Journal des débats 1986-déc-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Ms. Fish: I am very pleased to rise today to move second reading of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act, 1986. I am pleased because I believe this act begins to address one of the many difficulties that women in our society face when they look to the opportunities presented to them to enter electoral politics and find themselves in a situation where they can, for example, join us in this chamber, our colleagues federally, our colleagues municipally or even those on school boards.

This bill speaks only to the opportunities for women running provincially. The bill specifically is very simple and very short. It simply exempts from the election spending limits that will govern us in all future elections any of the expenses related to child care on behalf of a candidate in a campaign. In other words, campaign funds could be spent on the candidate's child care expenses without being entered into the campaign expense record, which must, of course, be forwarded to the Commission on Election Finances.

I believe this seemingly small and simple step will, none the less, be fairly significant -- for women who are seeking elective office at the provincial level. That comes from two things. First, we know the election limits that will face all candidates at the beginning of the next general election and thereafter average out, on the basis of a formula, to approximately $46,000 per riding. Of course, that is a sliding scale that deals with the numbers of eligible electors and so on, but it is approximately $46,000.

It is also fairly simple to calculate what child care expenses might be for a parent, particularly a woman, seeking elective office for the 37-or-so-day period of the writ, providing child care for one child only. If we look at what expenses might be for a nonsubsidized day care space, for example, or support in the home for that mother, it would take a very short time, working on simple minimum wage calculations and a 40-hour week, to come up with expenses approximating $2,000 for that period.

It is fair to say that those expenses are probably undervalued, knowing, as we do, that 40-hour weeks are rare in political life at the best of times, and perhaps rarest of all during a campaign in a writ period. The $2,000, approximately -- again, it would vary with the region and with the circumstances, but it would be a minimum of about that -- is a substantial expenditure when one puts it into the context of the limits that, quite properly, are being placed on campaign expenses.

However, care for the children of a candidate is surely a necessary expense in the course of this period, and particularly necessary for women candidates, who are most often responsible for the rearing of their children. Clearly, if we are serious in this House, as I believe we all are on all sides, we will want to ensure that a mother is not penalized in her attempt to gain a seat in this Legislature by virtue of having to include within campaign expenditures the cost of child care.

We all know lack of money and lack of access to money are a part of the complex number of things that have historically discouraged women of this province from seeking electoral office, particularly to this Legislature. We know as well that the particular difficulties faced by women have been recognized by all the parties represented here, and additional special structures and encouragements have been established by each of the parties to recruit more women as candidates and to provide some help to those women in their efforts to run, recognizing that some help is needed. That might, for example, be a special fund for assistance, special selection procedures or what have you.

In my party we have established a task force to examine quite a range of things that merited doing. One of the items under review was the issue of the impact of legislation such as that governing election expenses. This bill flows from that very careful and detailed review by the task force identifying steps that should be taken to assist women who are running for elective office.

The historical view of women in Ontario politics is a pretty devastating one, and every step we can take to encourage more women, I think, would be agreed upon by all sides.

Let me take just a moment to review some of the history. Since 1867, there have been 19 women elected to the Legislature -- only 19. The first women who were elected joined this Legislature in 1943, some 26 years after women gained the right to vote in Ontario. Of course, it was not until 1972 that the first woman was appointed to the cabinet in this province.

10:10

More recently, while some 69 women ran for office in the 1985 election, including 18 from my party, only nine were elected, three for each party. An additional woman has joined us as a result of a by-election that occurred shortly after the general election. In 1971, 17 women ran for office for the different parties and only two were elected. In 1975, seven of the 39 women candidates were successful. Two years later, 44 women ran and six were elected. In 1981, 45 were candidates and again only six were elected.

This brief history tells us that at least within the past decade and a half there has been a fairly steady increase in the numbers of women for all the parties presenting themselves as candidates for election to this Legislature, but the numbers are exceedingly small. This simply has to be an area of concern to all of us.

To talk about increases over a very narrow base can give a high-sounding statistic or percentage but does not reflect the fact so very few women are presenting themselves here. This is in the face of the fact that women account for a little more than half the electorate and participate in the vote at the same level as men. Yet they continue to occupy less than 10 per cent of elected parliamentary offices.

We also know that women who seek public office tend to be unmarried, childless or older with grown children. One study of Canadian female candidates that was undertaken not long ago found that nonmothers were twice as likely as mothers to contest their first election before the age of 40. In other words, this relates directly to the traditional and continuing role of women in child care and child-rearing, being principally responsible for parenting. Although women are having their children later in life, perhaps moving it from the early 20s to the late 20s or early 30s, none the less, this still means there are families with very young children and mothers with prime responsibility for parenting and for caring for those young children among the majority of women who are 40 or under.

With the importance of the role women play in parenting, the importance of the support they must be given in the area of child care and parenting so as to genuinely encourage more women to come forward as candidates, is shown in the fact that study after study here in Canada as well, as in the United States, indicates that the role of wife and mother, with responsibility for parenting and child care, does not inhibit women from political participation, save and except for standing for elected office.

The studies clearly indicate very extensive participation rates for women with young children in politics, but not as candidates. We know women are taking places in all our parties as organizers, executive members and delegates, but are stopping short of what everyone would agree is the next logical step, direct candidacy.

We know motherhood is a relatively nonflexible occupation. It places very real limits on the opportunities for women at present, given the lack of support structures. We know, for example, that at home mothers may find it considerably more difficult to develop some of the political skills and social networks necessary for successful candidacy. Notwithstanding many of the changes that have occurred in society, we also know women who work outside the home too often face a double day of responsibility in caring for their children in a prime fashion in addition to work done outside the home. Political candidacy for many might turn that double day into a triple day.

If we believe, as I think we all do, that the democratic system is built on the principle of equal access to political power, then it is clear we must move to ensure that the laws governing our election provide for a genuine equality of access.

I have no doubt that there may be some who feel this amendment, in its very practice and general application, would likely be of greater benefit to women than to men. Although the language is neutral and would clearly provide the opportunity to deduct child care expenses to a man who may be a single parent or may himself be the principal child care giver within the family, none the less, we know the target here is clearly women. There may be some who feel that somehow provides for a bit of additional help that takes the opportunity for political activity out of balance, out of an equality position.

I argue to the contrary. There are times when our laws must be changed to provide special help to some within our society to bring their participation, their genuine access to our system, into balance. I believe this is one of those cases where an opportunity for women to participate with greater equality and, we hope, in greater numbers will be enhanced if we move with this amendment to provide that additional help we know will speak most directly and in general to the women of this province.

Having said that, neither I nor those others who support this suggest that this small, simple and direct amendment will somehow magically eliminate all the many barriers that now exist structurally and culturally for women seeking elective office in our society; nor do I suggest that if it is adopted, as I hope it will be, we will suddenly see women making up 50, 60 or 70 per cent of this Legislature come the next election rather than something in the order of eight per cent. However, it is a step in the right direction, and it does speak to at least two of the structural and cultural limitations that currently face women.

Structurally, it will reduce in some measure the financial and logistical limitations to the candidacy of many women, particularly those younger women with young families. Culturally, it will signal to women and society at large that we as legislators, speaking for the whole of society in Ontario, are willing to recognize responsibility for child care and gender equality in the Legislature.

We know that in the past couple of decades particularly a major transformation has taken place in Canadian society. I mentioned earlier that couples are having fewer children and having them later in life. We know there are far more single-parent families than there were 30 years ago. We also know an overwhelming portion of those single-parent families are mother-led. They are very often led by women who live on incomes below the poverty line.

We know as well that the rate of participation by women in the labour force has risen rapidly, and participation by mothers of young children has risen the fastest of all. More than half of our families now have two income-earners. We know that is rarely a matter of choice and very often a matter of necessity.

These changes have been recognized in many of the shifts we have made in our policy and legislative framework. One of those has been in the acknowledged increase for child care options. We talked of child care policies, day care spaces, early childhood education, extending an additional subsidy where it is required and enhancing the skills and training of those to whom we give one of the most important jobs in our society, that of caring for our children for our future. To this point, we have not taken the next logical step in the application of that understanding of the importance of child care and applied it in a particular way to assist those who would come forward as part of the political process within this Legislature.

10:20

I believe this bill will do that. It will provide a signal culturally. It will afford additional assistance structurally. Most important, it will move us in the vein I believe we have all expressed the wish to go, which is to provide greater opportunity for genuine participation and true access to elective office by 50 per cent of our population.

I very much hope that members of this chamber will join me in supporting this amendment, this small but important step.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the remaining time for her completion?

Ms. Fish: I intend to reserve about two minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. One minute and 45 seconds.

Mr. Warner: At the outset, I wish to congratulate the member for St. George on her excellent speech. Naturally, along with all other reasonable members of this assembly, I will be supporting the bill. I do not know how any person can vote against it. Further, I hope the government will see to speedy passage of this bill, as we saw recently with another opposition member's private bill. The government co-operated and the bill was made into law. That is what has to happen with this bill. As the member has indicated, it is a small but significant step towards trying to ensure greater access for women to participate in the political process.

I notice we have a school group with us this morning. Whenever I meet with school groups, one of the questions I ask them is whether they can tell me how many women are elected to the assembly. It is fascinating to hear the answers. Usually, the answers are somewhere around 30, 40 or 50. School children believe there are at least 30, 40 or 50 women elected to this assembly. Usually, they are quite shocked when I tell them there are only 10. Then I ask them the next question, because kids study math in school. Is that 50 per cent of the 125 seats? Of course, they know it is not.

Obviously, the pitch to those young girls in elementary school classes is that they may very much want to seek out a political career as something to aim for, because we need a balance of view in this assembly. Historically, we have never had it. Historically, what we have had are men's views about how the laws should be structured and how society should be developed. That has to change. It is changing; attitudes are changing.

I want briefly to relate a little story that tells me that there are some changes in attitudes and yet there is still a long way to go. A former colleague of mine when I was teaching told me of friends, a working couple, who, when they had their first child, sat down and discussed between themselves how they were going to share the responsibilities of raising their child.

The couple decided that the husband, who was a teacher, would take a leave of absence for a couple of years and stay home and raise the child. The mother, who had a career in her own right, would continue with the career beyond the normal maternity leave. That is what they decided to do. He was quite pleased to have the opportunity to stay home with his child and do all the normal household duties. She continued with her career, which I believe was in law. Members will not believe the scorn and derision that were heaped upon this poor man by his former friends, teaching colleagues, relatives and neighbours. Unfortunately, even some of the women in the neighbourhood were somewhat suspicious of this activity, of why he was staying home raising the child.

In some countries that is not unusual. We have a long way to go. Where we start is with the attitudes, because if we do not change our attitudes about the sharing of responsibilities when raising children, the sharing of responsibilities in maintaining a home, then how can we hope to break down the barriers so that more women will participate in the political process and, indeed, participate in all of society? The barriers are still there. It is still a male-dominated society. We have made some progress, but the barriers are still there.

One just has to look at the basic economic structure of who runs the country and how it is run, at all of the institutions, to know that it is still male dominated. There has to be an equality between the sexes. I am very confident that this will come about, but it takes a determined effort, especially on behalf of those who are elected to hold public office. It is incumbent upon politicians at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal, to show leadership wherever possible, to demonstrate that this will be a society in which men and women will share equally, that they will have equal responsibility and that they will enjoy the benefits equally.

We can no longer tolerate women receiving less money for the work they do than men receive. Surely we cannot tolerate the notion that only women will have the responsibility of raising children and of maintaining the home. That is a responsibility that needs to be shared with men. In fact, quite frankly, it seems to me that when women become liberated, so do men. Men become liberated from the traditional role that has been thrust upon them. They become liberated so that men and women can enjoy life on an equal basis.

I really look forward to that day. The member for St. George, who has done quite a bit of research into this area, will recall that it really is not very long since women gained the right to vote. Can members imagine? A basic democratic right, which we take as a principle in a democratic society, the right to cast a vote, was denied to half the population. That is absolutely incredible. While that right has now been established, we certainly have a very long way to go.

In conclusion, [ want to commend the member for St. George again for introducing a measure that not only is obviously fair and will be of assistance to women who are seeking public office, but also raises the bigger question of trying to establish the kind of attitudes and the kind of atmosphere in which women will be encouraged to participate.

While she is right on the figures with respect to the number of women who came forward as candidates and the number who were successful, part of the reason for there not being greater success is that all parties have been guilty in the past of allowing women to be candidates mostly -- not entirely, but mostly -- only in those ridings that were not winnable. How often have parties, including my own, come forward and said, "Our priority is to have good women candidates in those ridings that are winnable for the party"? There are a few exceptions, but basically women who came forward to stand as candidates ended up in ridings where the party really did not have much of a chance of winning. That is why, although there were 40 or 50 women candidates, only six were successful. It is one of the reasons.

10:30

Again, I am very appreciative of the member bringing the bill forward. I hope the government will see fit to make sure this bill is passed before Christmas, so that if we have an election next year, which many are anticipating, this bill will be of some help, especially to women candidates, but also, perhaps as the member mentioned, to some single-parent fathers who would like to run as candidates and would appreciate child care being an allowable expense.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I point out that of the 10 women in the House, four are present here this morning. That is a greater percentage than the number of male members of the House here.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The member for Oriole.

Ms. Caplan: I rise in this private members' debate to discuss, perhaps in a broader context, the issues that have been raised by the member for St. George. Since we will be discussing the Election Finances Act in the not-too-distant future, I believe it is important now to discuss a little bit of the history of that act in Ontario and the changes that are being proposed for that act in the future.

The history in Ontario has been that, to date, election expenses, costs and fund-raising, all of which are covered by that act, were handled very differently from the federal act. In the federal act, there was a limit on how much a candidate could spend during an election in each riding constituency, but there was no limit on how much could be raised.

In Ontario, there was the opposite. There was a limit on how much could be raised and contributed on an individual level and on a corporate level, but there was no limit on how much could be spent during an election by an individual candidate in the riding. What we are seeing in Ontario is a fundamental change in that act. The change will reflect the fact that there will be spending limits for the first time in all constituencies in this province based upon calculated population figures. This will ensure a fairness within ridings and ensure that excessive amounts of money are not spent during campaign periods.

I think we should discuss as well for a moment the process of those amendments, how they have come about and how that new act will be before this Legislature in the not-too-distant future. Rather than just the government making those decisions, there was a decision to have an all-party, ad hoc committee sit down to discuss election finances reform, which is really what this is all about. I think the process has worked extremely well. Involved in that process, as well, has been the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses and its recommendations.

One of the things the commission has been wrestling with is what are partisan and nonpartisan campaign expenses, what would be of benefit to the candidate and what would be of benefit to encourage candidates in a nonpartisan sense.

While this particular issue before us this morning is one of child care, there are other issues that commission is discussing at this time. Reforms will be brought forward that I believe will remove some of those barriers, not only that of child care. Many people may not know that many candidates must leave their gainful employment during the campaign period and not have any salary with which to feed their family. The suggestion is -- and this would benefit men and women -- that during the campaign period, salary should be permitted as a nonelection expense for those who are not rich, for those who cannot afford to leave their job and take an extended leave of absence for the 37 days of the campaign period.

There are many other barriers. Why are we doing this? It is to encourage as wide a participation in this Legislative Assembly as possible, not to exclude people because of financial circumstances, because of a mortgage they have to pay or because they have children who have to be fed.

I also take issue with the view that child care will be of specific benefit to women. While it will be helpful because of the knowledge and understanding that this was the traditional woman's role in the family, I believe that has changed and that in many families there is a sharing, as parents, of caring and nurturing. I do not see child care as strictly a women's issue. It is a parenting issue and a societal issue.

Child care expenses, which will not be considered campaign expenses because they are nonpartisan expenses, will be of benefit to both male and female candidates to make sure that during the campaign period children are cared for in an atmosphere where both parents may be participating in the campaign, because that often happens. Whether the candidate is male or female, the other partner or other spouse may want to participate during the campaign. We have come to a point in this Legislature in 1986 where we recognize that child care is an issue for men and women and not just for single women or single parents, male or female.

I believe the election expenses act that will be coming forward with the full support of the government will go further than what the member for St. George has suggested, in looking at the barriers to candidates from all walks of life entering the arena to participate in this great democratic process. Child care is just one, but a very important one of these. I believe there has been all-party agreement that it is a nonpartisan expense that should be recognized in the act. It will particularly encourage women to run as candidates by recognizing that fact, but it will be of equal benefit to men who want to ensure that during the campaign period there is support in the household and that a double burden is not placed on their spouses for child care, as it has been in the past.

We in this House have a responsibility for the formation of legislation that will remove barriers to all in our society. Our act must reflect that. Whenever we make a fundamental change in the way our campaigns are funded and run, we have to look at the implications for our society to ensure that this Legislature reflects our entire population.

Almost every day, when I enter this Legislature and walk up the great staircase, I look at the picture of the Fathers of Confederation staring down on me and I think of what Ontario and Canada were like in 1867 at the time of the Fathers of Confederation. Whenever I have a school group visit this Legislature, I point it out to them. I say: "In 1867, that was a reflection of Ontario and Canada at the time. The people in that picture are unique. They are all men. This reflects the reality that women did not have the vote at that time. They are all white. This reflects the difference of our society and how Ontario has changed."

This is another step in ensuring that we as legislators do what we can to encourage the participation and successful election to this Legislature of individuals from every segment of our society, so that we do not have a Legislature that does not reflect our society, one that says, "Because you have to work for a living and you are not rich, you cannot afford to take time off from work to run." That would inhibit and be a barrier to participation. We want one that says, "During the campaign period, we recognize your family's needs and household responsibilities, whether male or female."

Our society has changed and many men are accepting responsibility as full parents in the running of households. I do not want to diminish that. By placing a child care provision in the act, I do not think we will be doing anything other than recognizing the reality that exists today, which is that families share parenting and child care responsibilities. It will not be of partisan benefit to any one candidate, nor will it be of sexist benefit to any one candidate. All it will do is remove yet another barrier to segments of our society to allow them to participate fully in this process.

10:40

With the all-party support that has been occurring on the committee, there has been full caucus consultation. I believe the amendments to the act that will be coming forward very shortly -- I hope before the end of the year, but certainly before the next election -- will reflect those kinds of changes to make sure that in Ontario the Election Finances Act reflects our society as it is today, reflects the strong family values that we have and reflects the desire to encourage participation in this Legislature by people from all walks of life, people new to this country, people who perhaps do not have the resources or the background of the Fathers of Confederation, those who today have child care responsibilities.

I believe this amendment today is deserving of support.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to join in the debate on the very worthwhile motion put forward by my colleague the member for St. George and to indicate my wholehearted support for it.

Some years ago, before my election to this chamber, I participated as a member of a task force that was set up by Premier Davis within the Conservative Party to look at the role of women within our party, and I guess implicitly the role of women within the political system within our province, and to see what we might be able to do to encourage more women to assume senior responsibilities within our political system and within our party, to run as candidates and to serve as members in this chamber.

That was, as I recall, back around 1978. Our party has since had another major initiative, chaired by Jane Pepino, representative of women and members of our party from across the province to look again, at the mid-point of the 1980s, at this very vital issue.

What bothers me somewhat is that some 10 years after that original study, in which I participated, I am not sure that the amount of progress has been made that should have been made. When I say that, I guess I am implicitly critical of my own party. I would not want to suggest for a moment that I believe we lag in any respect with regard to women's full participation in our part of the political spectrum as compared to either of the other two parties. I do not believe that to be the case.

Regardless of some rather unfortunate and misleading headlines arising out of our party's annual meeting in Hamilton, women are as fully represented in the executive chambers and in the decision-making bodies of our party, easily as influential both in numbers and in talent as they are in either of the other two parties participating in the political process in this province. But having said that, I really think none of us is doing enough and none of us is doing well enough.

When I was first elected to this chamber some six years ago, as we walked in and took our seats along the back row of that side of the House at the time -- I see my friend the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) smiling at that; I understand that -- we looked at this sea of male faces and saw a sprinkling of women. Here we are in 1986, and it is really not very different. Women are shamelessly underrepresented in this chamber, because I happen to believe they face a number of obstacles that we do not face who run as males to be members in this assembly.

First, there is the phenomenon, which I believe again is common to all three parties, that in all too many cases women are offered as candidates in seats that are not considered to be winnable. In other words, in a mad scramble to offer women as candidates for this Legislature, all too often the party hierarchies offer up numbers of female candidates, because that is great public relations at election time; but all too often, if one looks at the statistics, the women are offered as candidates in ridings that are not considered easily winnable for those respective parties.

This is not a record of which we who participate in the system in this province should be proud -- not at all. Women make up 51 per cent of the population of our province. The day should come, in my estimation, when women should be half the candidates, and they should be running without prejudice to their chances of victory or the type of riding in which they are offering themselves for nomination or election.

They should be equally represented across the province, in urban and rural ridings, where there are excellent chances of any one of the parties taking the seat and where there are not. That would be only fair and just. That is the day when we can say that women have reached a position of true equality within our political system. Ultimately, we are looking at a day when half the members of this chamber will be women, which would be a step forward.

I was on a platform last night in my own riding for a very important announcement with two fine ministers, the Minister of Communications for Canada, the Honourable Flora MacDonald, and the Ontario Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro). I said to the men present at that assemblage that I had long advocated equality of women within our political system, but I did not know they were going to overtake us so soon.

Some of the finest people participating and having some of the greatest contributions to make in our political system are women, and we all know it. I will add parenthetically that the women elected in politics in Canada are often person for person and pound for pound more talented, because it is that much harder for them to get in. Almost without exception, the women participating in our system are first-class, dedicated and articulate people.

All this brings me to the bill being proposed by my colleague, the member for St. George. For all the right reasons, this assembly has moved in the direction of limiting campaign expenses at election time. We could discuss the reasons at some length, but I believe we all share the goals. A person's ability to be elected to this chamber should not be determined by his ability to raise outlandish amounts of cash.

People of all means, backgrounds and professions and with any number of types of organization should be able to run credible campaigns and have a good crack at being elected to this chamber. For this reason, limits have been put on spending at election time so that, as much as possible, we can put people on a relatively equal footing, come the beginning of a provincial election.

The problem with that very good initiative is that women candidates who want to offer themselves and whose husbands are working -- I never thought we would hear the day we would have to say that -- have an increasing need for child care so that they can campaign and fulfil their other responsibilities as a candidate and know their children are being well cared for.

Under the act as it is now structured, those expenses have to be declared as an election expense. With the motion being put forward by my colleague the member for St. George that will change. It has to change because, inadvertently, with our election reforms, we have created another barrier to mothers offering themselves as candidates for this chamber.

I am sure it was not the intent of the drafters of the election expenses legislation that this be the case. It was not our intent that this happened, but it is a possible ramification. By adopting Bill 153, we can ensure that women can take care of their child care expenses during the 37 days of a provincial election campaign without regard to having to be under the spending limits prescribed by law.

This is one of those bills that can be supported by every member of the assembly in good faith, with the knowledge that it is a good reform, not partisan by any means and not particularly controversial.

With that in mind, it would be my sincere hope that this bill will pass the assembly today and will then proceed, if necessary, to committee and to third reading. It happens all too seldom that this is the case with a private member's bill, although we have seen a couple of encouraging examples of late. Perhaps we should add this very worthy motion to those examples of an initiative made by a private member that becomes the law of Ontario.

10:50

Ms. Gigantes: I rise, like my colleague before me, to support this resolution placed by the member for St. George, and I do so with just a few personal comments.

The way the member for St. George has expressed her concerns in putting forward this amendment is quite correct. One knows even without reading a lot of academic studies that women who are being elected to our parliaments at the provincial and federal levels are women who either have not had children yet or whose children have grown.

