimanches en une journée de commerce ordinaire identique aux autres six jours de la semaine, nous demandons que M. Peterson considère l’opinion de 44 individus qui ont signé la pétition ci-jointe et qui se lit comme suit:

« Nous ne désirons pas le magasinage le dimanche. Considérez la position de ceux qui sont employés dans le commerce de détail, qui seront obligés de passer leurs beaux dimanches à l’ouvrage au lieu de jouir de la présence de leur famille. »

C’est signé par 44 représentants.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition here signed by 21 members at the Olivet United Church in Hamilton, Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, do petition as follows:

“1. Since we are in agreement with the present restrictions concerning Sunday store openings, we petition that these restrictions be retained and that they be enforced by the government of Ontario.

“2. We strongly feel that legislation governing Sunday store openings should be uniform across the province and that such legislation is the responsibility of the provincial government. To authorize municipalities to legislate Sunday store opening bylaws would set one municipality against another, creating bitter divisions between municipalities and mass confusion in the marketplace. Therefore, we petition that the authority for Sunday store opening legislation not be delegated to municipalities.”

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a further petition, signed by 54 people from across Ontario, most of whom are from the London-Ingersoll area, and it reads as follows:

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

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

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

Respectfully submitted by 54 signers.

Mr. Farnan: I also have a petition, on behalf of St. John’s United Church in Cambridge. It reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, disagree with Sunday shopping. Sunday is the only day of the week that is ‘uniformly’ a ‘day off’ for everyone.

“Not only is this a day for families to be together, to worship, relax, take a drive in the country or otherwise just be together, it is a day for neighbours to take a break from daily routine, and say ‘Hi’ to one another. It’s a day for communities to spend time together.

“If we say ‘yes’ to Sunday shopping, will we also need babysitters for our children while we work? Will we need banks to be open, to get money for our Sunday shopping spree? Will lawyers, dentists, teachers, etc., etc., be required to work regular Sunday hours? This just has a snowball effect, and ultimately our children’s futures are being decided here.

“We say, ‘no’ to Sunday shopping. Please keep Sundays the way they are.”

I have added my name to this petition, and I submit it.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully. Was that addressed to the Lieutenant Governor?

Mr. Farnan: The petition is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr. Eves: I have a petition. It reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation; and

“Whereas an open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly;

“We request that consideration be given to the views of 50 people from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

1720

I have another petition that reads:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of 50 persons from across Ontario who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

Mr. Allen: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This petition is signed by 52 names and it comes from the Kid’s Corner store, one of many businesses that is petitioning the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario through my office. I expect to have many more of these to read into the record and will read those of any who submit them to me.

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility into the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows, ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that the leaving of the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“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 of Ontario.”

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition, ad-dressed as follows:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson has refused to listen to the people of Ontario and has chosen to unilaterally impose Sunday shopping on an unwilling public, we request that consideration be given to the views of 49 persons from London who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

I present that and I have signed it.

I have another petition:

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

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

“Whereas the Liberal government of David Peterson does not support the principle of a common pause day in Ontario, we request that consideration be given to the views of 54 persons from London, who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

I have signed this and I will pass it on for the record.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by 17 residents of the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale. I correct myself: Sixteen from the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale, and one, I see by the address, from the riding of Parkdale. I will supply the member with the name and address so that he might present a plaque to that particular citizen in his riding.

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’” -- I was pleased to sign that select committee report, along with the Solicitor General -- “and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays should remain that of the provincial government’” -- that is the report the Premier said he was in favour of during the election -- “and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing the ability to spend time together;

“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.”

1730

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition.

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

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

“Whereas the Liberal government of David Peterson does not support the principle of a common pause day in Ontario, we request that consideration be given to the views of 44 persons from across Ontario.” I might just mention that they are from Baden, Hayfield, Belle River, Bellwood, Blenheim. Those are only the Bs. I will get to the Cs later.

These people have signed a petition, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”

This petition is signed by myself and I sent it to the table. I have another petition addressed:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days, thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of 52 persons from St. Thomas who have signed a petition, which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

That, too, is signed by myself. I have one more petition.

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson wants world-class Sunday shopping, but the people of Ontario do not, we request that consideration be given to the views of 47 persons from London” -- I am not sure if that is London Centre, but I assume it is -- “who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

That, too, I have signed.

Miss Martel: It is a pleasure for me to join in this democratic process. I must add that it is a pity that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) has such little regard for the process that he would attempt to bring in some form of closure, that he could have urged the chair to do that.

The Acting Speaker: And the petition is?