Over the last 10 years, we have certainly seen women participating and providing real and fresh leadership at local levels of the government. I think particularly of the area from which I come, Ottawa-Carleton, where in both the municipal field and the school board field women have provided great community leadership over the last 10 to 15 years.

We know women are not seeking election to provincial and federal office very often when they are in the age group where they have young children at home. I have talked to women who have been thinking about running provincially and federally over the last few weeks and months who have young children. I know very well the kind of struggle they go through in their own minds about what it would mean, first of all to their families, to go through five or six weeks of very intense campaigning and organizing for the care of children during that period, and then the thought also of what happens if one is elected, where the necessity for child care arrangements of a great deal of complexity becomes really obvious and very important to families.

As a person who myself sought election back in 1974 and was elected in 1975, I know the choices one faces as a candidate who is the mother of a small child are very harsh choices. In fact, in my own situation, because I had been an employee of a crown corporation, the CBC, I was forced, in seeking the nomination in 1975, to quit my job and wait out the months to the election with no major sources of income available to me and my young daughter.

I had to rely on personal loans from friends and on cash in the meagre amount of a pension I had built up by being a member of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists and believe me, it was not very much. I also had to depend on the principle that was expressed by members of the Carleton East New Democratic Party riding association, that a candidate who was a woman who was in a situation where child care expenses and living expenses were a major problem should receive support from the constituency association.

The members of that group many years back really gave in practice an example of the kind of forward motion that we are looking for when we support this resolution here today. We want to be able to say to men and women in this province, "If you have children, perhaps there is even more reason we would like to see you elected." Very often members of this House may feel that we grow distant from our families, our friends and the ridings we represent because we are forced to be away for many days of many weeks of many years. It is awfully important to members of this Legislature to have a sense that families are well cared for and that children are well cared for.

For women to be able to feel that and to feel they are welcome as candidates and members of this Legislature, we have to make special provision, as this motion calls on us to do, to indicate to women that there has to be and will be extra support, extra consideration and extra help in a very tangible way if they are going to be candidates and go on to be elected representatives of this Legislature.

In a way that has particularly to do with our political structures, this motion expresses the kinds of thoughts and feelings society is coming to very slowly -- much too slowly -- on a number of issues that affect women, women and children in the family setting, and the role of women in society in the larger sense. The very least we can do is to support this motion and hope for amendments to our election expenses legislation.

We all owe the member for St. George a thank-you for having initiated this motion. We also owe her a commitment that we will support this initiative on behalf of a new view of the place of women, of the place of women and children and of the place of families in our society.

Ms. Fish: To reiterate briefly, the language of the bill is gender neutral; so it does apply to all candidates, whether men or women, with children to provide child care expense support.

Within our society, the principal responsibility for child care continues in the main to be that of women. If this amendment is adopted, as I am pleased to feel it will be, it will clearly provide additional incentive, support and encouragement to women.

As my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has indicated, it sounds a clear signal that we value considerably the importance of having in this House people who have families and who have responsibility directly for their future.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart moved resolution 68:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the massive problems that exist in Ontario's auto insurance system, namely, excessive premiums and escalating rates generally; good young male drivers paying three to five times average rates; all drivers in a household penalized for one driver's record; new drivers of any age paying penalty rates; the growing number of uninsured drivers in Ontario; arbitrary cancellation of insurance or massive premium increases for frivolous reasons, and inadequate or nonexistent no-fault compensation, and, recognizing that the Slater commission has failed to propose recommendations to resolve these problems and, in particular, failed to investigate and report on the financial and other benefits of the public auto insurance plans as practised in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia; and recognizing that Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne has not been instructed to make any in-depth investigation and report on those plans either, the government of Ontario should appoint immediately a respected firm of financial and accounting consultants (like Woods Cordon, who did the previous study in 1978) to make a comprehensive study and comparison of the rates and policies of the western public plans with those of Ontario so that the public of this province know the true facts concerning a major auto insurance alternative which could be made available to the people of this province.

11:00

Mr. Swart: I would move that in the opinion of this House, recognizing the massive problems that exist in Ontario's auto insurance system, namely, excessive premiums and escalating rates generally; good young male drivers paying three to five times average rates; all drivers in a household penalized for one driver's record; new drivers of any age paying penalty rates; the growing number of uninsured drivers in Ontario; arbitrary cancellation of insurance or massive premium increases for frivolous reasons: and inadequate or nonexistent no-fault compensation; and recognizing that the Slater commission has failed to propose recommendations to resolve these problems and, in particular, failed to investigate and report on the financial and other benefits of the public auto insurance plans as practised in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia; and recognizing that Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne has not been instructed to make any in-depth investigation and report on those plans either, the government of Ontario should appoint immediately a respected firm of financial and accounting consultants (like Woods Cordon, who did the previous study in 1978) to make a comprehensive study and comparison of the rates and policies of the western public insurance plans with those of Ontario and report within four months so that the public of this province know the true facts concerning a major auto insurance alternative which could be made available to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: I noticed there were some changes in the wording. Did you mean that to be?

Mr. Swart: You are correct, Mr. Speaker; I made a few minor changes in the wording.

Mr. Speaker: The member has moved notice of motion 68. He has up to 20 minutes and he may reserve any of that time for the windup of the debate.

Mr. Swart: I doubt that the ballot item I have before the House will be accepted quite as unanimously as the previous one has been, but it may well be and it should be.

This party and I personally attach significant importance to the issue of insurance before us. There is no question that it is an important issue to the bulk, if not all, of the people in this province. It is a $3-billion issue annually. The present insurance crisis is damaging a lot of people and businesses in our society. The problem is not lessening; it is getting worse.

The Financial Post recently reported that since 1985 the cost of auto insurance has increased 19 per cent. It said, "When the dust settles next year, the average rate will be about 38 per cent above the 1985 level."

Mr. Offer: I am sorry to interrupt, but I notice the clock is not running. Is that a malfunction?

Mr. Swart: I am sure the Speaker has a watch and will watch the time very closely.

The insurance crisis is substantially changing our way of life. It is a matter that must be dealt with in our society. It is not being dealt with and has not been dealt with since this crisis started in the spring of 1985.

In addition to the do-nothing attitude of the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) in resolving the problem is his slavish adherence to the insurance industry and his real desire not to know what is taking place. He has been questioned in the House repeatedly from the beginning and asked questions such as: "How much have the rates increased? Are those kinds of increases justified?" He simply does not know. He does not answer the questions. To this day, he does not know. He does not know how many people are driving without insurance.

The other day, when my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) brought up the case of a tavern owner who could not get insurance and did not have insurance, the minister said he did not know of a tavern owner in Ontario who did not have insurance. When I talked to the executive director of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, he told me that fully one third of all the tavern owners in this province are operating without insurance.

When it comes to insurance, this minister is the minister of ignorance. He will say he has appointed the Slater commission to investigate and now the Osborne commission, but it is worth noting that they were not representative of the public in this province. They were not asked to investigate rates in other jurisdictions and other systems compared to Ontario. They did not even go outside Toronto. They were not and are not charged with getting the full and comprehensive information. In fact, their main purpose is to stall and to bring in the kind of report the minister wants.

It is something like the Ontario Advisory Committee on Liquor Regulations, where he appoints his own parliamentary assistant as the chairman and the members of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, rather than having representatives of the people of this province.

It is not that the minister does not know because he has a low IQ; it is simply that he does not want to know. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and he really does not want to see. He blindly follows the philosophy and the wishes of the insurance companies.

In no case is this more apparent than in his refusal over and over again to look at the real alternative of public auto insurance and public insurance generally as practised by the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, even though the overwhelming bulk of the studies show that the insurance system of those provinces is far superior to our system in this province. In fact, it has been so superior that the successive Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit governments have not only kept those plans almost intact, but have also praised them as being of great benefit to the people of those provinces.

I may be slightly incorrect in saying the minister does not want to know about the advantages of those plans. He already knows. He wants the public of Ontario not to know the advantages of those plans. That is why we have this resolution before us today. It is the reason this resolution has been changed. Members of this House, particularly the Speaker, will know that my original resolution called for the implementation of public auto insurance in this province by January 1, 1988. I know the philosophy of the government of this province. I know the philosophy of the people on our right.

Mr. Warner: They are both the same.

Mr. Swart: They are both the same.

I know that resolution would not pass, but it seemed reasonable that if I brought in a resolution just asking for this full, independent, in-depth investigation, even the most right-wing people in the Liberal and Conservative parties would at least want to know. Therefore, I have changed the resolution to ask only for the investigation, to bring out the full facts in the comparison between the public auto insurance system and the system we have in this province. Frankly, I would sooner debate the merits of the system, but I think this resolution, for the purpose of this House with the complexion of this House, is more appropriate.

I do not want the minister or his spokesperson, his parliamentary assistant, who I assume will be answering this because the minister is not here -- the fact the minister is not here is an indication of his indifference to the massive problem of insurance that is faced by the people of this province.

Mr. Pierce: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think a bill of this importance requires the attention of the government. At present, only two government members are in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: This is private members' hour. We are cutting into the time of the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, could you tell me whether that time is correct or whether it is somewhat shorter than that?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. That is correct.

Mr. Swart: Let not the minister or his parliamentary assistant get up here today and say Mr. Slater did that comparison. The facts are that he did not look at it in depth. If either one of them gets up and says that, he should point out to me where in his report he shows a comparison of the rates and the policies.

It is not going to be done by Mr. Justice Osborne either, because he has not been directed to make that in-depth study. The parliamentary assistant may get up and say that, according to his terms of reference, he is supposed to look at private versus public delivery of a no-fault system of automobile insurance, but we know very well that does not direct him to make the in-depth comparison.

11:10

In fact, Mr. Slater had the same direction and he did not do it. Therefore, Mr. Justice Osborne is not going to do it either. The reason is that the government over on the other side does not want that kind of comparison. It would love to have something like the Slater report, which, incidentally, says this about the public plans that Government insurance companies in Canada have been well run:

"When not overburdened by social missions and unreasonable restraint on their premium rates by their masters, they have been quite efficient. They have all been efficient performers in recent years. They have also managed to achieve a few social goals as well as provide good-quality insurance services.

"The insurance companies have managed to put a little more of the revenue dollar into claim payments than, on average, private insurers have in Ontario, but the advantage is not much."

However, he never quantified it. He brushed it off with that kind of terminology.

The people of this province ought to have the right to know the full details as provided by an independent, competent and philosophically unbiased financial accounting firm, such as Woods Gordon, of the public plans in those three western provinces versus the private plans here. What is wrong with having the 1978 report updated? Do we not want to know the contrasts in administration costs among the western plans, the public plans and the private plans? Why do we not want to know the contrasts in the costs of claims settlements? Why do we not want to know the full comparison of the rates between the public plans and the private system here? The people of this province ought to have the right to know and not be misled by the insurance people of this province.

I want to point out to this House one of the most blatant demonstrations of distortion that I have seen in a long time. I have in my possession a copy of a letter dated August 5, 1986, signed by the general manager of the Facility Association -- that is the organization composed of all the major insurance companies -- D. D. McKay, and sent to Brian Crowe, president of the Ontario Motor Coach Association. I quote verbatim page 3, where Mr. McKay refers to the British Columbia public plan:

"I was interested in the quote that was attributed to you." I break in here to say that it was a quote in the Globe and Mail attributed to Brian Crowe, when he asked that they have a public insurance plan in this province, as they have in British Columbia. Then Mr. McKay goes on to make that quote from his letter:

"`We are told by people out there in BC that the system does not lose money. So if it is no drain on taxpayers' money, why should we not have the same system in Ontario?'"

That was Brian Crowe speaking. Here is what Mr. McKay says:

"I am not sure what people told you that the system does not lose money, but starting in 1985, the following figures will indicate the loss suffered by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia-Auto Plan: 1981, $101,937,769 lost; 1982, $108,891,265 lost; 1983, $97,505,000 lost; 1984, $118,468,000 lost; 1985, $84,823,000 lost," for a total loss, according to Mr. McKay, of $522 million for the British Columbia auto insurance plan in the last five years.

Then he goes on to say:

"I have no idea who your source of information was in BC., however, you may quote the figures that I have mentioned above to them as they are accurate. They are provided by the provincial government to the Canadian Underwriters' Statistical issue. We find it very unfortunate that so much unsubstantiated information should be made public through the media as, generally speaking, the facts are available, they are usually less dramatic and not particularly newsworthy, and may be of little interest to the public."

Mr. Pierce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I apologize to the presenter, but I brought to the attention of the House once that there were two members of the government in the House and the number has now swelled to three. We are dealing with a very important private members' bill, and I think it deserves more attention than it is getting from the government. I request that you call a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

11:17

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on, the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I regret we lost this time right in the middle of my giving some very valuable information. I was reading part of the letter of D. D. McKay, the general manager of the Facility Association, one of the top insurance people in this province. "Obviously, Mr. Crowe was perturbed when he got that letter showing a loss of almost $512 million in the B.C. plan over the last five years."

That is after he had asked for a similar plan in this province. To continue my quote from the letter:

"He took further steps to check the accuracy" directly with British Columbia, with Manitoba and with me. Contrary to Mr. McKay's statement he "found that the Canadian Underwriters Statistical Issue of May, 1986 showed.... the following net profit for the B.C. plan: 1981, $616,000; 1982, $3.2 million; 1983, $5,611,000; 1984, $9,564,000; 1985, $73,562,000; for a total five-year profit of $92,553,000," when Mr. McKay had said the loss was $522 million.

"Simply, Mr. McKay had done was use the underwriting income figures before the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia investment income had been applied. That is more than just giving misleading information. That is deliberate distortion$. It is noteworthy, too, that a copy of Mr. McKay's letter went to Mr. John Weir, the Superintendent of Insurance for Ontario; Mr. John Lyndon, President of the Insurance Bureau of Canada and Mr. J. B. Nixon, Special Assistant to the Honourable Monte Kwinter, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and none of them took the trouble to correct it.

"If a public official provided that kind of false information and did not correct it, he would be required to resign and that is exactly what Mr. McKay should do.

"Those unsavoury tactics are not just confined to officials of the insurance companies either. Mr. Kwinter, in defending the increasing rates by the insurance companies, said to me in the House on October 14.... `In the latest figures available for 1985, for every dollar of premium that was taken in on automobile insurance, $1.31 was paid out in claims.' That statement is factually incorrect. The $1.31 mentioned was not just for claims, but a substantial share was used for expenses in settling those claims. In addition to that, the contrast was misleading because on top of the $1 income for premiums was the huge investment income of many hundreds of millions of dollars received by the insurance companies.

"Apart from the distasteful ethics that is demonstrated by these statements and many other similar statements, it shows the desperation of the defenders of an insurance system that is indefensible and their own recognition that the public auto insurance systems of the three western provinces are far superior to those in Ontario."

I realize it would be embarrassing for the minister if we had this accurate comparison. In his view, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In the spring, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) asked on his questionnaire whether his constituents would like to have insurance like that in Manitoba. In his Conservative riding, a Conservative member found that 80 per cent of the people wanted public auto insurance.

This government has self-righteously pounded its chest about the right to know, that we should have freedom of information. It was even invoked last night by the member speaking on rent review. That is what this resolution is all about, about freedom of information so that the people of Ontario know the difference between the public plans in the west and the system in Ontario that has broken down.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to join in this debate. I regret the member for Welland-Thorold lost some valuable time in once more indicating his concerns with respect to the insurance question. Second, I regret there was a change in his private member's notice of motion without informing all the members of the House so that those who wished to refer and comment on that motion did not, will not and have not had the opportunity of proper notice.

This is the third time I have risen with respect to concerns about insurance posed by the member for Welland-Thorold. I realize there are very important trilogies in many different areas. The trilogy provided by the member for Welland-Thorold is one more important trilogy, but it is more akin to Curly, Larry and Moe.

I would like to comment specifically on the resolution proposed by the member. In particular, he indicates that "the Slater commission has failed to propose recommendations to resolve the problems and, in particular, failed to investigate and report," among other things.

The Slater task force provided 98 recommendations. There was an intensive work period. There was a determination and commitment on behalf not only of the chairman, but also of all who were involved in that task force in addressing the problems surrounding the insurance industry and making recommendations to the government.

Far from being a failure, the Slater task force provided an important and necessary addressing of problems and concerns. It was a success not only in meeting its mandate within its time period limitations, but also in its honesty in addressing the problems and concerns of people surrounding the insurance industry. Therefore, I take great exception to the member for Welland-Thorold's attacking that commission and all who had a part to play in it and the very good work they did.

There is no question that the recommendation of the Slater task force that received the most interest is that which called for some form of no-fault insurance. Dr. Slater specifically recommended that the province move to a no-fault or partial no-fault insurance system to be delivered through private insurance companies and not through the government. The main reason for this recommendation was the concern of the task force with the longer-term implications for the equity, efficiency and affordability of the present system and the steady increase in average settlements and awards for bodily injury.

It is not surprising that Dr. Slater's no-fault automobile insurance recommendation received substantial but mixed responses from various interest groups throughout this province. Notwithstanding the various and mixed responses, one thing was certain and there was consensus. Virtually everyone indicated that more information is required before we move in a responsible manner towards the recommendation indicated in the Slater task force. Virtually everyone except the member for Welland-Thorold feels that more information is needed and that more questions should be asked about the impact of the recommendation in the Slater task force before we can responsibly move in that direction. I believe that is a responsible response to that recommendation.

The second point raised in the notice of motion is that "Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne has not been instructed to make any in-depth investigation and report on" plans with respect to no-fault insurance. The member for Welland-Thorold has once more indicated in his trilogy that the implementation of the Osborne commission will not be addressing questions. I believe he has even used today words to the effect that the people of this province will not know the true facts, in the opinion of the member for Welland-Thorold.

I think we should go through what Mr. Justice Osborne has been mandated to look into because the member for Welland-Thorold somewhat neglected to indicate it. He will be considering and reporting on "the adequacy, timeliness and fairness of compensation to accident victims under the present tort system." He will be commenting on "the effectiveness of the tort system as a deterrent in compensation mechanisms" and on "the implications of removing tort liability as a basis for compensation in automobile accidents and replacing it with a no-fault system."

He will be commenting on "the cost savings and effectiveness of a no-fault system for compensation for claims arising out of automobile accidents; the appropriate design of a no-fault automobile insurance system for Ontario, including the effectiveness of deterrence in a no-fault system; the effectiveness of rating systems related to driver performance and standards for ratings under such a no-fault automobile insurance system; the desirability of a modified no-fault system with some form of threshold at which recourse to the tort system would be allowed; the basis for determining compensation for injury or death in a no-fault system; dispute resolution and appeal processes for claims in a no-fault system; the need in a no-fault system for a catastrophic claims fund or pooling mechanism to protect small insurers; private versus public delivery of a no-fault system of automobile insurance, and the role of government in any proposed no-fault system."

The member for Welland-Thorold apparently understands and has the answers to all these questions. The people of the province want to know these answers. Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne in his commission is going to address these questions properly and provide answers to these concerns, notwithstanding the rantings and ravings of the member for Welland-Thorold.

11:30

The third point in the notice of motion talks about appointing "immediately a respected firm of financial and accounting consultants (like Woods Gordon, who did the previous study in 1978)." It appears the member for Welland-Thorold is disappointed that his friends at Woods Gordon have not been commissioned to conduct the study.

I point out to the House, and in particular to the member, that Woods Gordon will still have a chance. As the Minister of Financial Institutions stated in his announcement of the task force, Mr. Justice Osborne may request any additional powers or resources necessary to carry out his duties and functions. Thus, there is still a chance that the friends of the member for Welland-Thorold may be able to make input, but only if Mr. Justice Osborne believes and feels such input is necessary and warranted.

We cannot repair the system by adopting another province's solution. It would be like transplanting blindly the Rocky Mountains on the Niagara Escarpment. What we can do is learn from the experience of other jurisdictions that have different systems, and that means delving into their weaknesses as well as their strengths. We are not looking for merely a better system of auto insurance. We want the best, because that is what the people of this province both desire and deserve, and the Osborne commission will take us a long way to providing that to the people of this province.

Mr. Sheppard: It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the resolution of the member for Welland-Thorold today. I am certain that we are all concerned about the current problems regarding insurance coverage. We have all been affected by them in one way or another, either personally or through constituents.

The rising cost of auto insurance can be attributed to several factors: (1) more claims are being made; (2) the cost of accidents is increasing via car repairs, material and parts, and newer cars are also harder to fix; and (3) court awards for personal injuries are increasing at an alarming rate.

Ironically enough, it is not those multimillion-dollar claims that we sometimes read about that are the real problem. The concern lies with the average claim -- for example, the fender-bender where the level of awards has been steadily increasing. People have a tendency to use these reported multimillion-dollar awards as a justification for increasing premiums. People read about these huge claims and feel they too are entitled to more. Society has become engrossed in an attitude of entitlement, if you wish.

It is foolish, however, to blame the entire crisis on people and their lawyers. Naturally, people who pay regular insurance premiums feel they are entitled to a fair and just compensation when they suffer a loss. It is essential, however, that society in general, and the consumer in particular, receive and understand the basic message that a more generous civil justice system has to be paid for.

Another part of the problem is that of reinsurance. Some reinsurers are treating the North American market as a whole. This attitude has been unfair to Canada because we have a very different tort system and, generally, we have not seen the types of claims, along with astronomical awards, that have been seen in the United States. It is perceived that if changes can be brought about to our tort system, this would allow insurance companies to price their products more accurately.

I am not in favour of government insurance as such, but there are other means by which we can do our part to alleviate the insurance crisis. One method is to restrict or lower the size of these astronomical awards. One option to consider is to impose a certain dollar limit on personal-injury lawsuits. This would ensure a more stable environment for industry to predict the future and to price its products. Furthermore, amendments could be made to the Courts of Justice Act to allow awards for serious injuries to be distributed via annuities as opposed to one lump sum. This method could prove advantageous in several forms.

To begin with, tax on future care costs would be eliminated. Second, the number of false claims would most likely decrease. For example, if an injured person who had received a long-term annuity was discovered to be participating in physical activities contrary to his injuries, his annuity could be cancelled without recourse. Furthermore, because the payment would be in annuity form, the chances of a claimant losing his award through faulty investments and the chance of his blowing all his money would be eliminated.

For claims that result from bodily injuries arising from automobile accidents, some form of no-fault insurance should be implemented. This method has advantages and disadvantages, which I will outline in a moment. The general public is ripe for such a proposal, provided it is run by a private insurer and not by the government. No-fault insurance offers reasonable costs to the consumer, as savings are achieved through the lack of litigation. Because there is no need to prove who is at fault, there are no lawyers or court fees. This type of insurance also offers adequate compensation to about 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the population, not to mention fast payment after proof of claim.

The mandatory no-fault compensation program referred to in the Slater task force on insurance would establish automatic coverage to such an extent that most people would not have to purchase additional insurance. As it is, more and more people are driving without adequate insurance, and some are driving without insurance at all.

One reason our tort system is so highly regarded, however, is that we have the freedom to sue and the right to have each claim individually appraised. With no-fault insurance, the right to sue is generally fortified. Additional coverage could be made available to allow victims to sue in the event of death, disfigurement or serious impairment of body functions. To most Ontarians, the right to sue and to receive more adequate compensation for those who are seriously injured remains vital. I am optimistic that this proposal will reduce the magnitude of awards presented in personal injury cases, while still allowing the plaintiff his right to compensation for losses and damage suffered.

While a schedule of payments would create the more stable market required for insurance companies, there is no guarantee at this time

Mr. Warner: On a point of order: Does the chair see a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker: No, a quorum is not present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

11:39

Mr. Sheppard: While a schedule of payments would create the more stable market required for insurance companies, there is no guarantee at this time that premiums would level off or be reduced. The key to stability in the insurance and reinsurance market, however, is predictability. In other words, if the insurance industry could accurately predict future claims at the time of pricing, we would not be faced with sudden increases of 600 per cent to 700 per cent per year.

As members of this House, we can assist the industry in creating a more stable market. As I mentioned earlier, there are no other means by which we can help alleviate the insurance crisis without taking over the industry as such. We could bring forth amendments to certain statutes to restrict and lower the size of awards currently being doled out.

The insurance industry is concerned with the recent legislation changes to the Family Law Act. This act could be amended to require that no eligible claimant shall be awarded damages for loss of guidance, care or companionship unless the loss of such amenities are shown to be serious or permanent. Let us know that to remove the right of family members to make a claim would be regressive, not to mention unacceptable. However, if these claims were limited to serious injury only, this would surely reduce amounts that insurance companies would have to pay.

Furthermore, amendments could be made to the Environmental Protection Act. The onus is on the little guy who cannot afford the insurance. The Pollution Liability Association insurance pool has thus far approved only limited coverage.

As I said earlier, the insurance industry has to be able to look into the future to price its product. This legislation only contributes to a climate of uncertainty and unpredictability.

There is no doubt the future holds its share of challenges and difficulties in the auto industry. More people are purchasing cars and travelling with them. As a result, bigger and better roads are being built. Car models themselves are changing and becoming more complex, yet not as heavy as they used to be. Repair costs are outrageous, and so are court awards.

The western provinces have government-run insurance. They operate a general insurance plan and an automobile insurance plan. Overall, they have been faced with continuing losses. I understand the British Columbia government is halting its involvement in public insurance and has transferred its general insurance plan back to the private sector.

We can help overcome these difficulties in the insurance sector, not by taking over with government-run insurance but by implementing legislative changes.

Mr. Reville: I am delighted to be speaking to this resolution, not just because it is an honour for me to be backing up the member for Welland-Thorold, who clearly knows more about this issue than either my friends on this side or those on the other side of the House. They should be listening to him. He does not rant and rave; he tells the truth with firmness.

Since I know members are listening carefully to the debate, they will understand the reason this resolution should pass. If the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) were to listen to his own remarks -- he will probably read them tomorrow in Hansard -- he would see why we should have the true facts concerning a major auto insurance alternative. If my colleague from the Progressive Conservative benches were to listen to his own remarks, which were riddled with inaccuracies, he too would want to support this resolution so he could learn the true story of a major auto insurance alternative.

It is not a problem of soaring repair costs or court awards, although some modest changes could be made on gross-ups. The New Democrats do not believe the tort system has caused this crisis in auto insurance. We believe the greed of the private insurance companies is causing this crisis.

Time and time again, we hear from the Minister of Financial Institutions that there is no crisis or that the crisis is in hand and one of his famous studies or commissions will solve the problem.

Every day, in many households across this province, somebody is suffering from the auto insurance crisis. At this moment, someone is driving very near the Legislature without insurance because he cannot afford the premium, and that is a very dangerous situation indeed. There are people whose insurance premiums have gone through the roof, through absolutely no fault of their own but because they happen to reside in the same dwelling with someone who has picked up a few points. They do not even drive the same car, but they are being penalized because of their association with someone who has his own car and has had an accident or has picked up some points. It is absurd that such a situation should occur. It is the responsibility of the government to intervene to make sure that intolerable situation ceases.

There are a number of truths the province should hear. Some of us have children who are approaching age 16. Some of us are lucky enough to have children who are past that age. Young drivers, particularly young male drivers, have been terribly penalized in this province. They get penalized before it is determined whether they are safe drivers. That is an absurd situation.

A study such as is proposed would determine that decreasing the rates for young drivers who are safe drivers would not increase the rates for older drivers; that is one thing a study such as this would show. It is exceptionally important that a study such as this would show how the systems compare in their ability to ensure that everyone has insurance. Do we consider it appropriate that there may be as many 200,000 drivers on our roads with no insurance of any kind? What is the public cost of that? What is the percentage of uninsured drivers in those provinces that have public auto insurance? Are we not interested in knowing the answer to that question?

We would be able to determine from the study whether it is necessary to penalize every driver in a household for one driver's record. The study would show that. Parenthetically, the study might be able to deal with the old bogy of tort as a deterrent. I do not think you will find one tort lawyer in this province who believes tort law is somehow a deterrent to sloppy driving. People are not thinking about the possibility of being sued when they make an illegal left-hand turn. What they are thinking about is the possibility that they will be stopped by the police. They do not think about lawsuits. The notion that tort is a deterrent is one of the goofier notions that is abroad, and I am sorry to hear my colleagues in this Legislature using it.

We would find out from this study how appeal boards could work in a public auto insurance system; how, if you decide the bureaucracy has not dealt with you fairly, you would appeal it and what kind of mechanism would be in place and what your chances of justice would be under a system of public auto insurance.

Another thing we would like to find out has to do with a serious problem that happens every day and perhaps every hour of the business day: insurance companies arbitrarily cancelling contracts. They call up and say: "Guess what? It is gone." They leave you with no insurance. They leave you at the mercy of the Yellow Pages, trying to find an auto insurance company that will help manage the risk you are exposed to and ensure that people are not left uncompensated for any damage they might suffer.

It would satisfy once and for all the conflict about what the rates really would be. I believe the member for Welland-Thorold. If the government, in its championship of the private auto insurance industry, is so sure that its rates can stand up to the member for Welland-Thorold's rates, then why does it not vote for this resolution? There it will be, and they can say: "See? We have proved our point." They will find that the public auto insurance plan proposed by the member for Welland-Thorold will lick the pants off any private auto insurance plan in the world.

11:50

I want the members to know that when an insured calls up about the public auto insurance plan and speaks to the member for Welland-Thorold, he will be well dealt with, if somewhat loudly. Those of us who have an office within a mile or two of the member for Welland-Thorold know he does not need modern technology to get his point across. Sometimes he is heard in Algoma. Sometimes he is heard in Rainy River. Wherever he is heard, they know that he means what he says and that what he says is right.

This Legislature should support this resolution proudly, strongly and firmly, so we can all know the truth about a very appropriate auto insurance alternative that works exceptionally well in parts of this country. We should not be nervous; neither should we be ashamed of importing from the west something that works well there.

I say "Shame on the member for Mississauga North" for suggesting we cannot learn from our brothers and sisters in the west. Of course we can. There is a kind of smugness in Ontario that has gone on far too long. It makes the rest of the country sometimes wonder whether we are not too smart for our own good here in Ontario. We have a lot to learn from the western provinces that have public auto insurance.

When this Legislature supports the resolution of the member for Welland-Thorold today, we will discover how much we have to learn.

Mr. Knight: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) has commented on the other speakers. I hope he will stay in his place and listen to some further and more accurate comments on the resolution.

When I first read the resolution moved by the member for Welland-Thorold, I found it a little rambling and long-winded. I am not speaking about the member's speaking style; I am sure they are not connected in any way, shape or form. More specifically, the resolution is simplistic, shallow and misdirected and has error in fact. As was indicated by the member for Mississauga North, Mr. Justice Coulter Osborne has been asked to consider in his study private versus public delivery of the no-fault insurance system.

Also, Dr. Slater did make recommendations, contrary to what the member for Welland-Thorold indicated. I know the honourable member has the two-volume report by Dr. Slater. This is simply a condensation of the 15 pages of recommendations that were made on many of the items the member has indicated in his preamble. Perhaps the member does not agree with those recommendations, but they were certainly made. I hope that in his closing remarks, the member will refer to those.

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am being misquoted. I was not talking about recommendations; I was talking about an in-depth study with a detailed report.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member may correct his own comments. He may disagree with the others.

Mr. Knight: The resolution says the Slater commission "has failed to propose recommendations to resolve these problems...."

The resolution deals with the symptoms of accessibility and affordability problems in the auto insurance industry, but it does not try to seek out the true causes of those problems. Instead, it suggests a solution that I suggest does not and would not stand the test of fact. It is a fact that underwriting costs, which are the basis for auto insurance premiums, are the same in whichever province one is in and would be the same whether or not insurance were delivered by private industry or by public industry.

The rating system is a factor of our compensation system and, perhaps more so, of the frequency and severity of the accidents that are the basis for the rates. It is different in Ontario from that in the western provinces. The frequency of accidents is a lot greater, as is the severity. This province has more truck traffic than any of the western provinces, which increases the insurance premiums, inasmuch as truck traffic and private passenger autos are carried by the same insurance companies.

The member for Welland-Thorold should get off his socialist hobby-horse. Instead of making a simplistic suggestion, he should make more responsible, proactive suggestions. In fact, he has been misreading the public. He is hearing what people are saying, but he is not understanding. He is hearing people talk about costs and about affordability. In answer to that, he offers a very simplistic solution. He simply says, "Public insurance is the answer." The public is saying yes, indeed, it is concerned about costs, but what it is talking about is also indicative of an underlying cause of our affordability and accessibility problems: social inflation, which is a societal problem and not an insurance problem.

The public is demanding a better compensation system arising out of our tort situations. We need stability. We need to even out the costs of our compensation system, and we need to put a lid on the costs. This can be accomplished but not by the means of a public delivery system.

This government has been proactive in trying to make sure costs are being reduced. It has been a facilitator of industry-based insurance pools, such as the liability pools at the time the crisis was brought to our attention, and of reciprocal insurance exchanges, most recently the United States product liability insurance pool. We have brought in legislation to establish the Canadian Insurance Exchange, to expand the capacity of farm mutuals to write insurance and to provide a framework for Ontario's participation in a national compensation plan.

This government has instigated discussions with the federal government on the matter of gross-ups. It has called on the Ontario Law Reform Commission to expedite its examination of double recovery, prejudgement interest, gross-ups and the Family Law Act. We have been active in in-house consideration of Good Samaritan legislation and the limitation of actions on policies. We have asked the insurance industry to come up with a new rating classification study. We commissioned the Slater report, and we all know its recommendations. We have recognized the call for an investigation of whether no-fault insurance should be brought into play in Ontario and have asked Mr. Justice Osborne to report on that within a one-year period.

The answer to the accessibility and affordability problems of insurance in Ontario is not public insurance; it is in finding specific ways to bring stability and predictability to insurance and the reinsurance markets. This government is proceeding to do that.

12:00

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Ms. Fish has moved second reading of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.

Motion agreed to.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Speaker: On the next item, I must say a word or two to the members to clarify the resolution before the House. When the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) placed the resolution, I noted he added the word "insurance" on the third last line after "public." He also added the words "and report within four months."

I placed the motion stating that it was the member for Welland-Thorold's notice of motion 68, which he placed before the House and gave the proper two weeks' notice, according to the standing orders. I point out to all members that according to standing order 71(k), "No amendment may be made to a motion under this standing order."

Therefore, I am accepting the motion as printed in Votes and Proceedings, because that is the way it will be recorded in Votes and Proceedings. We will deal with notice of motion 68 as printed.

The House divided on Mr. Swart's resolution, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bernier, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Consens, Dean, Fish, Gigantes, Gillies, Grande, Grier, Hayes, Henderson, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Lane, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McFadden, McLean, Mitchell, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pierce, Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reville, Rowe, Runciman, Sargent, Sterling, Swart, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Brandt, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Fulton, Harris, Hart, Knight, Miller, G. L, Offer, Newman, Reycraft, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Wrye.

Ayes 39; nays 18.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his chambers.

Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 51, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes.

The House recessed at 12:11 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the assembly to join with me in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from Shanghai in the People's Republic of China: the secretary-general of the Science and Technology Commission of the municipality of Shanghai, Shui Hailong; the director of the Science and Technology Centre of Exchange with Foreign Countries, Quian Yongming; the director of the Shanghai Light Industry Bureau, Shen Lianda; the interpretation staff member of the Shanghai Science and Technology Commission, He Yingwen; and the People's Republic of China consul general, Gu Mingda.

Please join me in welcoming our guests.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Mr. Dean: Yesterday the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the Ontario Coalition for Nursing Home Reform cosponsored an excellent public forum on the government's white paper on services for seniors, A New Agenda. Since neither the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) nor his special adviser were able to join me in attending this event and did not see fit to send any other representative of the government, I want to take this opportunity to share with them some of the comments made.

The forum was held specifically to provide an opportunity for public response to A New Agenda. It is too bad the minister for seniors' affairs is not here, so I could tell him on behalf of the people who took the time to organize and attend this forum that the failure of his government to send a representative to listen to the discussion was a major disappointment. It forced the panellists to try to explain and defend this government's policies.

Those who attended had a lot they wanted to say to the minister about his white paper. They wanted to tell him they did not find it to be a new agenda at all, containing nothing that was innovative. They wanted to tell him that while the paper talks about co-ordinated services, they feel that services are still fragmented and issues are dealt with in isolation. They wanted to discuss with him the flaws they are finding in the implementation of the integrated homemaker program. They had expected to be able to tell the minister that they feel there needs to be a minister for seniors' affairs with real clout and with control over spending, something he does not have now.

TRANSMISSION LINE

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to express deep concern about Ontario Hydro's plans to route a 500,000-volt transmission line right through the middle of the community of Bridlewood in the city of Kanata. Three thousand people have written to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) objecting to this misguided route.

The route is totally inappropriate. Hydro plans to locate the line in the existing corridor, which is only 275 feet wide and far too narrow, even by Hydro's reckoning. The proposed 16-storey transmission towers would be in the centre of the community adjacent to homes, two large parks and a future school site, in violation of Hydro's own list of constraints. Hydro admits these massive, unsightly towers are "out of character with the community," and there is more and more medical evidence showing health effects on people living near a high-voltage line.

The proposed route of this line through Kanata was an arbitrary joint board decision of November 1985. The joint board rejected all the suggested routes. The route right through Bridlewood was not even discussed at the joint board hearings. The city and a local citizens' group appealed the joint board's decision, but cabinet upheld that decision in May.

A new and preferable alternative route to the proposed route now exists. In September, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton approved an extension of Terry Fox Drive, which would be a much better route for the line.

Cabinet must reverse its decision to approve the joint board route, because it is a route that does not serve the best interests of the public. It is not too late for cabinet to go back on its ill-considered decision. Construction on the line has not begun and the survival of a thriving and rapidly growing residential community is at stake.

NEWSPAPER'S ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Epp: I want to read a statement on behalf of the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) who, unfortunately, cannot be here at this time.

On Monday of this week we learned that the Globe and Mail was celebrating 50 years in publication. The Honourable Mitch Hepburn, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, dominated the front page of the first issue. Last Monday the Thamesville Herald held an open house celebrating its 100th anniversary. Orval Schilbe, editor and publisher, and Mrs. May Schilbe, executive editor, have reported they do not know what was on the first page of the original edition 100 years ago, November 4, 1886. The earliest edition they have been able to acquire is dated November 7, 1886.

In any event, unlike the Globe and Mail, which claimed to be politically independent 50 years ago, the Thamesville Herald still remains politically independent today. In the anniversary issue of November 19, contributing columnist Rev. Burr writes, "For 100 years the paper has supplied all the news fit to print and likely some that unfortunate souls wish they had not printed." Today the Herald feeds the local citizens with news and views for only 30 cents per copy. One can only wonder what the cost was 100 years ago.

I invite the members of this Legislature to join me in recognizing the efforts of the Schilbes and wishing them continued success in the future. May the Thamesville Herald hold its masthead high some 100 years hence.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Sheppard: A young lady in my riding was recently informed by a large department store chain that if she could not work on Sundays, she would be fired. The reason she is unable to work on that particular day, not that she needs an excuse, is that she teaches Sunday school to a group of 140 youngsters at St. Peter's Anglican Church in Cobourg.

Yesterday the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made a promise that no one could be fired and if such a threat occurred, the individual would call his office. He said: "I want to hear about it. Give me a call at 965-1664." As it stands, a call was placed to the minister's office this morning at 9:05 a.m., only for the caller to be told the Attorney General is in Ottawa today, that no one was available to assist and perhaps the caller could call back after 10 a.m. as someone might be there then.

At 10:14 a.m. another call was placed to the Attorney General's office, only for the caller to be told once again that there was still no one there who could assist. The caller's name and number were recorded, however, and the caller was assured that someone would get back when the person arrived.

The large department store has since retracted its statement that it will fire anyone, but what concerns me is the fact that people are encouraged to call the Attorney General's office with their concerns over this matter, only to be told no one is available to help them. As of now, at 1:20 p.m., no one from the Attorney General's office has bothered to return not only this person's call but perhaps countless others as well.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) has seen fit to close the loophole we have been raising in this House for some time in terms of the ability to take private bridging or early retirement pension and collect that as well as the Canada pension, if they choose to take advantage of the new change in Canada pension regulations. It is a positive move.

I would like to give credit not only to the large number of workers and trade unionists across this province who I know have inundated the Premier's office with letters -- and I presume some of them have arrived on the desk of the minister -- but also to this party for the questions we have constantly raised on it. While I do appreciate this, and am letting the minister know it, it would have been nice if he had made the announcement in the House, where perhaps some of the credit could have been attributed, rather than by a four o'clock news release in the galleries.

BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr. Offer: I am proud to rise and inform the House of the recipients of the Region of Peel Police Citizen's Citation for Bravery and Citizenship. They are Stacey Boyd and Donald Gilbert, who together contributed to removing an intoxicated driver from the road, thereby saving the driver and possibly others from injury or death; Susan McDonald, who rescued a woman from an attacker and has been credited by Peel police as saving that young woman's life; Michael Burke and Ronald Cormack, who saved a woman from a life-threatening circumstance; Brian Dennison, who rescued an elderly, physically disabled gentleman from a house fire; Anthony Magro, whose description and vigilant observation aided police in an assault case; David McIsaac, who saved a woman's life in a threatening situation; and Kathy Ward, who was instrumental in aiding police in the arrest of six people on break, enter and theft charges.

13:40

These nine award recipients are indeed the finest examples of citizenship in this province. As Peel Regional Police Chief Doug Burrows indicated, they are to be congratulated for their spirit of co-operation in helping to fight violent crime.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mr. Andrewes: Once again, I want to appeal to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to bring forward legislation to address the matter of intervener funding. In its annual report, the Environmental Assessment Board expressed the frustration it has experienced in dealing with this issue. The courts have suggested that the government give intervener funding early legislative consideration.

The minister knows that the credibility of the environmental assessment process is at stake. In his own riding, the fairness of the environmental assessment hearing on the industrial toxic waste treatment facility proposed for west Lincoln is being seriously questioned. The perceived imbalance in the process caused 1,500 people at a rally in St. Catharines last weekend to ask the minister to reconsider the whole site selection process and the proposal itself.

Can we expect an early Christmas announcement?

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to join me at this time in recognizing and welcoming the Speaker of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, the Honourable David Carter.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On June 11, I announced that the government had decided to adopt in principle the main recommendations of the report of the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to entry into and the ownership of the securities industry.

My recommendations were designed to allow increased participation by domestic financial institutions and nonfinancial investors and by foreign security firms in the securities industry in Ontario. Our intention was to secure the growth of Toronto as a major centre of international finance and as a centre of Canada's capital markets.

When I made my announcement, I indicated I had directed the OSC to work closely with securities market representatives in order to develop the best structure for the industry. I also stated that in the light of the rapidly changing nature of the capital markets in Canada and around the world, we would be prepared to consider allowing Canadian financial institutions and others a higher ownership level than announced and would await the results of the OSC's consultation with the industry.

I am pleased to report that the consultative process between the Ontario Securities Commission and the securities industry committee has worked extremely well. It was the consensus of all the groups consulted that a substantial liberalization of the ownership rules, beyond the levels indicated in my June announcement, was required. Other events in the fast-changing capital markets have also led us to a broader opening of the industry.

It has recently become clear that the role of Canadian banks and other federal financial institutions in the securities market is in the process of being greatly expanded. The most obvious example of this expansion is the formation by the Bank of Nova Scotia of a subsidiary that is a full-service securities dealer. Scotia Securities has been registered in Quebec and is beginning to carry on business there.

Banking is a matter that under the Constitution falls to the federal government. Securities regulation is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Accordingly, each level of government has a role to play in structuring our financial markets.

Ontario and the federal government have discussed the issues and our respective spheres of responsibility. I am pleased to report that fact, as co-operation between us is essential to the efficient working of our markets. While my understanding is that the federal position is not yet settled, I am hopeful that banks and other federally incorporated financial institutions will be allowed a major participation in the securities industries through subsidiaries.

We are prepared to accommodate the expanding role of banks in the financial markets and to recognize the merging of the four pillars that has occurred in the global markets. Indeed, the changing nature of the four pillars has been a matter of discussion at federal-provincial meetings for the past two years.

As a result, I am announcing today a much broader opening of the securities industry than was contained in my June announcement. The new rules will come into effect on June 30, 1987. On that date, Canadian financial institutions -- banks, insurance companies and trust companies --will be allowed to own up to 100 per cent of a securities dealer. In addition, other Canadian investors will also be allowed to own up to 100 per cent of a securities dealer.

Nonresidents will be limited, however, to a 50 per cent interest in a Canadian securities dealer in order that Canadian investors may have some lead time to invest in and secure the growth of the Canadian industry. In one year's time, on June 30, 1988, nonresident investors will be allowed to own up to 100 per cent of a Canadian securities firm.

Foreign dealers who wish to enter the Ontario market directly will be allowed to register on June 30, 1987. There will be no capital limits on foreign dealer registrants from that date onward. However, the activities of these foreign dealers will be limited to exempt market activities under the Securities Act for one year. This provision is designed to allow a period of adjustment for the domestic industry and new Canadian investors. From June 30, 1988, foreign dealer registrants will be able to engage in the full range of activities in our securities market.

The opening of the securities industry I am announcing today will see major changes in the structure of our capital markets. It will allow free play to Canadian financial and nonfinancial investors, as well as welcoming both direct and indirect investment by nonresidents. The adoption of the principles I am announcing is designed to ensure that our financial markets are so structured that Toronto will be able to maintain its rightful place, not only as the centre of Canada's capital markets but also as a major international financial centre.

While we are permitting federal financial institutions to enter the securities industry, I wish to make it clear that securities regulation remains a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Accordingly, federal financial institutions will only be allowed to enter the securities business in Ontario if the core functions of such business are carried on through a subsidiary registered with the Ontario Securities Commission and subject to its rules and regulations. The carrying on of core securities through a subsidiary is essential for effective regulation and for the implementation of conflict-of-interest rules.

At the same time, I want to assure the House that, along with these changes, we will maintain strict regulations to protect users and other persons who engage in activities in the securities market.

Mr. McFadden: We received with interest the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning entry into and the ownership of the securities industry. There is very clearly a need for Ontario to change its regulations and its approach in securities legislation, as well as in financial institutions legislation in general, to reflect the changing world financial marketplace.

The thing that seems a bit strange about the announcement today is the fact that in the budget last spring, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) stated that he had some real concerns about the concentration of corporate ownership in Ontario. This subject was referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for that committee's study. The standing committee is currently in the middle of a study mandated by the Treasurer and this House to look at the concentration of corporate ownership in financial institutions.

Now we have a statement setting out the government's policy that very clearly suggests and will lead to a concentration of corporate ownership in the financial institutions sector. That is very strange. Why, then, did the Treasurer talk in his budget about the concentration of corporate ownership, refer it to a committee of this Legislature, which committee is in the middle of it, and then this minister brings out this statement, which seems to run totally in the face of the concerns raised by the Treasurer prior to any recommendation of the standing committee?