Miss Martel: I must say that I would expect the Liberals to be more than willing to hear the views of the people expressed here today through the petition process. Let me begin by saying:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature” -- and signed by the Solicitor General -- “reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of ‘wide-open’ Sunday shopping for Ontario’” -- and that was also signed by Joan Smith -- “and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent” -- as declared in this Legislature today -- “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.”

Madam Speaker, I am proud to sign my name to this and I present h to you at this time. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Other petitions? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I beg to present --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr. Cousens: “To the Honourable the Lieu-tenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the Liberal government of David Peterson does not support the principle of a common pause day in Ontario, we request that consideration be given to the views of persons” -- from Abercorn Road, Lincoln Green Drive, Major Button’s Drive, Fincham Avenue, Marion Crescent, Reginald Crescent, Wellington Street, Main Street, Senator Reesor’s Drive, and Bramble Way, all of whom are residents of the great town of Markham -- “who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We, the undersigned, are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for the following reasons:

‘“1. As Christians in the reformed tradition, we value Sunday as a day for worship and rest.

‘“2. Regardless of religion, families need a regular, patterned opportunity for the whole family to share time.

‘“3. Regardless of religion, individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation. An open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly.”’

So presented and signed.

Mr. Hampton: I have here a petition from the town of Fort Frances and it is signed by four of the local councillors of that town. They say as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

1740

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

That is signed by four members of the town council and by a number of other individuals as well.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas the majority of Ontarians want family time together and not wide-open Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of persons who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“On Monday, March 21, I attended the meeting in the convention centre concerning the above topic and came away satisfied that:

‘“1. The opponents of open Sundays make sense.

‘“2. Municipalities do not want or need to have this problem delegated to them.

‘“3. Putting this in the municipalities’ local option pot is sure to result in due course in open Sundays.

‘“4. There seemed to be a feeling in the audience that the representatives of the government did not understand the problem in dealing with lawyers drafting the legislation. My impression was that the Liberal government of Ontario will send hardy souls such as the Solicitor General out to hear public opinion but will persist in making the Premier’s mistake of permitting open Sundays through delegation of the question to the municipalities.

‘“The response of the Minister of Labour made that quite clear. The point was made that the lawyers say it is difficult to define tourist areas where shops could be open on Sunday under the Retail Business Holidays Act, so difficult to do it on a province-wide basis that the Ontario government just cannot cope with it. Therefore this difficult defining is to be passed to a multiplicity of legislators in the municipal councils of Ontario. This is not a good answer to your difficulty with the lawyers. Enforcement of the present legislation is needed, rather than new legislation, especially when its effect will be to further open up Sundays.

‘“Please give the Premier my message to listen to these concerns.”’

For information, this petition is being copied to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), the opposition leaders and Gerrit de Boer of Idomo, who organized the meeting.

That letter is signed by Charles E. Clarke of 1400 Brackencrest Road.

I also have a petition:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:” --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Dispense.

Mrs. Marland: It is too bad that the Minister of Labour is not willing to listen to the words of the people who live in this province.

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

“Whereas the all-party committee of the Legislature on retail store hours unanimously recommended a common pause day so that families can get together and whereas the Solicitor General, Joan Smith, signed that committee report but now has failed to live by its recommendations, we request that consideration be given to our views, and we feel that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario appals us.

“You, in your busy political life, must realize the need for days of rest. The same applies to common people. We also need a day of rest, a day of pause to give us an opportunity for contact with family and friends. Sunday is that day.

“What is the motivation for Sunday shopping? We have convenience stores open seven days a week. We have all other stores open six days from about 9:30 a.m. until 9:30 p.m., except on Saturday when they close at 5:30 or six. Surely the reason for wide-open Sunday shopping is not because the public needs longer store hours. With a little care and a little thought and a little planning, the present store hours are, in our opinion, adequate.

“Wide-open Sunday shopping would, in many instances, disrupt and perhaps even harm family life. Employment practices even now need upgrading. We wonder what those practices might be with Sunday shopping.

“My wife and I felt it necessary to let you know that we are opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by B. C. Galli and J. N. Galli.

Mr. Wildman: I am happy to join in this tradition of parliamentary democracy, which goes back to the Magna Carta, where the people have the right to petition Her Majesty on whatever grievances.

I have a petition from Corpus Christi parish in Hamilton. It is signed by 83 parishioners. It reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said: ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and --

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: Do members want me to repeat that? All right.

1750

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: It says: “The regulation of Sunday shopping being given to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness to them, by reducing their ability to spend time together as opposed to spend money together;

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, they are interrupting.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member continue?