That has to be the question. I do not know what the minister is proposing to do, but it hardly seems worth while for committees of this Legislature to carry on with mandated studies if the government, months before the recommendations of the committee come out, suddenly makes a decision that effectively could render a decision of the committee redundant or, if the committee report is adopted and runs contrary to this position, could force the government to change a recently announced policy.

I suggest that this is an example of where the left hand really did not know what the right hand was doing. Very clearly, the Minister of Financial Institutions is heading one way and the Treasurer's direction to a standing committee of the Legislature is going in an entirely different direction.

Mr. Ashe: I would like to comment on the statement read today by the Minister of Financial Institutions on the expansion of the securities industry and the ownership of same.

We have not had an opportunity to have any feedback from the industry or from federal authorities, but if what the minister says in the statement is true, it appears that on this occasion he has been able to carry on some dialogue with the industry and the federal authorities. I hope he has done a better job than he did when he was talking about Bill 116, relating to another aspect of his ministry which is before committee. His dialogue at that time was deficient.

Off the top of our heads, as has been indicated already by my colleague the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), it appears that what the minister is doing is in the right direction in the context of reaffirming that Toronto has been, should be and will continue to be the financial capital of Canada. At the same time, I suggest there is a bit of conflict between the Ministry of Financial Institutions and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. I hope that somewhere along the line in this process they will be able to resolve their differences.

Mr. Rae: Let me deal with the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions. It is takeover time on Bay Street just as it has been takeover time on Wall Street and in all the western economic world. This government is doing absolutely nothing about this. On the contrary, the statement the minister made today indicates that for the space of about the first five minutes it will be a wide-open game. As soon as those five minutes are over, as the minister well knows, it will be either eat or be eaten and we will have no more competition downtown than we have had in the past.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the government to express concern in the Treasurer's speech, through the words of the descendant of the United Farmers of Ontario, about corporate concentration and what is going on. When it comes to dealing with Goodyear and the corporate cannibalism that now is the hallmark of our economic system -- not corporate responsibility and not job creation, but the shuffling of paper, the merging of firms and the firing of workers -- this government not only is sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing about it but also is indicating in the statement by the minister today that all this has carte blanche and is okay.

With respect to the final paragraph, where the minister talks about regulation, we are already beginning to appreciate from events in the United States the incredible abuse of insider trading, the incredible use of information with respect to mergers and the sudden enrichment of individuals in the space of five minutes as well as the collapse of the morality and the legality of much of what is going on in the securities business.

To enter into this type of a free-for-all without a systematic study of the changes that are needed in our securities law is irresponsibility of the highest degree. The whole basis of the system has been the four pillars. If the government eliminates the four pillars, which it is now doing, any rules with respect to cross-ownership, which it is now doing, and any rules with respect to preventing people who are in the business of making money from taking other people's money and turning other people's money into their money, and if it fails to deal with that with new regulations, a new law and a new set of public responsibilities, it is simply asking for it. The Ivan Boesky phenomenon in New York is going to be repeated, if it is not being repeated today right here in Toronto.

It is something this Liberal government ought to be doing something about. Instead, it is encouraging a free-for-all, corporate irresponsibility and a casino economy that knows no morality other than greed and no limitations other than self-serving pursuit of individual interest and profit.

Workers and people are suffering. The government simply stands by, watches it all happen and says, "It is eat or be eaten," to use the words the Premier (Mr. Peterson) used today in the House. If it is eat or be eaten, let that be the epitaph of the Liberal Party of Ontario when it comes to dealing with corporate irresponsibility right here in our province.

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL

Hon. Ms. Munro: I would like to inform my colleagues in the House that this morning the Ontario Arts Council announced that Christopher Wootten has been appointed to succeed Walter Pitman as executive director of the council.

Mr. Wootten comes to us from Vancouver. He brings with him extensive and broad experience in arts management. He was director of programming for the cultural and entertainment program of Expo 86. He founded the Vancouver East Cultural Centre, produced numerous Canadian theatrical productions and was artistic director for the Vancouver International Children's Festival.

I know members all join me in welcoming Mr. Wootten as the new executive director of the Ontario Arts Council, an agency of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

However, along with the pleasure I have in welcoming Christopher Wootten comes a sadness at saying goodbye to Walter Pitman. In his six years with the council, Walter has done a great deal for culture in Ontario. He has appeared in every part of the province inspiring and encouraging the arts community and the general public. To a large degree, we can thank Walter Pitman for the flourishing cultural life we enjoy in Ontario today.

During my time as Minister of Citizenship and Culture, Walter Pitman's incredibly detailed knowledge of arts in this province and, I might add, his wonderful sense of humour have been invaluable.

Many members in this assembly will remember Walter as the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party. Some of the members on the opposition benches will remember him well as a scrappy young NDP Education critic back in 1968-69. It is to education that Walter returns. He has been appointed director designate of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

His background in education is impressive. As well as having been a teacher, a professor and a dean, he has been, among other things, president of the Ontario Educational Association, president of the Canadian Association for Adult Education and president of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. As a fellow educator, I can only say that if the arts must lose Walter, then I can think of nowhere I would rather he use his talents than in education.

As members have noticed, Walter is with us today in the members' gallery, along with Sonja Koerner, the very able chairperson of the Ontario Arts Council. Please join me in wishing one of the finest and most dedicated persons of any political stripe ever to sit in this House all the very best in his future appointment.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to offer our congratulations to Christopher Wootten, who obviously comes eminently qualified to this post with the Ontario Arts Council. He will inject enthusiasm and creativity into the activities of the council based on his very strong background and experience.

In doing so, I want to express our party's appreciation to Walter Pitman for his years of service and devotion to the arts council. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) quietly said that our loss would be OISE's gain. We are fortunate the government in its wisdom saw fit to leave that institution intact so that Mr. Pitman's skills can continue to be applied in the province.

Mr. Rae: We join with the Minister of Citizenship and Culture in wishing Mr. Wootten well in his new responsibilities at the arts council.

I hope Walter does not make the mistake of inhaling all the comments that have been made today; it will have a very serious effect on his health. However, we all want to celebrate the career of Walter Pitman. I say to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that we look forward to a productive career for Walter Pitman at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, so he will continue to lead an institution that deserves the full support of all members of the Legislature. I know the kind of scrapping Walter Pitman --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Scrapping is good for you. It made you what you are.

Mr. Rae: Scrapping is good for one's health. It has certainly been good for mine over the years.

I know the kind of scrapping Walter Pitman had to do as Education critic will not have to be repeated in fighting for the survival of OISE but rather in fighting for the expansion and thriving of OISE.

14:01

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Pope: First, it is totally unacceptable that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) are not present today. We have absolute chaos with respect to Sunday openings in this province, for which they are responsible. They do not even want to show up. The Attorney General put himself in the middle of this conflict with the former Solicitor General, and he does not even have the guts to show up here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question was to whom?

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier. With respect, the Premier was wrong in the way he has handled the matter of the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes). It should have been immediate and total.

Can the Premier explain to this House and the people of this province why he has asked the member for Kingston and the Islands to resign only as the Solicitor General and has allowed him to remain in the cabinet as Minister of Correctional Services, as part of the justice field, when he has a charge outstanding or about to be laid under the Liquor Licence Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) could not be here today, but I am glad the honourable member is here to ask this question.

I reflected on this matter, and the conclusions I came to are the conclusions the member is aware of. As he knows, this matter became public a couple of weeks ago or so. At that point, the then Solicitor General stood up and admitted the facts in question and admitted to making a mistake in the circumstances. We immediately ordered a police report, and that came back.

I am sure the member has had time to read that police report and reflect on it. The Attorney General decided to make that police report public, even though that is not the custom, because of the particularly sensitive nature of this matter and given the fact that it was the Solicitor General who was involved.

The police report said that in ordinary circumstances, had it been an ordinary citizen, a charge would not be laid. That is what it said, and I recommend that the member read it. It said a warning would have been forthcoming. Given the fact that he is Solicitor General, I asked him to step aside pending a resolution of this matter. That is why I came to the conclusions I did.

Mr. Pope: That is totally unacceptable. The Premier did not ask him to resign from cabinet. He asked him to step aside as Solicitor General. We are talking about someone who is or is about to be charged with a provincial offence. We are talking about someone who has to show a standard of conduct because he is part of the justice field.

In all fairness, the Premier should look at the standard of conduct in this Legislature and in Legislatures across this country. When someone is alleged to have committed a provincial offence, he immediately resigns, not from one of his posts but from all his cabinet posts.

I want to know why the Premier trivializes all these matters. Why did he trivialize the resignations of the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine)? Why does he not set a standard of conduct in the government of Ontario of which we can all be proud by asking for immediate resignation when these allegations are made public and by sending those involved totally out of cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not trivialize the matter; I think the member does. That is the difference.

When judgements are required to be made -- I made the judgement, and I accept responsibility for it -- one has to use common sense, reason and judgement in the circumstances.

I expect the member to stand up and hoot and holler, as he generally does on almost every issue. However, I happen to disagree with the member's analysis of the situation. I have told the member that all the facts are there for him to see. In spite of his legal training, he would rather judge someone guilty before there has been a fair hearing of the matter. It is the member's right to come to those conclusions, but I have to disagree with him.

Mr. Pope: The Premier knows full well that we are not talking about judging someone guilty. We are talking about someone who has been or is about to be charged with a provincial offence. We are talking about a standard of conduct we have a right to expect from the Premier and his ministers in the government of Ontario, one the Premier still does not appear to understand.

The Premier has mismanaged this issue for the past six months. He has had three ministers resign from their positions. He admitted to the standing committee on public accounts that he did not want to get involved in it, but he neglected to administer or enforce any guidelines respecting conduct of his cabinet ministers.

When is the Premier going to fess up, get this issue under control and have some standards of conduct for his ministers of which we can all be proud?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member is going to quote me, in the circumstances he would want to quote me accurately, which he has not done.

I think the matter is under control. Mistakes were made, admitted to and action has been taken. The member is entitled to argue that the action taken was inappropriate. If the member wants to call for blood, he has every right to do so. That offends my sense of fair play and, in the circumstances, common sense. The member is entitled to scream all he wants about it; perhaps that is the role of the opposition in the circumstances. However, I think the matter has been fairly dealt with. I also think it will be judged to have been fairly dealt with by people across this province.

I look back to other circumstances; one would have to ask whether decisions would be handled the same way in the same circumstances. The member should ask himself whether his conduct has always been above reproach. Perhaps the member is a little holier than I am, but my conduct has not always been perfect, and I suspect the conduct of most of the members of this House has not been perfect.

It is not a Criminal Code offence. It is a provincial statute, as the member says. It is going before the courts shortly; I do not know when. It will be dealt with in the appropriate way.

I repeat to my honourable friend that the police report said that had the minister been an ordinary citizen he would not have been charged. Because he is the Solicitor General, he is being charged to make sure -- that is what it says. The member will want to read that and make sure he is very familiar with all the facts in the circumstances before he, as a trained lawyer, comes to a premature judgement on this matter.

Mr. Grossman: I want to ask the Premier a question on the same topic. I remind the Premier that my colleague was not judging the minister guilty, any more than the Premier was when he decided the minister should no longer serve as Solicitor General. No one on this side of the House has accused the Premier of finding his colleague guilty of an offence for which he is about to be charged. Still, the Premier decided he should not serve as Solicitor General.

When Marcel Masse, a very good federal minister, was under investigation -- not charged -- for perhaps having violated the Canada Elections Act, he was relieved of his cabinet responsibilities, not shifted to another post. When a former Ontario Solicitor General did something the Premier of the day thought was unacceptable for a Solicitor General to do, but was not charged, the Premier did not make him Minister of Correctional Services. He put him out of the cabinet under the urging and with the total approval of the Premier's predecessor as leader of the party.

In the shadow of the problems of the member for Cochrane North and the member for Oriole, why would not the Premier finally decide today to set a high standard for his government by doing what the Prime Minister of Canada and the former Premier did; that is, ask the minister to leave the cabinet entirely?

14:10

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend invites me to follow the standards of his close friend the Prime Minister, I will probably decline the invitation.

In the situation we have had to deal with, I have made judgements for the reasons I have explained to the member and his colleague. I think this is the appropriate way to deal with the matter in the circumstances. The former Solicitor General is paying a price because of his profile and because he is a law officer of the crown. The member should want to check the police report to verify that. Fair-minded people looking at this situation will probably agree with the way we have handled it.

Mr. Grossman: When one of his ministers was under investigation the Prime Minister of this country made his minister leave the cabinet. When another of them was under severe questioning regarding the propriety of his behaviour he quickly called a judicial inquiry, which is still going on. The Premier, on the other hand, did not ask the member for Oriole to leave the cabinet; she left of her own volition. The Premier did not ask the member for Cochrane North to leave the cabinet; he paraded out of here of his own volition, we are told. Yesterday the Premier did not ask his former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands to leave cabinet; he asked him only to take one of two responsibilities.

Today the Premier has alleged that the former Solicitor General got the same warning, according to the police report, other average citizens get. We did a random survey of Ontario Provincial Police detachments in the same area and in cottage country generally. Our survey shows that OPP marine officers normally charge persons without first giving them a warning, as suggested yesterday by the Premier's Attorney General, who is not here today.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: What would the Premier say to Brian Wicks of Midland, who had three beers and a bottle of spritzer on his boat? However, he had only his girlfriend with him, who did not qualify under the Premier's definition as a dignitary. He was charged, not warned.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: He faced a $53 fine and did not have the Attorney General to get in the way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I note the sterling and heartfelt defence of the Prime Minister on these matters. I am sure he very much appreciates the member's support.

I do not know what to tell the member's friend in the circumstances. I am just quoting from the police report. It lays it out very clearly. It talks about the policy of issuing warnings unless there is a situation, I gather, where someone is being obstreperous or problems could be caused. I do not know the circumstances of his friend and whether or not he was in control of the boat.

We are saying here that the former Solicitor General has been charged. He is a cabinet minister and he has been charged.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait.

Mr. Grossman: We may hear from the third party on this later today in question period. Having read the newspapers this morning, it seems the leader of the third party also believes the former Solicitor General should not serve in the cabinet. That is certainly the position of this party.

May I remind the Premier that when the member for Oriole left cabinet, she gave us her reasons. She did not have the confidence of the House, given the views of the two opposition parties, and she was leaving. Is the Premier comfortable with the different standards of behaviour shown by the member for Oriole? When she felt she did not have the confidence of this House, she left her cabinet positions, but for some reason, when the former Solicitor General equally has lost the confidence of this House, the Premier is prepared to leave him in cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the point my honourable friend makes. The circumstances are completely different. One could say that when people lose the confidence of this House, have lost the confidence of the House, there are -- the member opposite has lost the confidence of his own party, but he is still holding on.

Mr. Grossman: When we lost the confidence of the House we moved across the floor.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my friend has another question, I will be happy to answer it.

I agree with the member. These situations happen to come along and I regret them very much. They have to be dealt with in a fair-minded way and one has to use judgement in the circumstances.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, can we have some order?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What did my honourable friend do to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) when he laughed at a Progressive Conservative meeting that he had not been charged for a speeding ticket because the policeman was on the executive of a PC association? What did the member do, when that became public, to reprimand his friend from Sarnia, a former minister of the crown, about the standards we all have an obligation to set?

We all have a responsibility in this regard. I think we have dealt with this in a fair-minded way that gets the message out to the people of this province that everyone should be treated equally before the law.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier as well. If it is his view that this is a relatively minor offence, that the mistake has already been admitted; and if it is his view that nobody has been found guilty of anything yet and that, in effect, from what I heard him say in his six previous answers, there was no problem, why has the Premier accepted the resignation of the Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Because I knew this was a very important issue in terms of its symbolism. He was the Solicitor General. People will be looking at the situation. I could easily anticipate the reaction from the Conservative Party in this particular matter, and I believed it was the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.

The honourable member is asking me whether it warranted his dismissal from the cabinet for this laying of a charge. The answer is no, and he is carrying on his responsibilities as the Minister of Correctional Services.

Mr. Rae: Are we to assume then that being Minister of Correctional Services is a form of community service on the part of the minister? How are we to interpret this?

By way of supplementary, would the Premier not agree that we are dealing with one individual, one person who, on his own admission, made an unfortunate mistake? We now have a rather lengthy police report, seven pages, that has been given to us, in which it is stated that the offence is a high-profile one which has affected the credibility of the marine awareness program and the holiday weekend blitz program for highway enforcement.

Does the Premier honestly believe, is he seriously submitting to the House today, that the continuation of the member for Kingston and the Islands in cabinet somehow reinforces the credibility of the marine awareness program or of the holiday weekend blitz program for highway enforcement, because the public out there is somehow able to distinguish the various hats the member wears by virtue of the fact that the Premier has appointed him to two portfolios?

Does the Premier not understand the problems he has created by not stating quite simply that it would be better in everybody's interests if the member were to step aside from the cabinet until such time as this matter is resolved, and then he could make his decision about how he wants to rearrange all the various players in his cabinet who are not able to sit, for a whole variety of reasons, and others who may want to take their place?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with the honourable member with respect to the fair-minded disposition of this matter. My sense is, and he will disagree with me, that people looking at this situation who do not have a vested political interest in trying to embarrass someone one way or the other would say, "Look, he made a human mistake, and others have made human mistakes." Probably they have done so or the member opposite has done so as well in his life, although he may not want to admit it.

He is a high-profile person because he was Solicitor General. He is being asked to get rid of that portfolio. Obviously, the example has been set in that regard and it is being dealt with in the normal course of justice, as all things should be in an even-handed, fair-minded way.

My sense is that people who are fair-minded, of common sense and reasonable judgement would not have that member's particular view and would see that we are all human and we all make mistakes; but when we do make mistakes we admit them and we deal with them in a forthright way. I think this is what happened in the circumstances.

14:20

Mr. Rae: I am not going to comment on the imputation of motive which the Premier has made to me with respect to our motivation. If the Premier looks at our conduct over the last number of weeks with respect to this issue, he will know full well that I have not said anything on this issue with respect to the member for Kingston and the Islands, nor have members of my party, until such time as a police investigation was completed and made public. That is precisely what I have done.

Does the Premier not understand the implication of what he is saying? Somebody has been charged with an offence which, in his own view, which he has expressed today, is a symbolic issue of some importance with respect to the fairness of the application of the law and the nature of the offence as to what the government is trying to do with respect to the combination of alcohol and driving.

Does he not appreciate that this affects the confidence this House has, and indeed the public has, in a member of his cabinet and that it would be in everybody's interest, in the same spirit of fair-mindedness, that the government, the minister and, if I may say so, the Premier accept something which he does not appear willing to accept, that is, the consequences of a mistake? We, alas, live in a world --

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

Mr. Rae: -- where mistakes have consequences. Does the Premier not understand that he has to live with those consequences and, accordingly, deal with them firmly?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very much so. I understand I have to make decisions and deal with the consequences of those decisions. I have made a decision and I am prepared to live with the consequences of that decision.

The member may have a different view of the symbolism attendant thereto. He is entitled to have that. He is entitled to have his point of view and make his own speeches and disagree with my judgement. What I am saying is that I think if this thing is put to the test, the average person in Ontario is fair-minded and recognizes, as the Solicitor General has admitted, that he made a mistake. He stood up and confessed to that quickly. We all recognize that. We dealt with it in a normal course of justice. When mistakes are made they have to be admitted and the highest price paid.

I believe that is being done in the circumstances. I think most fair-minded people would agree that is the appropriate way to handle it.

Mr. Rae: For the record, the Premier might have the decency or the grace to indicate today that fair-minded people can disagree and that there are a lot of fair-minded people who also think it is important that cabinet ministers set standards as members of cabinet and not according to whichever title happens to be given to them by the Premier of the day at the time.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: That is the issue in this regard and that is the issue the Premier is ignoring.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Rae: We are not blessed with the presence today of the acting Solicitor General, the minister responsible for women's issues, the minister responsible for native affairs, or the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who all happen to be one and the same person.

In view of the absence of the four or five ministers who are not here, who are somehow crowded into one little chair next to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), perhaps the Premier can deal with the following quandary expressed to me by the manager of a store. He has been told by the owner of the enterprise that if he does not turn up on Sunday he is going to lose his job. He has also been told by the police today in a public statement that managers of stores, as well as store owners, are going to be charged on Sunday. Perhaps he can give some advice to my friend.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would tell the member's friend, and he can tell his friend, not to disobey the law and that we will make sure everyone in those circumstances is protected. I do not know all of the details of the situation, but I can say his friend should not be coerced into breaking the law by anyone, be it a mall manager, be it a store owner or manager of any type.

Mr. Rae: Let me deal with another problem. I am sure it will come as great comfort to the thousands of people who are being asked to work -- not being asked to work but are being told to work -- that all they have to do is phone the Attorney General. Some of us have difficulty getting through to him when he is not there.

What is the Premier going to do for the store owners in mall after mall who are being charged and who are being fined by virtue of the contracts they have signed with mall owners because they refuse to open on Sundays? What is he going to do with them? If mall owners decide to open on Sunday, are the people who have stores in those malls bound to pay the thousands of dollars in fines that are part of their contracts with mall owners?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no, they are not bound. In my judgement, they are not bound to open up on Sunday if they do not want to, and I do not think they should feel obliged to. I am happy to tell the honourable member that we now have news that the Supreme Court judgement will be coming down on December 18. In addition, we have had word that Simpsons and the Bay have reversed their decision to open up on these Sundays. I am hoping that will persuade other like-minded and law-abiding citizens and corporate owners not to break this law of the land.

Mr. Rae: Since the Premier is giving his legal advice today, I am sure those who are being fined, those who are being charged and those who are having to pay penalties will send their bills to him and he will gladly pay them. That is what I hear him saying today.

I wanted to ask this of the Attorney General, the minister responsible for women's issues, the minister responsible for native affairs and the acting Solicitor General. In his absence, can the Premier tell us whether the government has contemplated asking its crown attorneys to look at the possibility of conspiracy charges being considered against those individuals who very clearly have talked to one another, either within the same enterprise or possibly across different enterprises, in this systematic assault on the law of Ontario?

I am sure the Premier will recognize that one or two such charges might have a salutary effect because they are criminally based charges, as he will know, and might have a considerable deterrent effect on those individuals who seem to be so carefree about forcing people to work on Sunday against their will.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is an interesting suggestion, certainly one I had not thought of. I will mention it to the Attorney General and see whether there is any substance to it or possibility of pursuing that course.

It is a great concern to us. I find the rationale of those managers who want to open up absolutely outrageous when they say, "We are responding to economic forces and therefore we have to open up." Those same people, if they caught a shoplifter, would never accept the defence, "I am responding to economic forces to feed my family and therefore I am going to steal from your store." They cannot have it both ways.

I find the leadership role they have been applying to be reprehensible in the circumstances. I hope the enlightened leadership now demonstrated by these companies will form a tide and persuade others to follow this lead and to not violate the law of the land.

Mr. Gillies: In the absence of the minister of everything, I will also put a question on Sunday shopping to the Premier. The Attorney General was on a number of news programs last night making the rather bizarre statement that nobody in the province would have his or her job jeopardized by refusing to work on Sunday. As I am sure the absent Attorney General will have briefed the Premier fully on this matter, can the Premier advise the House under what section of what statute the Attorney General can guarantee to all these thousands of people that they will not lose their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry I cannot tell my honourable friend what section of what statute would apply in the circumstance, but I can assure my friend if there is not a statute that is applicable, we will bring one into the House to protect these people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I know the member for Brantford would like to ask a supplementary, but I will wait until everyone else has calmed down a little.

Mr. Gillies: This is quite a reversal. We suggested a change in the legislation yesterday and the government said no. Now the Premier is saying maybe it will change the legislation, or he does not know?

On television last night, the Attorney General widely publicized his telephone number as a hotline on Sunday shopping. All the workers in Ontario were to phone in and find out what protection they had. We made a couple of calls and got four answers; one was: "I cannot give you any advice. Phone back Monday."

14:30

Mr. Ferraro: That was Conservative Party headquarters.

Mr. Gillies: I tell the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) that I like these ones: "Write us a letter" and "Use your own discretion."

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Gillies: Somewhat more seriously, when we suggested to the hotline that this was not very good advice and asked whether it could offer us some direction about where to go to get good legal advice in this matter, the hotline referred us to the law firm of Gowling and Henderson, the firm in which the Attorney General used to be a partner.

My question to the Premier is twofold. First, is he satisfied with the advice that the Attorney General's hotline is giving the people of Ontario? Second, does he feel it appropriate that officials of the Ministry of the Attorney General should be sending business to the minister's former law partners?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know nothing of the things my honourable friend is talking about, although I can understand his concern about losing his job. He should spend more time phoning there, because he is going to be out of a job very shortly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East is waiting patiently. He would like to ask a question.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like to go back to the issue of where the protection is. Surely the Premier is aware that under the Employment Standards Act, there is not protection in a case such as this. If he is then saying to workers who are discharged illegally that they are going to have to go through some process, what is the time frame of that process and what protects the worker in the interim period?

The real problem here is that there is no legislation. Can the Premier tell us, if he is prepared to bring in a law before Christmas to protect these workers, why he cannot bring in a law that will protect workers in the case of plant shutdowns?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the member's question is yes, if it is necessary.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is obvious we do not have the protection now. That is going to be the core part of the debate later today. Can the Premier tell us when he is prepared to bring in a law and what he is prepared to do to protect the workers in a case such as this, where they do not have protection now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the type of statute, the wording of the statute or what amendment to what law. We are prepared to protect those people the member is talking about. No one in this province will lose his job because of a failure to work on Sundays if ordered to do so by some store manager.

Mr. Gillies: Yesterday, the Attorney General told the House he could not and would not bring in legislation in this regard while the matter was before the courts. The Premier is now saying he will bring in legislation. Who is speaking for the government in this matter, the Attorney General, with all his misleading information to the people of this province, or the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is confusing two things. Yesterday, he asked the Attorney General to bring in legislation to amend the fines. That is what he raised yesterday. I know his memory is short, but that is what the discussion was about yesterday. It was quite different from today.

Mr. Gillies: That is not what the Attorney General said at all. He said he would not bring in legislation.

I want to ask the Premier about the thousands of people who are going to be reporting for work, many of them unwillingly, on Sunday, before he will have the opportunity to bring in legislation. When we contacted the Ministry of Labour, we were told there is no protection for these people. In the case of a firing, the matter would likely be referred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, where it would take "a few weeks or possibly a few months to hear" and in all likelihood all the board would then rule on is whether the employer had correctly given notice or pay in lieu of notice in terminating the employee.

What about all those people? Whether or not legislation is brought in, the government has misled the workers of this province, and many of them now have their jobs at risk because of that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The whole point is that jobs will not be at risk. We will attend to that matter.

My honourable friend is getting very confused from day to day, 24 hours afterwards. Yesterday, he was asking for amendments to the penalty section; today, I do not know whether he supports it or not. It speaks to the whole division in his party. His leader wants to extend the store hours; the committee wants to restrict them. Let him tell me where he is coming from.

My friend is getting agitated; he is starting to jump around a little bit, but he looks very handsome in his red tie, let me tell the honourable leader. I am telling my friend very clearly that we are going to protect those people from those circumstances.

Mr. Gillies: What do we do about the ones opening this Sunday? Call the Attorney General's law firm?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brantford has already asked a question and supplementary.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Reville: I would like to change the focus from people losing their jobs to people losing their apartments.

The Minister of Housing knows that Bill 51, which is now law, allows far more than the four per cent his government promised and far more than the 5.2 per cent that actually was included in the Bill.

I have in my hand, as the saying goes, a ministry document -- in fact, if a page will come here, I will send a copy over to the minister to refresh his mind -- which describes a typical case under what was then subsection 77(2) of his legislation. It describes a building that is worth about $1 million and in which there is about $300,000 of equity. I presume it describes the situation in the future after the bill creates this alleged housing, because this was built after July 1, 1986.

If the minister will turn to the last page of the document, about halfway down the page --

Mr. Speaker: You do have a question.

Mr. Reville: I am trying to get the minister to follow this, Mr. Speaker. It is quite complex.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure.

Mr. Reville: Will the minister confirm that the ministry document --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Did the member get the numbers from his leader?

Mr. Reville: No. This is ministry material.

The ministry document shows annual increases over the next five years of 15 per cent, 15 per cent, 9.7 per cent, five per cent and five per cent, which makes a total of 59.7 per cent. Would the minister confirm that a tenant who started off at $500 will, under this bill, end up paying $800 five years from now?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member knows that Bill 151 is one of the most progressive rent review bills that has come into the House.

I would like the member to take a more sober and responsible attitude of not frightening those tenants outside there about their rent escalating by 15 per cent and what have you. We have a responsible act in place. I urge the member not to put fear in the tenants' minds that rents are being escalated by 15 per cent and 20 per cent.

Mr. Reville: That is a very insulting answer. This is a ministry document. It is inappropriate for the minister to pull the wool over tenants' eyes.

Will the minister again look at the document, on page 2, and confirm that a building built before 1986 and after 1976 could, over the next five years, experience increases of 10.6 per cent, 10 per cent, 10 per cent, 9.2 per cent and five per cent -- that is 53.4 per cent -- and that a tenant paying $500 a month now would end up paying $767 a month?

Can the minister explain how a five-year increase of $300 in the one case or $267 in the other case is a compromise or a delicate balance --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have a reply?

Mr. Reville: Come on, minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

14:40

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member knows that buildings that were built after 1976 were not under the rent review legislation; there were no controls. Now all rental units are under the rent review act, and no increase can be made above the guideline unless they come before the Rent Review Hearings Board. Those buildings were subject to increases beyond any guidelines because there were no guidelines. The member suggests all these buildings now will be subject to 15 per cent and 20 per cent increases -- that is what I hear in the member's question -- but now they are all under the rent review legislation.

LIQUOR BOARD HIRING PRACTICES

Ms. E. J. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I was amazed when I first got elected --

Mr. Grossman: So were we.

Interjections.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The people on the other side of the House were merely amazed; we were happily amazed.

It seemed to me that every second person who came to my constituency office was looking for a job at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. At first I thought this might relate to the fact that the former minister had been from my riding. However, I later learned that this impression of nepotism was quite common right across the province. Recently, I have run into the impression that this is still the way things are throughout the province. I ask the minister what he is doing about this.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is right. From the first day I took over the ministry, I had many calls, not only from members of this caucus but also from members of all caucuses, asking me whether I could do something for some of their constituents by getting them jobs at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario or at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Last week, we passed Bills 119 and 120, which take the hiring practices out of order in council and put them into the fair hiring practices section of the civil service. I hope that when this is implemented -- it was passed just last week -- we will eliminate all these problems.

Ms. E. J. Smith: That the minister has done this is a great step forward, but is he succeeding in getting this same message through to the people who are doing the hiring? Are they aware that patronage is no longer the name of the game and that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take her place?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have wasted a lot of time.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, even you could not stand the Liberal nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question, or is he making a statement?

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has trivialized and sloughed off the very important issue of Sunday shopping. He has said he is willing to amend the legislation. I refer him to page 15 of yesterday's Instant Hansard, where his Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said he would not amend the legislation while the Supreme Court case is being heard.

We heard the Premier and the Attorney General say there can be no dismissal if an employee refuses to work on Sundays, when the Ministry of Labour admits one can be dismissed if one refuses to work on Sundays. We have heard him say that information will be made available to the workers, and now we have a ministry hotline that refers people to the former law firm of the Attorney General.

This is an important issue. When will the Premier give clear guidance to the people of this province, clean up that mess of the hotline, take care of the reference to Gowling and Henderson and help the people out of this mess?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the honourable member has trouble understanding it, but I think we have already. He should listen. He may be confused, but I do not think other people are confused about the very clear message that went forward from this government. If the member would like me to repeat it, I will be very happy to do so.

The message is very clear. People will not lose their jobs if they refuse to work on Sunday.

To repeat something I told the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), the member asked yesterday to amend the penalty section of the legislation. That is what he asked.

Mr. Pope: The Premier had better read it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was here yesterday. I do show up here occasionally. That is what the discussion was about yesterday.

Mr. Pope: The Premier knows he has an obligation to the people. He has done nothing about this issue, absolutely nothing. His advice has been contradictory. His own hotline and information services do not even know how to answer the people of this province. The workers of this province deserve more.

Will the Premier take care of this improper reference out of the Attorney General's office to his former law firm?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is the first I have ever heard of it. If the member will tell me who made the reference and the circumstances, I will follow it up. Some of the information the opposition presents in this House is not always credible either.

SALE OF APARTMENTS

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Premier. The tenants of Rosebury Square are really angry. Their buildings have been sold, and they have had no opportunity to buy them. Since the bidding process was clearly unfair, will the Premier tell the House why the government has left these 1,000 units and the Rosebury Square tenants at the mercy of speculators, receivers and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the case the honourable member is raising in the House. If he will give me the details, I will follow it up for him.

Mr. Grande: The Premier should be aware that the buildings in the great apartment flip that took place in Metro Toronto more than four years ago were sold again last month. Why has the government done nothing to help the tenants buy their buildings? Is the government prepared to step in and act on behalf of the tenants to ensure they will not bear the high cost of speculation and the casino economy we have?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the honourable member saying now that we should have converted those into condominiums? Is that the point he is making in this House? That seems a little bizarre coming from a New Democrat. I have no idea exactly what the member's point is. He knows this matter turned out to be in the hands of the receiver, who is responsible for the disposition of these buildings. If the member's point is that they should all be turned into condominiums, then I am interested in hearing his point of view -- if it appears to be that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. A recent report from the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto has indicated -- I have some figures from the report -- that in 1981 one of eight children in the province was living in poverty, which totals 896,000 children. This has risen in 1984. According to this planning report, one of six children in the province is living in poverty, which would indicate 1.2 million children. With respect to this situation and with respect to the increase in food banks throughout this province, one of which is in the city of Mississauga, how does the minister intend to remedy this problem?

14:50

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Whether it is one child or 1,000 children living in poverty, it is not acceptable. I point out to the member, however, that the report he refers to indicates that those figures are for 1984. We have now been through 1985 and are just about through 1986, and the figures are considerably different.

For example, in the latter part of 1985, there was actually not an increase but a decline of 13.5 per cent with respect to the issue he has raised. I also point out to him that in our rate increases to low-income families, in January 1986 there were four specific references to children, one being $80 per child for winter clothing, another being $25 per child for the handicapped benefit and another being a three per cent increase above and beyond the basic increase for children's services. I remind him that the most recent rate increase allocated an additional $16 for older children in families and that we have given families across the province an additional approximately $100 in maximum rental subsidy.

We have moved considerably to begin to meet the problem, but there are children still living in poverty and we will continue to begin to meet the problem.

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Partington: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who for some reason does not want to exercise his responsibilities under the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Partington: On November 3 and then on November 18, I asked the minister why he would not immediately appoint a commission of inquiry under the Municipal Act to investigate allegations concerning improper land sales in the town of Vaughan. Will the minister explain to this House now how he can justify sitting on such serious allegations, which were first raised with him more than seven months ago?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The honourable member is quite right. The allegations are very serious. The member will agree with me that a thorough review of these allegations has to be made before I decide what future steps to take. However, I can assure the member that the ministry is serious in reviewing these allegations and future steps will be taken very shortly.

Mr. Partington: No matter what the minister says, his staff has indicated that the results of the investigation were provided to him before the end of September. Why is the minister continuing to hide behind faceless bureaucrats who conduct investigations behind closed doors? What is he hiding? Who is he trying to protect?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I assure the member I am not hiding behind any municipality in this province and I am not trying to hide the facts. I remind him, however, that I do not like to prejudge any municipalities on any accusations or allegations before I find out the truth.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that the Ontario Nursing Home Association had a press conference today, at which it asked for $173 million in additional money. It said that if it does not get this additional money -- and I quote from the press release - "without moving on our initiatives right now, we will only continue to operate in a way that falls short of residents' true needs and their family's expectations of levels of service." In addition, Mr. Nightingale said that financial disclosure was a fact of life in the province with the Ministry of Health until 1979, when the previous government stopped collecting information on finances of nursing homes.

Before any additional money goes to the nursing homes of this province, will the minister table in the Legislature financial data that was collected from 1979 and prior and put in place the same type of process that apparently existed in 1979, where financial disclosure was the practice?

Hon. Mr. Elston: If I can, I will provide that documentation. I am not sure what sort of arrangements were in place before. If I can do that, I will provide the information.

Mr. McClellan: The minister should ask his deputy minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The deputy minister was probably not the deputy minister at that point. I presume he would have been an assistant deputy minister.

I do not know whether that information is available for me to table. I will look into that matter and provide the information if it is available. With respect to whether I would consider implementing the same sort of disclosure with respect to the financial information available, I can tell the honourable member I would be looking at a system that would reveal the information that is most essential for people to understand the operation of nursing homes. I am actively considering that, and it probably would not be the same type of information that was collected before 1979.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Is the minister aware that one of the presenters at the press conference today, a Mr. Hunt from Extendicare, indicated that Extendicare's return on assets is 13 per cent? Does he agree that there should be total financial disclosure before any additional money is given to nursing homes in this province, and does he agree with the Ontario Nursing Home Association that proper levels of care are not currently being provided in nursing homes? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: In answer to several questions: first, there will be no flowing of additional money to the nursing home industry until we are able to make appropriate contractual undertakings with it so that we understand very fully and clearly what is being purchased in terms of service to be provided to the residents of nursing homes right across the province.

We started, with the $1.30 package which was announced in September, that trend of flowing additional money into the nursing homes. I intend to follow up on that, so that we will end up purchasing service so that we can follow through to determine whether the money was actually used in providing those services. I think that will provide us with a better system of accountability with respect to what money is being sent into the system.

With respect to the other questions, I do not know about the gentleman from Extendicare. I did not know those figures because I was not present at the press conference. I am pleased you provided those for me. We will take a look at what that really means in terms of money being flowed and the contradiction that appears between the two statements, that there is not enough money in the system and the return of that sort of money on their assets. I will take a look at what that means to see what we can do to assist the residents in the homes.

15:00

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Callahan: My question is to the Treasurer. Recently, I think during the summer, there was a bill, and I cannot find the number of it, that was dealing with superannuation pension funds for teachers. My recollection is that it went back to people who retired after 1982. I have been receiving a number of letters in my constituency office and also here at Queen's Park, as I am sure many of the members in this House have. I would ask the Treasurer whether any consideration is being given to dealing with the issue beyond 1982 to deal with people who retired prior to 1982.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes. I have received a number of letters from teachers who retired before 1982 whose pension is calculated on their best seven years rather than on their best five. The people who are retiring under the best-five circumstances are paying an extra 0.9 per cent in their contributions to the pension fund. If we were to decide or to advise that the pensions for people who retired before that change were to have the advantage of the best five rather than the best seven, it would mean they would have the advantage of the payment without having paid the premiums, so to speak, and it would cost the consolidated revenue fund about $65 million a year in the process.

The matter was discussed fully in the Legislature during the Treasury estimates, and I advise anybody who wants a fuller explanation to look up the appropriate Hansard. The matter, however, has been referred to the Public Sector Pensions Advisory Board.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL PARKS COUNCIL

Mr. Pierce: Maybe I am running late on my news releases, but I am not sure whether there has been a cabinet shuffle on the other side of the floor.

My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, who has taken up the seat of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), who has been replaced by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway).

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Pierce: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I was very surprised to read the minister's recent news release regarding the appointments to the Ontario Provincial Parks Council. My surprise has to do with the lack of representation of northern Ontario on the parks council. Why has the minister, as a minister representing the acclaimed party for the north, excluded representation north and west of Sudbury and appointed only two members to represent all of northern Ontario on this important Ontario parks council?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: At the outset, to have two members from northern Ontario on my parks council and my advisory council seems very appropriate. I am thinking in terms of all across the province being represented on the parks council. If the honourable member is disturbed because I have changed the parks council and if some of the people he would like there are no longer there, well, them's the hazards.

The other thing is that it is within my prerogative to put more members on the board, and I am undertaking right now consideration of another couple of members. When that happens, I will let the member be the first to know.

Mr. Bernier: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly see that you get one on Monday. The time for oral questions has expired.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

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

The committee refers back to the House the matter of closures and layoffs highlighted by Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay; E. B. Eddy in Nairn Centre; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in Etobicoke; the waferboard plant of Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay; and Falconbridge in Sudbury, as suggested by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and accepted unanimously by the committee on November 27, 1986. Further, the committee refers back to the House the estimates now before the committee.

Your committee finds that the importance of the matters referred to it in its original mandate, namely, the budget review, corporate concentration and including Bill 116, which it has already started to deal with, makes it impossible to accept additional items as important as plant shutdowns.

Mr. Speaker: Can I have the attention of most of the members? There are quite a few private conversations. Order.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendation:

Your committee recommends that the provisional standing orders adopted on April 28, 1986, and amended on October 23, 1986, be continued until 12 midnight on June 18, 1987.

Mr. Breaugh: This is simply one recommendation to extend the provisional standing orders, which will expire on December 18.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see about eight or nine private conversations taking place, which make it most difficult for the member for Oshawa. Will the honourable members pay attention?

Mr. Breaugh: This simply has the recommendation to extend the provisional standing orders until June 18, 1987. I will adjourn the debate now and hope that the order will be called in the foreseeable future, more specifically before December 18, 1986, so that the House may deal with the matter.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Breaugh: I have a second report.

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's report as follows:

Your committee condemns the pre-emptive action of the Attorney General in introducing conflict-of-interest legislation prior to receiving the committee report on the Aird report as instructed by the Legislature. The Attorney General's action is insulting to the Legislature and its committees, is contrary to established parliamentary practice and undermines the committee's effectiveness.

Mr. Breaugh: Briefly, some further deliberations may take place about calling the member before the bar of the House or imposing other sanctions we may creatively think of. Suffice it to note that we determined that there is a problem when a matter is referred to a committee for its consideration and legislation is introduced before the committee has an opportunity to report. I anticipate that by Monday we will have that report ready for the assembly.

15:10

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 167, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sorry the usual little squib was not there. It was provided to me with the bill, but I somehow shuffled it off somewhere.

The act I have introduced has two main purposes. First, the bill will remove the need to amend the Assessment Act annually to prevent the automatic introduction of full market value assessment across the province. In this regard, it is the policy of the government for municipalities to request reassessment. This has been accomplished to date in 606 municipalities.

Second, the bill provides that condominium assessments, like all other property assessments, will not be adjusted each year. The bill will also direct the courts and appeal tribunals in the matter of condominium appeal to adjust the assessment of the condominium so that it is at the same level of market value as that of all other single-family homes and condominiums in the neighbourhood.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Pursuant to standing order 37(a), Mr. Harris moved that the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the inability of the government of Ontario to ensure that retail store employees will not be subject to dismissal for refusing to work on Sundays, the failure of the government of Ontario to enforce the Retail Business Holidays Act, and the resultant confusion caused by the government's statements and actions with respect to this matter.

Mr. Speaker: This notice of motion was received at my office at 10:40 a.m. this morning, so it complies with standing order 37(a). I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as to representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Harris: By now, it is readily apparent why this matter should be debated today. Not only is it the last day of our week before we come into a very busy holiday Sunday, but also the confusion in the public's eyes should be lessened. This matter has been raised repeatedly with warnings to the government that it was becoming a bigger problem as every day went by; in fact, any response has caused more confusion and more problems.

I regret very much that this debate need take place today. On January 6, 1986, after some confusion about the Boxing Day sales, a statement was made to the Legislature by the then Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes), commenting on the problems that took place on Boxing Day and the confusion that took place close to a year ago with respect to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

There has been ample warning that there are problems. There has been ample warning for almost a year that the problems would escalate as we came closer to the holiday season of 1986. Because the government was not doing anything, the Conservative Party set up a special task force to tour the province to receive input on the matter from store owners, councils, shoppers and the interested public.

Those recommendations are contained in that task force report and are a matter of public record. Being an opposition party, that really was the extent to which we were able to go. We not only pointed out the problem, which the government acknowledged last January, we not only pointed out that it is not something one can sit on and hope it will go away, but it is also something a responsible government has to deal with. The government was not responsible and did not deal with it.

Some of the very confusing statements that are being given to people have been pointed out today. We have a problem of employees who are faced with two options, one a fine of up to $10,000 for breaking the law, subject to being charged. They have that on one side. For many employees -- we have pointed out several examples and I am sure there are hundreds of others and there will be thousands if this is not cleared up -- their other choice is to be fired or to lose their jobs. That is no choice at all and it is not acceptable to put people into these positions.

Today, the Minister of Labour's (Mr. Wrye) office answers to these queries: "I do not know. I did not hear anything about that." The office of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) says, "No, you do not have to worry; you cannot lose your job." The office of the Solicitor General says, "I rather doubt it; there are not enough police to control the situation." The Attorney General's (Mr. Scott) hotline says: "The chances are not very good that you will be charged. However, you are taking a calculated risk."

It is pretty tough to go to the bank with those kinds of answers. Other answers were pointed out earlier today from the hotline: "I cannot give you any advice; phone back Monday; write us a letter; and use your own discretion."

We also have the problem of small, independently owned stores that will have very difficult staffing problems. As was pointed out today, we have stores in malls that are subject to fines by their mall agreements if they do not open when the mall is open.

I regret this debate has to take place, but somewhere, somebody has to face up to his responsibilities and act in a responsible fashion, and it is appropriate that this be laid before the people in this special debate today.

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise on behalf of my party to support the motion for an emergency debate. The reasons for it are relatively straightforward and clear.

Unfortunately, the trickle towards Sunday shopping has become a literal avalanche. I think it is because of some of the moves by many of the major chains and malls to announce they are going to open this coming Sunday. A number have opened over the past period.

It also seems to me there is more than a bit of truth in the comments made by the Roman Catholic Church spokesman in the December 3 issue of the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail -- I am not sure which one -- where he said there was a kind of legal terror tactic going on in an effort to break the government's will and endurance in terms of Sunday shopping.

The reason we have the problem is that this government has not been willing to tackle the problem. I admit it may be a difficult situation, but what is happening to us now is that we are literally making a mockery of the law in Ontario. It is currently not legal, but the avalanche of defiance of the law is resulting in the public on both sides of the issue not knowing what to expect, what to think and whether it is respectable and perfectly all right to break the law of Ontario.

What does not get considered in much of this current situation is the position employees are in. The Attorney General did a major disservice to workers as well as to store managers in his comments yesterday: "Tell your people not to worry about being fired. Nobody is going to be fired." The members of this House should recognize there is no protection currently under the Employment Standards Act. One of the things we have been promised by the Minister of Labour was not one of our priorities, but if he was going to bring in amendments to the Employment Standards Act, unjust dismissal would have been one of them.

15:20

We also know that amendments to the Employment Standards Act, though promised for a long time and covering items besides unjust dismissal, have not even been before the cabinet to the best of our knowledge, so we are not close to the kind of amendment that might have been used by employees to protect themselves.

The only hope a person has now is to take a complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board as an individual and on his own and hope he can go through the long procedure, which becomes more legalistic every day, in the hope he might get some redress. If he does, it will be months after the fact.