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. “And to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. Cureatz: I am very excited and pleased to have the opportunity of presenting a petition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Petitions.

Mr. Cureatz: The petition is as follows, for the benefit of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), if he has not had the opportunity of hearing:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson, the House leader, the Treasurer and the Attorney General want ‘world-class’ Sunday shopping, but the people of Ontario do not, we request that consideration be given to the views of 47 persons from across the province who have signed a petition which reads, in part, as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping.”’

If the Treasurer went to Earl’s Gulf, he would find that out.

‘“Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work”’ -- I bet the people at Earl’s Gulf do not want to work on Sunday.

Mr. Carrothers: Earl’s Shell.

Mr. Cureatz: Earl’s Shell. It will probably be Earl’s Petrocan by the time we finish -- ‘“at work instead of with their families.

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.

‘“Mr. Premier, Mr. House leader, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Treasurer, show us you care about your constituents. Stop Sunday shopping now.”’

Mr. Callahan: He is such an orator.

Mr. Cureatz: I have a little more influence than all those back-benchers. I do not see them coming forward with their petitions.

I have a petition with, it would appear, 47 names of people across Ontario who are exceedingly concerned about Sunday shopping. I myself have signed the said petition.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition as follows:

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

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

“Whereas the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong), the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams), the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary) and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell), all Liberal members of this Legislature, have endorsed petitions opposing Sunday shopping, and whereas the Premier has chosen to push on with legislation contrary to the personal wishes of his own caucus, we request that consideration be given to the views of 51 persons from across this province” -- and I will name a few of the great towns they are from: Ingersoll, Malton, Nepean, Newmarket, Niagara Falls and Lucan. They have signed a petition that reads in part as follows:

‘“We do not need nor want Sunday shopping. Put yourself in the position of the province’s retail employees who will have to spend Sundays at work instead of with their families.”’

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition from the Ridgemount Community Church:

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows, ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

1800

Mr. Speaker: Does the government House leader have some information for the House?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, April 18 and on Tuesday, April 19, we will consider government notice of motion number 10, followed by the supply bill to be introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and if time permits, second reading of Bill 76 dealing with trustee representation.

On Wednesday, April 20 at 4 p.m., the 1988 Ontario budget will be presented to the House by the honourable the Treasurer. There is an agreement of the three parties that the House will adjourn following routine proceedings until 4 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon.

On Thursday, April 21, the House will consider private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the member for Oakville South (Mr. Carrothers). In the afternoon, we will have the official opposition’s response to the Ontario budget for 1988. Any changes or additions will be announced following discussions among House leaders.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30(b), the question, “that this House do now adjourn” is deemed to have been made. The honourable member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton), has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). The member now has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister has up to five minutes to respond.

Mr. Hampton: When I asked the honourable Treasurer of Ontario on Tuesday, I asked him -- and I quote from the draft copy of Hansard -- he answered first of all that he thought that $30 million had accrued to the province in revenue from the softwood lumber export tax. I then asked him how much of that money had gone to the communities of Kapuskasing, Thunder Bay, Longlac, Hudson and Keewatin -- all communities that have suffered sawmill shut-downs within the past year --

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Stud-mill shutdowns, not sawmill. There is a hell of difference between a sawmill and a stud mill.

Mr. Hampton: -- pursuant to the statements of the government that those kinds of communities would receive employment adjustment funds and other assistance from the softwood lumber tax revenues.

The minister replied that -- first of all, he did not answer the question as to the priorities.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Is Chapleau closed?

Mr. Mackenzie: Who has the floor, the member or the stupid minister over there?

The Acting Speaker: Order. I assume that the member for Hamilton East would like to restate.

Mr. Mackenzie: I apologize for calling the member stupid, but he did not have the floor and he should button up a bit.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask all members to take into consideration that the member for Rainy River has the floor and allow him to continue his debate.

Mr. Hampton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may say to the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) --

The Acting Speaker: I would remind you that your remarks be directed to the Speaker, and I would hope that you would continue with your debate as quickly as you can.

Mr. Hampton: I would say through you, Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Northern Development that he and I can discuss this question too because I understand it pertains a little bit on his jurisdiction, as well. But we can save that for another date.

The Treasurer did not discuss the priorities at all. He did not answer the question at all. Instead he answered another question. He said that some money was being spent in northern Ontario in terms of special education assistance and some was being spent on the upgrading of highways. But he did not answer the question as to how the $30 million that has accrued to the government through softwood lumber export tax has been spent.