In fact, if you have been through labour proceedings you know there are not many people who would be fired straight out because they refused to do the work. There are a thousand and one ways you can get rid of employees over a few days if you do not want them. A worker might have even more difficulty proving it related to the fact he did not want to come in to work on Sunday.

I have a number of examples here. A florist called us from the Limeridge Mall. A woman who had already been scheduled to work 48 hours during the week was now being told she had to work on Sunday, which would bring her up to 54 or 56 hours. There are a number of articles from which I do not have time to quote, but which clearly indicate the insecurity and unsureness, not only of the straight employees but also of those who are at the management level in a small store in one of the major shopping malls.

These people do not know where to turn and there is no current protection for them in Ontario. We are seeing a literal avalanche of openings and a deliberate defiance of the law, regardless of what one might think of that law.

That cannot be allowed to continue if there is going to be any respect for the law. If this is going to be the approach, then procedures, laws or avenues of appeal have to be put into place to protect people so that they are not hurt. Almost half the population of Ontario is now in the service industry. The number of people in usually lower paid jobs in shopping centres is amazing.

If the way is going to be to open these stores -- I think that is not the proper way, but if that is going to be the approach -- then careful steps have to be taken to put in place the kind of protection people need, women in particular, because the majority of these employees are women. Many of them are married women who would like to spend time at home on Sunday with their families.

The government has not done that. I do not think it can bring in a bill as quickly as it says. It is important that this be discussed in this House.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I agree with the first two speakers that this is a matter of urgency and public importance. We are not going to object to the debate continuing.

I want to express a certain degree of regret because, frankly, we were looking forward to having aired in the House the debate that was originally scheduled. That was to deal with the conflict-of-interest reports, not that pleasant a subject for the members of the government party or anyone else for that matter. I know the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), who was here expecting to listen with great attention, was somewhat concerned that this important matter was being postponed once again.

I put that forward because it is a matter of regret for me. I was hoping that debate would be completed, but it can be rescheduled. Specifically, we have no objection to this. We think it fits quite clearly into the requirements of the section of the standing orders and we welcome the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Having heard from each of the three parties, I will therefore put the question. Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: May I remind the House that each member has 10 minutes.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate on a critical subject for the people of Ontario.

There has been a significant problem which I am thankful has been recognized by the members of this House. They have agreed to enter into an emergency debate on this matter. In this regard, I might just quote the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of this province, who said, the current law is "`very close to being unenforceable' and is out of line with changing public opinion," a statement with which I agree.

The interesting point about that statement is the date on which it was made: January 6, 1986. Almost a year ago, the Premier recognized the problem that was facing this province at that time in terms of the unenforceability of the current law because of its flagrant abuse by retailers across the province.

The interesting thing to note is that following the recognition of the problem by all parties, the government apparently has done absolutely nothing in the intervening year. Our party saw fit to strike a task force which travelled this province, held public hearings in about 12 cities, heard from approximately 1,130 groups and associations by way of briefs, letters and oral presentations, and thereafter drafted a report and presented it to our leader. After discussion in caucus, the report was adopted as the position of this party in regard to this important issue.

Particularly in the light of the comments that are occasionally thrown across the floor by the members of the government on where we stand, I emphasize that this is the position of this party on this issue. All they need do is obtain a copy of this report, read the summary and they can see very well where we stand on this important issue.

Our primary, number one recommendation is that there be a common pause day in Ontario. The Retail Business Holidays Act should be maintained in its principal premise; that is, we should keep Sundays closed primarily for recreational purposes and for a common pause day for use by the family to enjoy together for recreational and perhaps religious purposes. I emphasize that there should not be wide-open Sunday shopping.

We then go on to recommend certain amendments that should be made to the act to bring it up to date to give effect to changing attitudes in Ontario. Those amendments include some broadening of the right to shop on Sundays, particularly on Boxing Day. It should be recognized that Boxing Day has been held as a special day for the trading in of gifts, for sales and perhaps there is a genuine demand for shopping on that day.

We made one other significant point with regard to enforcement of the statute that is particularly relevant in the light of what is happening now. We recommended and pointed out in the course of our conclusions that the $10,000 fine that is now a part of the statute is totally inadequate. It is merely a licence to carry on business for large retailers who make much more than $10,000 on a given Sunday, particularly Sundays prior to Christmas, and they can therefore freely open their doors, pay even the maximum fine and still enjoy quite a handsome profit.

We recommended that the penalty section should take away the incentive to open one's doors on a Sunday. We suggested that the fines should be equal to the amount of the gross revenues earned by the violator on the day the offence occurred in addition to a penalty of up to $10,000. If every cent of the gross profit the retailer earned on that day was taken away from him and if he was subjected to a fine, there would be little incentive to operate on Sundays.

What has the government done in the past year? Absolutely nothing. It has sat on its duff awaiting the results of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not good enough. There is a responsibility of a government in a democratic society to see that the rule of law is upheld. If we succumb to mass violation of the law, the way this government seems prepared to do on this issue, then we open the doors to chaos. We send a message, a signal, to the people of this province: "If there are enough of you out there who want to break the law, go ahead and break the law. We are not going to do anything about it or do anything to enforce the law."

15:30

We suggested yesterday to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that we were prepared to support quick passage, in a single day, of an amendment to the penalty section to significantly strengthen and stiffen the penalty, thus to attempt to dissuade retailers from opening. He rejected that out of hand, indicating we should not do it while the matter was before the court.

What hogwash. The matter before the court is the principle of Sunday shopping. Our amending of the penalty section would have no effect whatsoever on the deliberations of the Supreme Court of Canada or when it might issue its decision. I urge the government to consider that option as still being available to it.

The reports and comments we got clearly demonstrate the lack of initiative, the lack of position and the chaos that exists within the government on this issue. Its right arm does not know what its left arm, or any other arm of the government, is doing.

Some of our research staff phoned various ministries to ask them certain questions, particularly about the rights of employees, who are being pressured and persuaded by their employers to attend work on Sunday and who are very fearful of what might become of them should they go to work while their employers are violating the law.

Some of the responses we received were very interesting. From the London constituency office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) came a reply to this question: "I am a part-time worker who has been asked to work this Sunday. Will I be subject to a $10,000 fine?" The answer was: "No, it is only the owners. You have no liability. You cannot be fined or harmed. It is only the owners who can be charged."

However, in asking the same question on the famous hotline of the Attorney General we have heard so much about, the answer was: "The chances are not very good that you will be charged. However, you are taking a calculated risk. It is not feasible for the police to charge everyone." I suppose that means if there were enough police, everyone would be charged. It was directly contradictory to the advice coming from the Premier's office.

The office of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) was asked the same question. The answer was: "No way. It is only the owners or the corporate executives who could be charged or fined."

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), who should know about this issue because we are dealing with the right of employees to work, answered: "I do not know. I did not hear anything about that."

The office of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) replied: "No. It is only the store owners who can be charged. You do not have to worry, and you cannot lose your job either."

What kind of confusion and conflicting message is the government giving to these people? Why does the government not take some positive steps to attempt to remedy this situation? Primarily, why does it not amend the law to increase the penalty to provide an adequate dissuasion to employers from opening up on Sundays? Why does it not consider taking the initiative? Why does it not meet with the chief executive officers of some of the major retail corporations that intend to open to attempt to persuade them to back off, show respect for the law and show some leadership in this field?

Why does the Attorney General not order his crown attorneys to insist that the charges before the courts continue before the courts? They are being routinely adjourned pending the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

There are many things the government could be doing. For some reason, it has chosen to do absolutely none of these. It has taken no initiatives. It has not determined the wishes of the people of this province, as we have through our task force report. The lack of initiative, the lack of anything in this regard, has led to chaos out there and has shown a despicable disregard for the law by this government.

Mr. Rae: I rise to take part in the debate because it is clear that this issue extends well beyond the simple question of Sunday opening. It also extends to two other areas that are of great concern to me; the first is the law, and the second is the rights of working people, their working hours, their time and their protection under the law. It is in the light of both of those issues that I want to participate in this debate on behalf of my party.

What has become especially troubling is the sense in the corporate boardrooms -- and one might almost speak of crime in the suites, to say nothing of crime in the streets --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is the second time this week you have gotten off a good one.

Mr. Rae: I thank the Treasurer.

For the record, because television does not carry heckles, as much as we would like it to, the Treasurer said it was the second time this week I had gotten off a good one. I appreciate that. I do not know what other one he is referring to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot remember it in detail either.

Mr. Rae: He says he cannot remember it either, which is an increasing problem for people of the Treasurer's --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Age? Colour? Sex? Religion?

Mr. Rae: Experience. Political persuasion. Political orientation.

I would like to speak on behalf of our party with respect to these two issues, which are of extreme importance. The first, as I say, is the question of respect for the law. What has concerned me over the past period of time has been the determination on the part of an ever-growing number of people in the business community to take the law into their own hands. They have done so with considerable impunity, and they have managed to do so without, in our view, the kind of deterrent factor that is necessary.

It is entirely appropriate for us to ask the question, as many have asked and not on a rhetorical basis, what is the legitimacy of our law if people feel they can disobey it with impunity?

Mr. Callahan: I thought the unions did that.

Mr. Rae: I am glad to see my friend the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) is here today. It is obviously a very slow day in the courts. I am sorry his practice is not going better. I am sorry his practice has deteriorated to the point where he actually has to come into the Legislature in the afternoon. He made the kind of anti-union comment we have come to expect from the Liberal Party, saying the unions disregard the law.

Mr. Callahan: All I said was the unions disregard the law sometimes.

Mr. Rae: I would not say they disregard the law; but when breakages of the law take place, people are punished and fined and jailed, for heaven's sake. Grace Hartman went to jail. Lucie Nicholson went to jail in this province. When hospital workers in 1981 went out on a strike that was declared by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the courts to be illegal, workers were fired; not one or two, but in the dozens. Some of them are still out of any work in the health care sector.

Therefore, I say to the member for Brampton, it is all very well to make the kind of anti-union comment that may go down well in the rarefied business circles in which the member travels, but when one actually looks at what is going on in the streets of this country, it is of increasing concern that it is increasingly the case that there now are two laws, one that applies to everybody else and one that applies to this group of individuals who are so determined to break the law. A charge is laid, and the charge is regarded as the equivalent of a traffic ticket; it is regarded as simply the cost of doing business.

To which one can only reply that it is never acceptable in a civilized country for people to break the law without having to take the consequences. That is the issue. We are all prepared to accept that people have a right to disobey civilly if that is what they feel they have to do, but they should not do so thinking they are above the law. The law has to apply to everybody. The leader of our party in Newfoundland is in jail today for the simple reason that he wanted to go on a picket line. He walked on the picket line for 15 minutes; for that, he was put in jail for two weeks.

I question many things, but I question the fairness of a justice system that does that to an individual, yet when it comes to dealing with a piece of legislation that is very clear about respecting a day off for the people of this province, these people say: "No. I can make a buck on that day off, and I am going to make that buck. I am going to make enough money so that I can afford to pay the fine every every Sunday I am open. That is the way I am going to do business." That is not acceptable.

15:40

The other reason it is not acceptable has much to do with the very basic question of the protection of working people. What troubles me more than anything about what has taken place in the past number of weeks and what has escalated this past week in particular is that management has been putting working people in the position of having to break the law. They are putting them in the position of having to work an additional eight-hour day. It is bad for working people. It is also bad for small business.

I want to stress this point. If we have a kind of Las Vegas environment, by which I mean an environment where stores are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and if that becomes increasingly the rule right across the province, the businesses that are going to get hurt by that are smaller businesses run by their own managers and owners. Those are the people who are going to have to stay working those 12-hour days, seven days a week. Lord knows what the limits will be unless it is something that government and the community decide they are going to stop because they want to protect the right of people to have a day off. Small businesses deserve the right to have a day off and to do it without losing business, as do working people.

What troubles me more than anything else about what has taken place is that working people are being asked, expected and required to work and are being told in some cases not even to discuss their own private views with respect to whether they should be required to work. They are told to come in. They are not being paid overtime. They are not being paid double time for working on Sunday, as is the case in many industrial establishments where working on Sunday is the rule. I think all of us will agree that is an unfairness.

There is one thing I found really unacceptable in the way the government has handled this thing in addition to its unwillingness to use the full force of the law on those who are breaking it. It is quite obvious the Liberal Party is divided on this issue. Its members cannot make up their minds which way to go. Many of them have expressed a personal preference that anything goes on a Sunday. I think that is a fair reflection of our society; people have divided opinions on it.

What especially troubles me, though, is that the Attorney General is holding himself out and saying: "Bring me your huddled people out there who are losing their jobs. Pick up the phone, tell me, and I will make sure you are okay." The Attorney General has no business doing that, because he cannot. If he is saying to workers that they can get the protection of the law in Ontario, he is misleading the workers of the province. If he is saying the protection is there and he can pick up a phone and order X, Y & Z Co. to do X, Y and Z, he is not living in Ontario.

It is said that power goes to one's head, a problem that none of us in this party has ever had to suffer from, but it is perfectly clear that is what has happened to the Attorney General. It is a sad day for all of us when the Attorney General goes running around, saying: "I am the one who can solve your problems. I am the one who can step in and deal with it. I am the one who can make it all better." That is not the way it works.

What we need in this province is a law that protects people, that ensures they have time off and days off, that ensures they have time to spend with their families and that ensures working time is shared more fairly in the province than it has been to date. That is the kind of law we need.

Finally, we need a government that is prepared to deal with the law as it now stands in this province. We need a government that will see that it is dealt with fairly and that the people who break it are in fact treated firmly by our court system, which up until now has not been the case.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have already indicated that I and my colleagues think this is an important debate. We do not feel the government has handled the matter badly, but we are critical of the resolution of certain business establishments to take the law into their own hands.

Section 1 of the Retail Business Holidays Act defines Sunday as a holiday under that act. Subsection 2(2) states:

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of a person carrying on a retail business in a retail business establishment shall,

"(a) sell or offer for sale any goods or services therein by retail; or

"(b) admit members of the public thereto,

"on a holiday."

That is the section that closes establishments, with certain exceptions, with which we are all familiar, on Sunday. That law has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Ontario; it has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. While we are awaiting the disposition of this matter by our nation's highest court, some business establishments, driven by avarice, I suppose, and competition, have decided they will break the law. They are doing it with careful thought and simply rejecting the law-abiding status we have normally expected them to have.

My friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) thinks that is amusing. I do not know what is funny about it; I think it is very serious.

Frankly, as I thought of some of our senior retail establishments simply announcing they were going to break the law, I could not believe it. I have never been a great fan of the political stance of the owners of T. Eaton Co. Ltd., but I felt it was in the grand tradition of Timothy E. when his descendants announced they were not going to break the law. It warmed my heart. I was also interested to note that Marks and Spencer, not an indigenous Canadian firm but a British firm, made the same announcement.

I bring to the attention of the honourable members that Robert Simpson Co. and The Bay announced today that their stores would remain closed as well on Sunday, pending the release of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I quote from their statement: "The Attorney General has lectured us in the media and we have listened."

As a result, the traditional respect for law and order is being maintained by the senior corporate citizens of this province. The rest of them, in breaking the law, have been charged; they are not going to be proceeded with, pending the decision of the Supreme Court, which, as the Premier indicated and as had been announced by the court, will be handed down on December 18.

There is no doubt that the competition of the pre-Christmas season, that lovely season of religious exercise and recognition, has somehow spurred the avaricious, competitive retailers to move in this direction. I regret it, and I am sure many of them regret it as well.

Frankly, I was very pleased and proud of the statement made by the Attorney General, and reiterated by the Premier today, that we would use whatever powers we have -- and members know they are extensive, as long as the Legislature supports us -- to see that no one loses his or her job as a result of being forced to work on Sunday. The Premier indicated that if it is necessary to have additional legislation, we are prepared to undertake that. But since we are graced by so many of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law today --

Mr. O'Connor: They are all over here.

Mr. Warner: Name names.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not want to say anything further about that.

However, they must realize that there is, if not ample protection, substantial protection for anyone who might feel himself or herself coerced by his or her employer into working on Sunday in an inappropriate manner. I state that any person who has forced an employee to work on a Sunday could be charged under sections 77 and 78 of the Provincial Offences Act for counselling or procuring another person to be a party to an offence.

I have already read section 2 of the act we are discussing this afternoon to indicate that it is illegal to sell, and if somebody coerces or procures to do that, it is an offence. This is something the retailers in the province might consider, because if the law is upheld by the Supreme Court, as the Attorney General stated clearly -- and we naturally support him on this -- the law will have to be enforced.

The leader of the New Democratic Party has indicated that members of the House are divided on whether the stores should be open on Sunday. This is not a debate in which we are going to indicate what the policy of the government is. The policy is to uphold the law.

I happen to live in a community -- and I know the honourable members will recall that I refer to it frequently in my comments to the House -- where there is one grocery store, and it is open on Sunday.

Mr. Ashe: What?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Sure. It is open on Sunday, and the elders of the United Church and others do not feel themselves committing any mortal sin when they go up there to buy a carton of milk and a loaf of bread if they find that the minister is coming to dinner unexpectedly. I am not so sure it is a sinful matter.

15:50

My own view is that it is up to us to protect, more than anything else, the position of the workers in this province. We can argue for a long time about whether there is additional profit in a wide-open Sunday when we realize there are only so many dollars to be spent by the consuming public. If all the stores are open, it is not an indication in any way that more money is going to go into the coffers of the retailer or into the Treasury of Ontario on the basis of extra sales tax.

There is some indication of what the effects would be, but that is not a matter we are debating today. We are here to recognize that the law has been established by this House in the not-too-distant past, and we have been trying to discuss what year it was passed.

Mr. O'Connor: It was in 1976.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was in 1966, thank you.

Mr. O'Connor: It was in 1976.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was in 1976, that is right; another minority House. I recall some of the discussions. Some of the better aspects of this law were written on the back of an envelope in a late-night session. I recall the Liberal Party was sitting in the far corner of the House. That was where a good deal of the wisdom emanated from, now that my memory is clarified.

However, the statute is there and it has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Ontario. It is regrettable -- I would not even say understandable -- that so many retail organizations have decided to take thought and to flout the law of the land; an unbelievable situation. The only remnant of good that has come out of it is that the senior retailers have drawn back from that, even those who have said they were going to do it. I commend them for that decision.

The Attorney General has stated that once the Supreme Court has brought down its decision in regard to this important and sensitive matter, it will be his responsibility to enforce the law. He has not equivocated on this in any way and many charges have been laid.

I have been interested to note that a good friend of mine, Tim Danson, is the lawyer for Paul Magder, who has been charged Sunday after Sunday for opening his furrier shop on Sundays. The notoriety of this has probably brought him almost as much in business as he might have to pay in fines. It is that initiative that has led this matter to the Supreme Court and that is where these things should be settled. If the Supreme Court finds the law is somehow invalid, then this House will be asked to make some other decision.

Even if it is found to be valid, the views expressed by the official opposition in at least one aspect of its policy on an open Sunday and the views expressed by other parties indicate that the House should give it additional consideration. I am sure it will in the course of this discussion this afternoon and subsequent discussions.

The government has acted responsibly in this matter. We have not abdicated our duty. As an opposition party, we participated in the establishment of this law in 1976, as the members have told me and I now recall, and the law has recently been validated by the Supreme Court of Ontario. It is being tested in the Supreme Court of Canada and anyone who opens illegally on Sunday is being charged.

On the basis of government policy, it is not thought appropriate to proceed with those charges until the Supreme Court has handed down its decision. It is the policy of the government. We think it is reasonable. Any reasonable person, in our view, should support it. I cannot possibly imagine any thoughtful member of this Legislature criticizing us on that basis.

Mr. Dean: I want to remind the members of the Legislature that when the issue first came up about a year ago, though in a serious form more recently, our party established a task force to discuss extended hours for shopping. That task force had hearings over a large sector of Ontario, at some of which I was privileged to be present.

You will probably recall, Mr. Speaker, the task force discovered that there was little support in any part of Ontario for more wide-open Sundays and that objections to substantial changes to the present acts the Treasurer has referred to came from all parts of society.

I will quote a few of those to remind us we are not speaking in isolation; we are speaking with the support of people from various groups and from various parts of the province.

First, there are the church groups. One that we heard in Hamilton pointed out: "Our opportunities to shop are not seriously hampered by limiting it for one day a week. Provision of unrestricted shopping hours may meet the economic desires of some, but at the expense of the human needs of others. That is neither freedom nor justice. Freedom and justice require a legal framework which ensures opportunities for each person to be truly human, protecting the weak from the strong."

Lest somebody should say this is a Christian view that is also narrow in its own way, I will quote further from the same submission:

"Governments have a responsibility to protect the right of all people to worship. Since Sunday is the common noncommercial day for historical reasons, measures should be included in any legislation to allow those who worship on Saturday or Friday as much freedom to do so as possible."

We also heard objections from merchants. It is a common thought that merchants are the greedy ones, and perhaps some of them are, but there are others who are not. In the area near Hamilton and Burlington there is the Provincial Uniform Store Hours association, which also opposes this idea and says the purpose of the association is to foster and promote the adoption and maintenance of good store-hours bylaws.

In all parts of Ontario, thousands of retailers and their employees come under this act. They very much deplore the action of some retailers in flouting the law. They ask: "How do we expect to have our citizens, especially our young people, respect and adhere to it when businesses want to change the law by breaking the law?" There is a due process to change that and we know this place is part of it.

The Consumers' Association of Canada has gone on record as being opposed to the extension of shopping hours, if for no other reason than that it knows it would lead to higher costs in the long run because of having to spread greater costs over roughly the same amount of sales. This has also been confirmed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which has agreed that an estimate of the increase in price if there were a wide-open commercial Sunday would be from 0.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent if every store in a class were to open on Sunday.

The Treasurer has already mentioned Marks and Spencer as an organization that is not in favour of disobeying the law. We had a submission from them saying very firmly that they oppose it for the very simple, practical reason that they would not make any more money. The retail dollar is just spread over longer operating hours, increased energy costs, increased cost to the municipality and, eventually, increased cost to the consumer in higher prices and a decrease in the quality of in-store service. They cite this as their experience in comparing trading patterns across Canada. This was also supported by other, smaller retail organizations in Hamilton and thereabouts and by many individuals.

I will quote from one of them. Here the emphasis is similar to what other speakers have said:

"Sunday is an extremely important chance for families to spend time together. Children are out of school. Most working people have the day off. We should keep the family strong by maintaining the common pause day, for there are few opportunities for mother, father and the children to be together.

"Do not impose an additional hardship on the families least able to afford it, for as you know, a significant number of the retail store staff are married women. What are you prepared to do" -- in this case, they meant our task force as representing part of the Legislature - "to provide day care service, for most day care centres do not operate on Sunday?"

16:00

I will quote someone else who had something important to say about Sunday hours. That was Roy McMurtry, who may be remembered by some members in this chamber. In response to a letter a few years ago he said:

"The store closing law was enacted in 1975" -- we had advice earlier that it was in 1976, but somewhere in that period -- "for the principal purpose of preserving the quality of life in Ontario. It aimed to provide common days of rest on which retailing is cut to a minimum and leisure time and activities are encouraged. A number of exemptions are permitted to avoid hardship in communities to public retailers. The intent of the law is to maintain common days of rest for the labouring person."

We are advised that even in countries as diverse as Soviet Russia and Sweden, Sunday shopping is not permitted. We should make very sure we do not fall behind those countries in going to a less desirable social setup.

It is fitting to remind the Legislature again of the large expression of opinion that was registered here just two days ago with the filing of many petitions from people who thought it was not a good idea to have any further freedom of shopping on Sunday. It should be emphasized that the response to the People for Sunday campaign came from more than 1,000 communities with almost 98 per cent opposed.