What bothered me about that answer, first of all, was the fact that the question was not answered. I immediately conferred with my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) because he had previously written to the Treasurer and had asked him at an earlier date for “the total amount of revenue accruing to the provincial Treasurer resulting from the imposition of this tax on Ontario softwood lumber exports”; and then he had asked the second question, “the total amount spent on programs designed to assist Ontario lumber communities to adapt to the changes in the market related to the 15 per cent softwood lumber export tax.”

He had been very specific in his question and I try to be in mine, because we want to keep on top of this issue. It is an important issue for those communities which are suffering from sawmill and stud-mill shutdowns.

At that time, back in March, the Treasurer wrote back to the member for Algoma saying:

“Dear Bud,

“Thank you for your letter. The federal government has transferred about $27.5 million to the provincial Treasury.”

To his second question, how much money had been spent on adjustment funds and how much money had been spent attempting to assist these communities in dealing with this market upset, the Treasurer said, “With respect to your second question concerning employment adjustment programs, there has been no expenditure specifically directed at employment losses resulting from the export tax.”

I have the answer to the question of the member for Algoma, which was much like my own, and I have the nonanswer to my question. My reason for being here tonight is to find out how much of that money, which now sits in the Ontario Treasury -- which has essentially come out of the pockets of those communities -- how much of that money has gone back into those communities which need it so desperately, where there has been a loss of between 500 and 700 jobs. That is my question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The actual amount, as of March 31, I am informed, from the federal tax that was transferred to us was close to $34 million.

I should say, just so the honourable member would not get some wrong idea about what we do with the dollars that come in, we do not put a little mark on them and say, “These are softwood dollars,” or “These are gas tax dollars,” or “These are income tax from MPPs dollars.” They go into the consolidated revenue fund and we respond to our commitments to see that the communities affected are assisted in the best possible way.

I have two or three specific cases: Kimberly-Clark at Terrace Bay, closed November 24, 1986, laying off 70 employees. A manpower adjustment committee was set up, and except for a few workers who left or resumed to school, all are now working in K-C’s pulpmill operation.

I think the honourable member would know better than I that, while the softwood situation is not as good as we would have expected, although the levels of exports remained high, and there have been huge sales to support the building boom in all parts of Canada, particularly in Ontario, still the pulp and paper industry is going at a rate that is almost unparalleled. Their sales all over the world are high, their prices are high and there have been some transferences, as occurred at Terrace Bay. The honourable member, coming from a paper town himself, with all of the advantages that entails, would know the details of those matters.

All of the reports are not that good. Waferboard Corp. at Smooth Rock Falls, closed December 1, 1986, laying off 95 employees. A manpower adjustment committee was set up and, as of November, 1987, 20 workers still remain unemployed. That is very serious, and I know it would be particularly serious for the 20 people concerned, but there have been programs assisting and retraining, moving toward alternative employment.

As a matter of fact, my staff has provided me with more information than I can use, but I should point out to the member that the Ontario forest industry employment totalled 82,000 in 1987, an increase of 5,000 or 6.5 per cent over the previous year.

The member wants a specific answer to his question. The amount that had come in at the end of the fiscal year, I have already referred to. The fact that those dollars are spent for the good of specific communities is evident, and the honourable member need only go into those communities to see the high level of education, the good level of transportation that is available through a wide variety of provincial programs.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson), in referring to the softwood lumber special taxation that was a part of the initiative taken by the government of Canada, clearly indicated that we wanted to use it to improve educational opportunities. I can assure the member that at least that much and more was applied, if not at Ear Falls, in a general way across northern Ontario to provide alternative educational opportunities, which we believe have been productive and have given a very large number of northerners the kind of background which has improved their job opportunities and job prospects.

The honourable member would know that the unemployment levels in the north have been higher than in the south. I think they have always been that way, and that is unfortunate. That does not mean we accept it or that we say it is a good thing. But in northwestern Ontario and the central part of the north, the job increases have been very high indeed, and we have been concentrating on providing job opportunities in northeastern Ontario, particularly in the areas where the utilization of our forest resources had been lagging. The honourable member will know that there have been a number of specific grants approved for that purpose.

The situation in the north is, in fact, expanding and improving at a rate that must even impress the honourable member and his northern colleagues. With the price of nickel higher than it has been in recent history, our pulp and paper mills operating at capacity, the gold production at Hemlo and elsewhere booming as it really never has before, with a shortage of hardrock miners and even the nickel mines in Sudbury looking for new employees, it certainly could be better, but it is very good and improving.

The idea of selling some disaster of the north, either here or in the north, simply is not realistic. I would think the honourable member would begin to change his tune and talk about how good things are in northern Ontario under this Liberal government.

The House adjourned at 6:12 p.m.