Just as a matter of record, I would mention that in my own riding there were people from such communities as Binbrook, Fruitland, Stoney Creek, Vinemount, Winona and Hamilton. Those will not be everyday words to some members, but they are real, live places in my riding. In every instance, there were either no people who wanted an extension of shopping or far fewer than one per cent. The feeling is widespread in my riding and widespread all over Ontario.

We have already had a suggestion that there are so many exemptions to the law there are no real hardships for people who absolutely need something, as the Treasurer already quoted. Something that has not been mentioned as much as it should be is that there are law-abiding retailers who, if this kind of trend is permitted to increase, will suffer because they do not personally want to follow the course of the illegal operators. Some will feel compelled to open to meet the pressure of competition, even though it may be undesirable; others will probably say, "No, I do not believe in it," and they will suffer.

There are also instances where a tenant in a mall who may have objected to the mall staying open had threats made against him or injustice done to him later by the landlord. Sometimes the tenant was evicted; sometimes his rent was increased the next time the lease came around. That has to stop. The government must take steps to prohibit large landlords, especially owners of malls which may be operated by people far outside the community, from punishing the genuine local merchant who wants to do something contrary to mall policy. There has to be some remedy for the weakness that is leading to persecution by some large owners.

I know the majority of this House is in favour of upholding the law. The government is doing something about it and I hope it will not lose its will.

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to rise and speak on this issue because it is a matter about which I feel rather strongly. I suppose it might be thought that as consumer and commercial relations critic I am in support of store openings on Sundays because the majority of the public apparently is in favour of it. With all of us, what the public thinks is always a compelling argument in favour of how we should conduct ourselves and in favour of how we should vote.

The Toronto Star poll taken in May 1986 indicated that 33 per cent of the public was opposed and about 66 per cent was in favour of having stores open on a Sunday, although it is fair to point out that those who disagreed strongly were two and a half times as many as those who agreed somewhat. Nevertheless, the majority of the public is apparently in favour of the stores opening. That has to be a factor in our decision on these matters.

However, as has been said in this House, particularly earlier this week, our responsibility has to go further than interpreting what we think the public wants at all times. We have a responsibility, as legislators, to look at issues in depth, to think what the outcome of what we are going to do or not do will be years down the road and make a decision based on those factors as well as what the public may think at any current time.

This is not to be critical of the public's views on any issue. It cannot be expected to have the background and research information that is available to us. Therefore, if we are going to do a job properly, sometimes we have to make decisions that may be contrary to a substantial proportion of public opinion. I feel that way about this issue.

I have been puzzled about whose responsibility it is that we are at the point we are now on this issue. We have the law in this province that says rather clearly that stores may not stay open on Sundays if they are above a certain size. We have almost a flagrant breaking of that law.

I cannot condone those who are breaking the law, particularly those who started it, and I recognize the difficulties of those merchants if their competitors are open on Sundays. They are put at a distinct disadvantage if they remain closed. I do not think that is enough of a reason to open. However, somebody started this. Most of the store owners say they are opposed to it; nevertheless the majority of them are apparently proceeding with the open Sunday.

It is fair to say that the government is not faultless in what has taken place. Sure, there was a prosecution launched, then that was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we have waited ever since. However, governments could have taken some action in other ways, such as passing legislation requiring store owners pay time and a half or double time for Sunday or something of that nature that would have deterred them from continuing, as it has. This government and the previous Conservative government failed to act.

This started back in 1983. As a matter of fact, it started in Welland, with one of the new sort of supermarkets that decided it was going to stay open. That is the case that is before the appeal court. That was three and a half years ago. In that intervening time, the government could have taken action of one kind or another to have made sure it was extremely difficult for this situation we are faced with today to arise, where there is all this complete flouting of the laws of this province.

16:10

That if this is not stopped -- and maybe we will know in a few days or weeks whether it is going to be stopped by the present legislation -- I am concerned whether we will be able to change that legislation in this Legislature to prevent it if we find the legislation will not stand up in court. Certainly it is going to spread to other fields. If the supermarkets and department stores can stay open, why not car sales agencies as well? Why not real estate? Why not professional offices? All our commercial enterprises will eventually --

Mrs. Marland: Legal offices.

Mr. Swart: Legal offices, yes. I said professional offices. Members may not think lawyers are professional people, but I suppose we may have to concede that point; some people consider that they are.

All our commerce will be open. Sunday will be just like any other day. I agree with those speakers who have said there is some merit in maintaining a family day in our society. We all know that it is not perfect at present, that a lot of people have to work on Sunday and that many services need to be provided on Sunday. It is a trend of much of our industry now to work on Sunday.

I was in the paper industry. When I first went into the paper industry many years ago, it was true that the paper industry did not work on Sundays; but as the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and anybody else who lives in a paper town will know, there is not a paper company now that does not operate seven days a week, for economic reasons.

It still is true that the majority of people are off on the weekend. It is equally true, and all of us know this, that in at least 50 per cent of the families in our society now there are two wage earners. If we open on Sunday, it is just going to mean that many more families are not going to be able to be together on Sunday. I suggest that impact on our society is not beneficial.

I am also concerned -- and I say this as consumer critic -- that the end result of this economically will be that prices will be forced up. I do not think anyone can successfully argue against that. If we are going to open our commerce seven days a week, when it has been open six, it is going to cost more to operate. The total sales are not going to increase enough to cover those additional costs, which are going to have to be passed on to the consumers of this province. I suggest it will be a factor in the prices we will have to pay.

I am concerned about the people who are going to be forced to work on Sundays. After question period today, there is nobody in this Legislature who does not know that what the Attorney General said yesterday was a lot of nonsense. All kinds of people who are going to be required to work on Sunday do not want to work on Sunday. The law may say a person does not have to work on Sundays -- the law does not even say that; they may make a law to say that -- but anybody who has been in an employee-employer relationship, especially where there is not a union, knows the kind of subtle pressures that can be brought to bear to cause people in a work place to do what they otherwise would not do. We are in an impossible situation at present. Clearly it has to be rectified.

Finally, I suggest that either the Attorney General or the Premier should be getting up in this House and saying that if these stores which say they are going to stay open on the next two Sundays or until the rulings come down from the Supreme Court are in fact going to open, the government is going to make retroactive legislation to penalize them, so they will know they are going to be penalized.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to advise the House that we just called the Attorney General's hotline again. They are no longer referring people to Cowling and Henderson.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member may have a point of information or something; it is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, because this is a matter of great concern. There are those in our society who have made or at least have suggested they will make a conscious decision to flout the law of Ontario relating to retail sales and the hours and days on which one can stay open. This is a matter of significance.

As the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has stated, we have seen a number of instances where people have decided it will be profitable to challenge the law. It is before the Supreme Court of Canada at present to determine whether the law is constitutional and appropriate. We expect the decision will be rendered by the Supreme Court in a short time.

This issue became particularly important when the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party indicated he wanted to see an open Sunday. I recall a news release put out by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, on January 8, 1986. It was issued by the Progressive Conservative Party. It says the following and is in quotation marks in the press release itself:

"`The Progressive Conservatives -- unlike the Solicitor General -- start from the premise that the law should be dramatically broadened,' Grossman said. `The government prefers to await the decision of the Supreme Court before acting. We choose to get the public input and study done now.

"`The government is willing only to "review" the legislation with no commitment to broaden it. The Progressive Conservatives are prepared to stand up and be counted, to say we must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand. What the task force will do is establish how the law should be changed.'"

This is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who waxes eloquently in the House and who expresses concern now about Sunday shopping, wanting to be on both sides of the issue.

Mr. Mancini: That is the Progressive Conservatives.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is the leader. Maybe the party has changed its stand, or maybe there will be a free vote and they can vote whichever way they want on this issue.

On January 9, 1986, on Radio Noon, David Schatzky was interviewing the Leader of the Opposition. One of the things the leader said was, "If the law is not changed, thousands of unemployed will be denied the opportunity of part-time work." He also said: "There is a need for the government to keep pace with what is happening out there. The law is too tight. Just look at the people out shopping on Sunday."

Mr. Warner: That was Phil.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said that.

Later, when a caller phoned in, he suggested that on one Sunday in four or six the worker could work in rotation, presumably whether or not he wanted to work, although it does not say that.

On Thursday, February 6, the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) appeared on Metro Morning. He said the following: "I must admit we, reading the public view, feel there is a real necessity for some change, probably towards the broadening of the current laws." This is the member who spoke earlier in the House. Perhaps he has changed his view; perhaps not. I am not quite certain.

There was the story by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun on April 18, 1986, where the Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying, "Our party does support a significant broadening of Sunday shopping -- not just an expansion of designated tourist areas, but a significant change to open up Sundays."

This is the same party leader who had his members participate in a charade. They brought over all these boxes and put on a big show as though they were opposed to Sunday shopping. With all these statements that are on the public record, when the issue looks as though it is blowing the other way, the Progressive Conservative Party has either changed its mind or some of them feel one way and some feel another way.

16:20

I do not know what the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is, except as stated by the leader of the official opposition and to a certain extent by the member for Oakville, who was speaking on behalf of the party. It seems to me we have a party that is trying to be on both sides of the issue. Is it? Is the party in favour of Sunday shopping for all the reasons the Leader of the Opposition says -- and he obviously said that in good conscience at the time -- or is it opposed, as it would like to let the public think, through the member's statements today and the questions in the House? I do not know what it is, but I always thought the leader spoke for the party. In this case, I notice the party is on record as being in favour of broadening Sunday shopping and of having almost a wide-open Sunday. Therefore, we know the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on this issue.

However, let us look at the situation that has arisen. I join all members of the House who have indicated there would be a need for the enforcing of the laws as the former Solicitor General and the Attorney General have suggested there would be a need for. The Attorney General was very adamant. He indicated clearly that he expected the law to be adhered to. The Premier said the same thing. This government has resolved that it will charge any and all who have violated the Sunday shopping law that currently exists.

I strongly support the position that states we should be prosecuting those who are violating that law. Nevertheless, it was disconcerting -- and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) will agree with me -- when some of the major corporate retail leaders in this province indicated they were going to break the law. I am pleased now, as the government House leader has indicated, that they have changed their minds, in some cases because the Attorney General stated openly that he wished them to do so and that they were breaking the law.

That is as it should be. The government House leader, the member for St. George and other territories in that part of the province, has indicated it is unlikely we will see an expansion of retail activity through Sunday shopping but what we will see in effect is a distribution of it over seven days instead of six days. There are still strong proponents of it out there, particularly those in remote tourist areas, but I think the general consensus is that if people think it is going to create a significant number of more jobs in this province, that is unlikely to happen.

Therefore, we will have a situation where people feel uneasy. The workers in this province who wish to have Sunday as a day of rest should not be forced to work on Sunday, and that is something this government has indicated very strongly to employers and to owners; that they should not be forcing those people to break the laws of the province and, in some cases, to break the laws they consider to be important in terms of their own moral and ethical activity.

This issue arose for some of us who served on municipal council and debated it. I well recall the president of the labour council in St. Catharines coming in at the same time as the president of the chamber of commerce, and for once they both seemed to be on the same wavelength. In fact, I remember asking Mr. Lambert at the time whether he was endorsing the position of the chamber of commerce. I was doing that in a little bit of fun on that occasion because it would have been historic. He preferred to characterize it as the chamber of commerce endorsing the position of the labour council. However, it shows the depth of feeling many people have on this issue, a depth of feeling reflected in the very strong statements of the Attorney General and the Premier.

I commend those who have now reconsidered --those corporate people in stores such as Marks and Spencer, the T. Eaton Co., Simpsons and the Bay --and announced they will not flout the law of this province and will stay closed. Others should follow that example. If the Leader of the Opposition, who would like us to have wide-open Sundays, had the opportunity to put his policy into effect, they would not be breaking the law. However, the Leader of the Opposition does not have the opportunity at this time to put his wide-open-Sunday policy into effect. Therefore, it seems to me that we as a province and as a government should be ensuring that the prosecution takes place at the appropriate time that the charges are laid and that we adhere to the Supreme Court ruling when it comes in on December 18, 1986, and make any modifications if they are necessary.

Mrs. Marland: As I rise to speak in this emergency debate, I must say at the outset that it is unfortunate we have to have it, and the reason we have to have it is very clear: The government has decided not to do anything.

Speaking as a member of the task force, I must say right off the bat for the benefit of the Minister for the Environment -- the member for St. Catharines -- and for the benefit of the member of Essex South (Mr. Mancini), that if their statements on the policy, the wishes and the direction on this subject by the Progressive Conservative Party are so well informed, I would suggest, first, that they learn to read, and second, that when they have accomplished that, they read the task force report.

It is very interesting to hear the Minister of the Environment discuss press releases. It is very interesting to hear him read everything only in part, because I too have press releases. In fact, I have a quotation here from the Toronto Star of January 7, where the Premier is quoted:

"Ontario's Sunday store-closing law is `very close to being unenforceable' and is out of line with changing public opinion, Liberal Premier David Peterson says.

"`I think it is time to reassess the situation,' Peterson told reporters outside the Legislature."

The Premier said that in January 1986. How long ago is January 1986? What has the Premier done to reassess the situation?

"The Premier's comments came after Solicitor General Ken Keyes announced in the Legislature that an all-party committee would hold public hearings to study possible changes to the Ontario law."

Is it not interesting that the Solicitor General made the announcement that an all-party committee would study this subject? However, 11 months later, we have had no committee established to study this subject. I know the answer is, "We have to wait until we have the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada." Is that not great? We are going to be reactive. If only we had a government that was sincerely interested in this subject and was willing to be active and responsible.

It was quite interesting to hear the Treasurer (M. Nixon) say a few minutes ago that he did not think the government had handled the subject badly. Of course, that is a perfectly true statement. It is absolutely true that it has not handled the subject badly, because the truth of the matter is that it has not handled the subject at all. Because it has not been handled at all, we are into this very serious situation whereby our party has decided the urgency warranted this emergency debate. There are a large number of other very important subjects this House should be debating this afternoon and legislation we should be dealing with, but we are pressed into this emergency debate because this government has chosen not to do anything about a very serious problem.

Obviously, it depends purely on one's point of view how this matter should be handled. I suggest that on this subject, the vision of the government is myopic, at best. I also suggest that the announcement I referred to that the former Solicitor General made, saying the government would establish an all-party committee to deal with Sunday shopping, is a very interesting announcement, since it came after this party announced we would have a task force.

I also quote from a December Sunday Sun:

"The Premier said the act needs a major re-examination and broadly hinted he favoured more open Sunday closing laws. Peterson said the present law is in danger of being unenforceable and he believes the `will of the people' should prevail.

"Keyes announced Monday the government would conduct a full public review of the Retail Business Holidays Act once its constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. That ruling is expected some time this summer."

If this were a responsible government concerned on both sides of this issue, when the decision of the Supreme Court did not come down this summer, and knowing that into the Christmas season there would be this kind of pressure with which we are currently faced, would members not have thought this government would take some action?

16:30

What would be wrong for the brains of the Liberal government to start to move a little, to start to stir a little and perhaps to go around and find out what the public wants? If they found out that the opinion of the public was the same as the opinion that the Progressive Conservative task force found travelling around this province -- all in all we went to about 14 centres. Our PC task force purposely went to the small centres, the border towns that had competition from the United States, the tourist areas and the densely urban areas, and we heard the same message around this province.

The fact that this opposition party has done its homework says a great deal for its responsibility to the people of this province. The fact is that the Liberal government has done nothing to find out the opinions of the people of this province, the people in retail business, the people who work in retail business and the opinions of the people who benefit from those stores being open or closed. The Liberal government has no idea. They are going to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court and then they are going to go out and do their homework. That is very interesting, because they may well find that the Supreme Court decision will put them in a position where they will be scrambling suddenly to find out the opinion of the public.

It is unfortunate that the member for Essex South has left the chamber, because he will be no more knowledgeable than he was when he came in earlier this afternoon. It is unfortunate that he has left. If the member for St. Catharines had read this report, he would not be standing there this afternoon saying the Progressive Conservative task force was in favour of wide-open Sundays. He would not be sitting there saying that is what our party is in favour of, because if he had read this report he would know what our position is.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is not what your leader said. Does your leader speak for the party or not?

Mrs. Marland: I acknowledge the fact that our leader made a statement. It is perfectly true that our leader made a statement, but I ask the member for St. Catharines to be honest. If he were honest, he would say that our leader made a statement. He does not give our leader any credit for also showing his great wisdom by setting up a task force that travelled this province.

Certainly the leader has an opinion. Does every member in this Legislature not have an opinion on everything? The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that in the Progressive Conservative Party we have our own opinions but we are willing to go out and listen to the public, the people who live and do business in Ontario.

When saying he had an opinion on Sunday shopping, our leader also said: "I will establish a task force. We will go out and ask the public what its wishes are." The result of that task force is in this report. I hope the member for St. Catharines is listening to this first sentence. I emphasize that the main recommendation in this report is, "The general principle of a common pause day should be maintained." Had he read this, there would be no doubt for him that the Progressive Conservative Party supports the maintenance of Sunday.

We also support permitting stores to be open on Boxing Day. We also happen to say that the act should be amended "to...significantly strengthen enforcement of the law by providing penalties that eliminate the financial incentive to open on Sundays and holidays. In this regard the government should consider fines equal to the amount of gross revenues earned by the violator on the day the offence occurred, in addition to the penalties currently in the statute."

Before I close, I want publicly to commend Sears and Eaton's in our province because neither company ever considered being open on Sunday. I commend them for that and our party totally supports that point of view.

Mr. Mackenzie: I commend the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) for her position, if it holds, on the Sunday shopping issue. I recall the Conservatives being rather split from their leader on two important issues in recent days. I can also recall a group of Portuguese women who were appalled. They thought they had a firm commitment from the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) that his caucus was going to support them on successor rights, but that did not happen. There is a slight credibility gap on some of these issues.

One of the issues is who gains if we move, as we seem to be moving, to wide-open Sundays in Ontario. I do not think it would be the people. I am not sure, in terms of the perception of people and what people want, whether a majority of people in Ontario have come to the conclusion that they want wide-open Sunday shopping. It is not my perception as yet, although I have seen the Toronto Star poll which said that 66 per cent do. On the other hand, I have seen the anti-Sunday-shopping people's poll which says that 90 some per cent are opposed.

I do not think we can rule by polls, but I happen to live in a three-shift town in the working-class riding of Hamilton East. We did have a return of 1,076, actually more than that, but the figures were based on 1,076 responses to a questionnaire. Among other things, it asked, "Do you think there is a need for more open Sunday shopping?" It was not professional, and maybe it should have been worded a little differently, but I thought it was fairly straightforward. In the result, 40 per cent said yes, 57 per cent said no and three per cent had no opinion.

To be very honest, that probably would not decide my vote because polls have not been uniform at all. All I know is that it is a working-class riding and working-class people would have responded to that questionnaire. It did not indicate the overwhelming public support for Sunday shopping that some people seem to assume.

The real issues we should be taking a look at in this debate are what can we gain and who will get hurt, and they are worth a few comments. I could not help, in going through my clippings file, pulling out a note that was dated February in one of the Toronto papers. The woman who signed it is actually from Mississauga. She sent the following letter to the paper:

"I am a sales clerk who wishes to respond to those inconsiderate people who say that stores should be open to them on Sundays and holidays. These people have no feelings for the sales personnel who have no union to bargain for a few days off at Christmas time. Most of us had to work from 9:30 a.m. until 10:30 p.m. for weeks before Christmas. On Christmas Day, we were so tired out it was hard for us to get into the spirit of things. We looked for Boxing Day to rest up in preparation for the long, after-Christmas sales hours.

"If the public wants stores to open on Sundays and holidays, let's make it the same for everyone and have all stores, banks, post offices and plants work on those days and, oh yes, make the government work as well. If this was to happen, the country would come to a standstill with strikes by the same people who are saying stores should open for them on Sundays and holidays."

There is a real element of truth and perception in the comments made by that woman.

It is worth taking a look at some of the other organizations. I know some parties in this House do not always give a them a lot of credibility. As a matter of fact, it is very obvious. I keep hoping it is not an anti-labour bias. Forgive me if I sometimes wonder. In view of the current debate going on, there was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail of December 3 that quotes organized labour. It says:

"Sunday retail openings are `like a snowball coming down a hill and we ought to stop them,' the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour says. Consumers who plan to take advantage of Sunday shopping should reflect on the fact that they could find themselves working Sunday, Gordon Wilson said in an interview yesterday.

"`People who are consumers tend to think of Sunday shopping as a convenience. But those same people, if they work, for instance, in financial institutions, might soon find themselves in the same boat.'

16:40

"The labour movement has long opposed Sunday retail openings. The `pause' and opportunity for family gatherings that Sunday affords should be preserved, former OFL president Cliff Pilkey said.

"A distinction must be drawn between work, such as retail sales, that does not need to be done on Sunday, and services such as transportation, law enforcement and health care, he said. US studies have shown that when retail outlets extend their hours, they don't sell more, he said, and prices increase because of extra operating costs."

He goes on from there, but I think the point is well made. We have to look at what happens and who bears the brunt of the Sunday opening.

The greed factor and who gains are obvious. It is not the store employees or even the managers of some small operations. The workers tend to lose on it. There may be extra convenience, and I do not think any of us can argue that. It may be one of the things we have to do a little work on to get a better understanding out in the community. Simply, if we are going to go this route, we have to point out there are rights being taken away from people and there is protection that people in this province need. That has to be part of any serious debate on this.

If we take a look at the figures, I think we will find that it averages out, other than maybe an initial flurry of increased sales. As I believe I heard the Treasurer say, there are only so many dollars to be spent, and it does mean longer hours. It does mean changes in operation. It could mean more part-time and fewer full-time employees, and that in itself raises some serious questions. There is also no question that women would be hit harder than men in the retail field. They form a majority. There are a large number of them, and a large number of them are also married women. To many of them, the Sunday hours at home are vitally important.

There are a number of questions we have to take a serious look at in this issue. I do not think any of us should be stampeded on this issue any more than on any other by the polls. We should be directed by what is good for most of the people, and there we are going to be weighing off extra convenience against the loss, more and more, of that principle of one day of rest, which has been important to us for a long time, and the kinds of rights individual employees -- all the way up to the level of store managers -- are going to lose as a result of any changes in the procedures.

It is important, and the importance of this debate is that there has been a run on the credibility of law and of government. It is not just the government in power, because some of this started over the past three or four years with the previous government as well, but there has been a loss of respect for the law because of the obvious flouting of it, and that has been growing in recent weeks. That is something we have to decide. If we are going to change the law, then let us change the law, but let us not change it by ignoring it and making a mockery of justice in Ontario. That is important.

Mr. Ward: I want to add a few brief comments to this debate. It is a matter of great urgency. It distresses me, as I look across the way, that 46 of the 51 seats of the official opposition are empty. That is fairly indicative of the --

Mr. J. M. Johnson: For heaven's sake, the member should look at his own people. His party is the government.

Mr. Ward: Again, I point out that the regular business of this House has been set aside for an emergency debate proposed by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who does not happen to be in the House, but I recognize the urgency with which that party views this matter.

I was particularly interested in the comments from the member for Oakville, who took time out from his busy law practice to be here today. He added a lot to the debate in his input.

This is not a new situation for us in this Legislature. The existing legislation has been in place for some time. It was a product of another minority parliament and had the input of many of the members who are present today. I was interested in some of the comments that were made in question period and some of the demands and suggestions that have come forward from the official opposition. I have wondered to myself, "Where is this crisis, what has changed and what has precipitated it?"

It has not been for that long a time that we have had these awesome responsibilities to deal with these issues. Therefore, I thought it would be prudent to look back over the course of the past few years and see how others have handled this situation in similar circumstances. Going back to December 1983, when the current official opposition had the responsibility of administering this act, it is interesting to note the activities of the Solicitor General at that time. He seemed quite content with the legislation as it was and quite often fell back on the excuse that the matter was in the Court of Appeal at the time and therefore no changes were necessary or contemplated.

I noted with interest the questions and the demands of the official opposition that the government could be more aggressive in pursuing legal action against those who violate the law, so I looked back to the activities of the then Solicitor General on May 24, 1984, at which time he responded: "I have given nobody instructions. I do not think the crown attorneys or the prosecuting people have given any instructions."

I look at his comments over the course of that debate in 1984, when again there were a number of violations of the existing legislation, and the countless times he would stand up in the House and defend his legislation and belittle the cry for the needed changes that were perceived by some people at that time.

If I could get back to the current situation and this whole issue of where the crisis is, it was supposedly precipitated by public statements on the part of major corporations that they intended to open their premises over the course of the next few weeks on Sundays. Principally, those corporations are Marks and Spencer and the Robert Simpson Co. I remind the members of the Legislature that this government did respond to that situation and clearly indicated to those corporations and to the public in this province that we would not tolerate that sort of violation of the law, that blithe disregard for the legislation that is currently in place.

Earlier today, all of those corporations indicated that, since the Supreme Court of Canada would be rendering its decision on December 18, they would not proceed with Sunday openings. I sincerely ask the members of the Progressive Conservative Party -- I see that only 48 of the 51 of them are absent right now -- to indicate where this crisis is, because the situation is no different today from what it was a week ago, quite frankly.

I was delighted to hear the member for Mississauga South indicate that her party does have a position -- and perhaps that is what precipitated the debate: at least today they have a position on it. That is not to say it is the same as yesterday's position and that is not to say it will be the same as tomorrow's position; but at least for today they do have a position -- as a caucus, I take it, because as it stands right now we still do not know where their leader stands. We do have his press release of January 1986, in which he says: "We must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand. What the task force will do is establish how the law should be changed."

I guess it comes as no surprise to a great many people that in the course of their public participation process the public of Ontario repudiated the leader of the opposition party in this province. There is nothing new in that, either. However, it remains to be seen just what position the leadership takes in relation to its caucus, because we have had many examples of how those two positions are seldom consistent any more. I do not want to be too critical of the Leader of the Opposition, because there are many people on this side of the House who believe he is a tremendous asset.

The government has shown leadership in dealing with this issue. It made a clear and strong statement that has obviously been heeded by the major participants who were proposing to remain open on Sunday and, quite frankly, I do not believe there is any crisis in relation to this issue today. There may have been concern a week or so ago, but that has rapidly dissipated. The Attorney General has clearly stated that the law would be upheld. We have a clear commitment on the part of those major corporations that, indeed, they intend to abide by the laws of this province and not proceed with their plans, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

16:50

I for one believe there should be a day of rest. There are many reasons for that argument. I was involved in this debate many times municipally in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. I have had a great deal of difficulty finding out where the advocates are for increased shopping hours because, quite frankly, there is no more money to be gained by anybody. The ultimate impact of increased hours will be higher prices. There is no more disposable wealth to offset being open an additional day in a retail operation.

I believe there have to be restrictions on the operation of retail business hours in this province, not only for the benefit of the workers but for the benefit of the retailers as well.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) said I had mentioned a policy of the party today. It is actually since April 1986.

The Deputy Speaker: No. That is not a point of order.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to start by saying that I welcome the opportunity to speak today in total support of this resolution. It is an emergency, even if the member for Wentworth North does not consider that it is. I would like to point out to him that if his government would accept the responsibility of dealing with the present and the future, instead of dwelling in the past, he would serve this province much better.

I suggest that the resignation of three ministers in one session must be a record for any government, except perhaps that of Uganda.

I speak in support of the concept that there should not be an open Sunday, because of my 30 years' experience in the retail business. I feel qualified to speak because of spending that number of years in business and because I have the honour to represent a large urban and rural riding composed of 21 municipalities with hundreds of small business outlets.

The vast majority of the people who do business in my part of the province do not want to stay open Sundays. They want to spend their time with their families. Many of them are family-owned operations, and if they were compelled to stay open, it would mean they would have to work in the stores themselves because they could not afford the luxury of hiring someone else to do their work.

The profit is just not there for the small stores to allow this to happen. The retail merchants are not the ones who have triggered this problem. The problem goes to the very large corporations that are dictating to the small retailers what hours they have to operate. The unfortunate fact is that if a large store stays open, a small retailer has no alternative but to stay open in competition.

There is one important exception I would agree with, and that is stores in communities that depend heavily on the tourist trade; they need the opportunity to have Sunday openings. In my riding, for example, there are three communities, Elora, Fergus and Alton, where the merchants depend on the Sunday trade to stay in existence; in fact, they have built their businesses around Sunday shopping.

I had the opportunity to operate a small business in Sauble Beach for several years. In Sauble Beach, you have to operate your store for seven days a week, as the season is so short and people expect the stores to be open at that time. It played havoc with my family. It was such a social cost that we eventually sold the store. It was more than the family could bear in terms of the social implications. We had no family life. To open from Monday to the following Sunday, from nine in the morning until 11 at night, was just a little too much.

I had an opportunity this morning to talk to John Gillespie, the president of the Ontario branch of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada. That association has 4,000 members. I served as a director of the association for several years. I talked to Mr. Gillespie and asked for his opinion on the wide-open Sunday shopping issue. He mentioned that a poll of his organization would likely split about 50-50, but he also mentioned that many of the large merchants would prefer the Sunday opening while many of the small, family-operated enterprises would not. He gave me some of the reasons that he and many of the members of his association were not supportive. I would like to highlight a couple of them.

In the first instance, he mentions that the members of his association are happy and satisfied with the existing Retail Business Holidays Act as it was drafted by the previous government. I understand they are even in agreement with the unions on this issue. In that association, that is something. They were emphatic that the law must be enforced. They felt that if the lawbreakers were fined in amounts equivalent to the offence and if enough of a penalty were levied, this problem would cease to exist. In other words, they like the law as it is, but for heaven's sake, the government should have the intestinal fortitude to enforce the law.

He went on to emphasize that many of the merchants do not have the option of not opening on Sundays if their competitors stay open on Sundays. If one stays open, the other one has to do so as well.

Mr. Gillespie advised me that a study conducted in California on Sunday openings indicated that while at first sales increased, that lasted for only a short time. In fact, common sense dictates that there are only so many dollars to be spent by consumers. If they spend those dollars on Sunday, they are not going to spend them on Monday or Saturday. It is simply a matter of spreading the same amount of business over seven days instead of six.

As far as benefits to consumers are concerned, the truth is it will cost consumers more, not less. They will pay for the Sunday shopping. It is only reasonable that a store that has to remain open seven days a week will have many extra costs such as heating, lighting, cleaning and, most important, labour. The most important issues we are dealing with today are the employees and the small store owners; they are usually family members who would be forced to work Sundays and lose the traditional day to spend with their children.

This detrimental social impact on our families is much more important than the convenience it offers to the people who would like to shop on Sundays. I would like to ask whether these shoppers would like to work on Sundays. I think not. This important debate must emphasize, and I think it does, that we as members of the Legislature are in support of protecting the rights of retail store employees to refuse to work on Sundays and not be subject to dismissal if they refuse. Regardless of the fact that they may not be fired, they would be under intense pressure to obey instructions or to pay the price in promotions or in some other way.

I do not think we need wide-open Sundays, and I hope this government will accept at least some of the very positive recommendations of the Report of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Task Force on Extended Shopping Hours, which was presented on April 18, 1986.

17:00

Mr. Allen: I rise to participate in this emergency debate this afternoon, having observed to my right, in these past few moments, the salutary effects of either the Christmas season or perhaps of this debate on so significant an issue as the status of the Sabbath, of Sunday, of such holidays, and the gratifying and peaceable influence that can have, when the Tory member for Brantford can stand beside the New Democratic Party member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and help him with licking and stamping address labels on his mail. If this debate has accomplished nothing else, it has brought a significant degree of harmony into this chamber, which will help us all in days to come.

It strikes me that it is not particularly useful for us to engage in an exchange across the floor of the Legislature about which party has been consistent or inconsistent on this issue. It is true that the Tory leader did leap ahead of his party earlier this year, attempting to make some comments about the growing issue of Sunday openings in the retail trade. Perhaps he was tempted -- as was the leader of the Liberal Party tempted in the most recent election to leap ahead of his party on the question of the sale of beer and wine in corner stores -- to cut out some field and terrain among the yuppie vote and the fashionable in our community. In the one case, it was to drag the Liberal Party into an election. In the other, it was to cope with some of the distresses that arose for the Conservative Party in the wake of that election.

I do not want to say this party has a precise position, with every "t" crossed and every "i" dotted, with respect to the troubling question of what should be done when large mercantile enterprises attempt to supplant the law of the province with their will and economic interest. This party stands where it has always stood, where the parties that were its forebears stood and indeed where groups and interests this party has been associated with for a long time, and which we look upon as our inheritance, stood.

I want to go back to two issues. One deals with small merchants in the late 1800s, and the other deals with the origins of the legislation that has governed this issue during the course of the century. This is a piece by Michael Bliss entitled The Protective Impulse: An Approach to Social History in Oliver Mowat's Ontario. It begins:

"Small businessmen in the towns and cities of Oliver Mowat's Ontario were bedevilled by the problem of long working hours. An elementary fact of business life was that any merchant who stayed open while others closed gained a significant competitive advantage. Therefore, all Ontario merchants in the 1870s and the 1880s tended to stay open until there was no more business for anyone to do. Because of the...habit of evening shopping, this resulted in retail stores staying open until nine or 10 o'clock every night of the week, the Sabbath excepted. Few merchants, and fewer clerks, enjoyed this situation. To remedy it, to protect themselves from this debilitating effect of unrestrained competition, they turned to collective action."

What is happening in Ontario today, at the impulse of the great mercantile enterprises, the founders of our shopping malls, the Bays and so on, who initiated the country-wide move in this direction and tried to stampede the rest of the commercial and retail operations in the country in the same direction -- is precisely aimed at putting us back in exactly the same position we were in before, in an era in which various groups in our society sought collectively to seek relief from unrestrained competition. As a result of this, there eventually were store-closing movements, then municipal legislation and, finally, federal legislation.

I want to refer to the movement, the great alliance in the late 19th century and early 20th century, in which the labour movement and the churches of this province came together to win the Lord's Day Act in the first place, in 1907. A lot has been said about that legislation and its religious character. All I want to say about that is that there was a central impulse in all that; it was that people had to have time. They needed time to gather themselves together to understand who they were as individuals, as persons, as families and as communities. They needed to have that time together in some sense. While it is true that legislation fixed a day that happened to coincide with a certain religious tradition, that was in a sense beside the point.

Our legislation has since gone on to suggest that Saturdays and Sundays ought to be alternative times, depending upon the dominant religious outlooks in our community. Again, the important thing was to establish time and to understand what the time was for.

Regarding what is happening today under the impulse of the store-opening movement, whatever adjustments need to be made in the Retail Business Holidays Act -- and there are some -- we have to recall what the central purpose of it all is, and that is to give people time.

We know and can foresee what will happen as this kind of snowball gathers momentum and more and more operations become 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We know what is happening in the pattern of employment, with more and more people going into service trades, which have long and often-irregular hours, low pay and a lot of part-time work, and in the pattern of life, not only across the nation, because that could be rationalized in certain senses to accommodate time off for various people if it were done right, but also for families and for smaller communities.

It makes it exceedingly difficult for people to find those times together when they can recover their sense of who they are after the pressures of a week of work, discover who they are as a family and maintain those kinds of intimate relationships that are so necessary.

The fundamental proposition of our party as we approach this kind of issue is to maximize the amount of time people can have together and to minimize the number of intrusions the competitive spirit of modern business would lay on us.

I was very interested to hear the observation of the member for Wentworth North, who asked himself, "Where are the people who seem to make up all these polls?" I suggest the polls on subjects like this are taken with individuals separate from each other. They are people who are not responding in the context of a discussion or a debate or an opportunity to think through an issue. The pollster makes his individual contacts and asks his individual questions. It is quite outside the context of debate and the context of a reasonable process of argument and suggestion.

Therefore, in one's attempts to discover in one's community what people think on issues, the polls often seem to evaporate, because the moment you begin asking and getting into a dialogue with people, other kinds of reasons and factors begin to play. One suddenly realizes that one is no longer a consumer wanting more hours but a working person who wants more time to himself; and perhaps the time to himself is not time in which his wife or other members of his family will drag him out shopping as a kind of surrogate recreation, which has rather limited benefits for one's spirit or sense of self-recovery, as any person who has wandered around any store after a shopping cart has to realize.

As we debate this issue in this chamber, I want to bring us back, and to try to call to the attention of the major enterprises that are pushing us in another direction, to what the central value is that we are trying to rescue and maintain in this Legislature.

In that respect, I was very pleased to hear the Attorney General was at least speaking tough. It is true, and I agree, he did not perhaps have all the legislative base he would have liked to have had or we would have liked him to have to deal with the risk that some people are at, but it is important for us to be speaking our minds at this time, and I am happy to be part of this debate in that respect.

17:10

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to take part in this debate, in which a number of members have taken part. I am only sorry that because of my responsibilities in a committee, I was not able to listen to all the speeches. Nevertheless, I have a few thoughts I would like to express and get on the record.

This is not a new issue. It is not the first time people are, in a sense, taking the law into their own hands and doing what they want to do, irrespective of what the law says. It is not an issue that will be resolved when the Supreme Court brings down its decision on December 18. That decision may raise more questions than it answers and, as a result, we may have to deal with this whole, broad issue in other ways. We may have to have a committee look into it or we may have to have other ways of resolving it. Nevertheless, I do not believe that on December 18 this issue will be resolved.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the members of the third party and their visitors please keep their conversations quieter.

Mrs. Marland: The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) was not identified.

Mr. Warner: He belongs here.

Mr. Epp: Like other members of this Legislature, I have received a number of letters and telephone calls. As far as responses, letters and telephone calls are concerned, this is one of the two or three major issues facing our constituents. In my constituency of Waterloo North, the number of people calling and writing in support of keeping the laws the way they are and enforcing them is far in excess of any one or two I may have received in opposition to the present law or the broadening the legislation.

By far, the people want to keep the law the way it is. They want the legislation enforced, they want an expansion of the fines, if necessary, beyond the present $10,000 and they want fines repeatedly applied to individuals, corporations or businesses that are violating the law.

I was interested in some of the speeches other members have made, especially leaders of the parties. I was interested to read that on January 8 of this year, the Leader of the Opposition said: "The Progressive Conservatives -- unlike the Solicitor General -- start from the premise that the laws should be dramatically broadened."

He goes on to say in the same press release: "The government is willing only to `review' the legislation, with no commitment to broaden it. The Progressive Conservatives are prepared to stand up and be counted, to say we must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand. What the task force will do is establish how the laws should be changed."

Then he goes on to say: "Our party does support a significant broadening of Sunday shopping -- not just an expansion of designated tourist areas, but a significant change to open up Sundays."

He may be speaking for himself and he may be speaking for his party, but he is certainly not speaking for the people of Waterloo North, because they, by far, have indicated they are opposed to the broadening of the present laws. They are opposed to opening up everything, so to speak. What they really want is the present law and they want it enforced. That is the view I am supporting today.

There are those people who suggest they need Sunday openings to expand their business. I do not know how they do this. I do not know how you create more money by being open seven days than by being open six days. You may employ more people, but that may cut down on the profit you make.

I do not have any more money to spend over a seven-day period than I have over a six-day period or a five-day period. In my view, to suggest that, all of a sudden, people are going to have more money to spend over seven days than they do over six days is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

It may be the case in some tourist areas, for instance, in northern Ontario or some place, where people can cater to some individuals in that area over a seven-day period -- they will not be able to sell them things over a six-day period and so they cannot cater to the same market -- but that is an isolated incident and not one that has a broad application to the eight million or nine million people of this province.

I am particularly concerned about the outlets and businesses that have taken the law in their own hands and have opened up on Sundays. I know in my own municipality a few months ago Robinson's was open every Sunday. I for one have not frequented that store since that time, although I did a number of times previously. I do not intend to frequent it, if it intends to violate the law as blatantly as it has. That store, since it obtained new management, new ownership or whatever it was in Ontario, has stopped opening on Sundays and in a sense now respects the law.

I also applaud those businesses such as Simpsons and some of the others, which, after they had the strong hand of the Attorney General not to open on Sundays, have decided not to open on Sundays until the ruling of the Supreme Court comes down. I hope when the Supreme Court makes its ruling, if it says the law is unconstitutional, they wait until the law is changed rather than continue to take the law in their own hands as some businesses have done.

I find the people who are primarily in support of opening on Sundays are the people who will not be working on Sundays. I doubt very much that the executives of some of the large corporations that want to open on Sundays are going to be at the stores on Sunday. I doubt very much that they are going to be there seven days a week or that they are going to be taking off Wednesday and coming in every Sunday to work in their posh offices. I do not think that is going to be the case. They want the employees to work, but they will not work themselves. I bet dollars to doughnuts that is going to be the case. I know some teacher friends of mine are in support of opening on Sundays, but I have never heard them suggest that school should be open on Sunday so that they can teach. Yet they want other people to work on Sundays.

We have the necessary ingredients to have services available to the public. The service stations are open. In my own municipality they are open on a rotational basis. Not every service station is open on Sunday, because the service stations themselves asked for a bylaw that would rotate the number of stations that would open on Sunday. If we are looking for gasoline on Sunday on a necessary basis, we can find a station. It is advertised in the daily newspaper on Saturday and one can find the stations that are open on Sundays.

The restaurants are open. The Mini Marts, the Beckers, the corner stores and so forth are open on Sundays, so if we want a loaf of bread or a quart of milk, we can get it. I do not see the need for furniture stores or for large department stores or any of the others to be open on Sunday.

In speaking to this emergency debate, I reiterate my position and that of my party. The various businesses across the province should respect the law. They know what the law is and they should be fined severely, once we have the opportunity of doing that, to the fullest extent on a continual basis. If they want to be open on Sunday, they should go through the democratic process of getting the law changed, if the Legislature of this province deems it fit to do so. Otherwise, they should respect the law as most law-abiding citizens in this province do.

17:20

Mr. Ashe: This is probably one of the relatively few occasions on which we have had an emergency debate in this chamber and all three parties have been talking along the same direction, which leads to the question of why we needed an emergency debate at all, if everybody is thinking the same way. Frankly, although the government members have had a tendency to wash their hands and be lily-white and pure on this issue, it is because of the inconsistent actions -- "nonactions" is probably the better word -- of the minister of everything over there, the Attorney General, that we are in the predicament we are in today.

I think we can all agree that during the past few years, and particularly the past year or two, some businesses have been very flagrant in their disregard of the current law. We are all aware of them. They have been advertised in many ways, in news forums and other forums, quite regularly, and regular prosecution -- at least the laying of charges -- has taken place. Lo and behold, the issue has become a great issue, a big issue, a compounding issue, in the past few months, only because of the inconsistency of the minister sitting over there, the minister of everything, the Attorney General, the minister responsible for women's issues and now the acting Solicitor General. What else'? There are a few other things; anyway, it is not relevant.

One might say, "Why is that so?" He is going to say, "I do not tell the police what to do." We know that is not so. As the chief law officer of the crown, he gives very selective direction when advice is asked. He is very clear to make that distinction when they ask advice but he is not very clear on why he does not give distinctive and consistent advice when he is asked.

We have many examples of that. I am quite sure that is why, in the past while, particularly in the past month or two, more particularly again in the past few weeks, we have had a much more flagrant disregard of the law. There is no doubt, if one looks back, that the minister ho-hummed, "We will get some determination eventually from the Supreme Court and then we will have a look at it again. In the meantime, we do not agree with it but we are looking at it with kind of a closed eye," etc. When the police forces in this province get that kind of leadership -- and I say that in a very facetious way -- they do not know what to do. That is why we have a problem.

Where is the other inconsistency? I am sure police forces have been saying, "We are really going to get tough this Sunday." I do not mean this Sunday in the context of the one coming up, but last Sunday, the Sunday before and the Sunday before. Then they look at another inconsistency of the chief law officer of the crown, called the Morgentaler clinic, which again he has rationalized in many ways, albeit back about April 1985 I heard his leader say -- I doubt that the minister did, because he of course has changed quite often on this position, but many in his party, and his leader for sure said it -- "As soon as we become the government, we are going to close that place and any others that open." It is funny. It is still operating, even though the government has been in power now for quite a long time, about a year and a half, give or take a few days.

Where is the inconsistency? Again, a police force recently decided that it could not take wishy-washy stuff any more. It said: "The appeal court turned down the previous acquittal decision. We are going to lay some more charges." Lo and behold, they did that. What does the chief law officer of the crown do? He decides to take the prerogative of staying the prosecution of those charges.

Therein lies our problem. Some will say, "That is not relevant." Sure it is. When one is the chief law officer of the crown, one gives messages out there, directly or indirectly, by one's actions and inactions and by one's consistencies or, in this case, one's inconsistencies. That is exactly what has happened.

That is why we have a problem today. I am glad to see we have another member across there, because I would like to put on the record again --perhaps he went out after he gave his few remarks earlier, as did the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), who came in and gave us 10 minutes and took off again. It is too bad, because some others --and these members may have missed it -- pointed out that at about the same time, January 1986, as our leader was putting out his views that there should -- I grant he said that in his view the marketplace is saying we should have a more wide-open Sunday. Within a matter of weeks from that --and the actual quotes were given -- the Premier was saying, virtually verbatim, the exact same words. I did not hear any reference to that over there.

In this party, once our leader thought that was the current marketplace, he said, "I am going to have a task force go out and ask the people of Ontario what they think." He also said: "We will hear what they say. I think they are going to say they want a more wide-open Sunday, but we want to hear how to do it."

When we went out and talked to and heard from the people of Ontario, we came back and put forth a caucus position that was substantiated by the report made by that committee. We are supporting the upholding of the law and we are against the wide-open Sundays that some of the members opposite obviously want, although they have not stood up today.

Regardless of the timing on this issue, and I appreciate that some have tried to have it all ways, we have a position in this party and we have had it since the task force report was endorsed by this caucus. That was many months ago, in April 1986. I have not heard anything consistent from the government party at all. Only the Premier spoke out in support of wide-open Sundays in February 1986.

It was only this week, when the pressure started to get to the Attorney General and he got his back up because two majors in Toronto said they were going to open, that once again he started rattling the chains, but if he had rattled the chains consistently earlier this year, we would not have the problem. In trying to be all things to all people, he also suggested that everybody is going to be protected. He says: "Nobody will be harmed. We will make sure of that." Yet we also hear from his own hotline and from the Ministry of Labour that he has no such jurisdiction and he is just going off at the mouth, as usual.

What is happening is that, unfortunately, in many leases -- and this is a fact in many of the more modern leases in the traditional malls as we know them today -- it says that if the owner-operator decides to open for certain hours, it is obligatory that the constituent merchants in that mall also open. How can he say he will protect everybody? Time will tell.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is not necessary to have a seventh day. What about the two-income families where one of the two partners has to work Saturday, Sunday and three other days -- I will presume they are going to work only five -- and yet the other partner --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition says they could rotate.

Mr. Ashe: Will the Minister of the Environment shut up for once in his life? He sounds like a broken record over there. Why does he not get up into the same cesspool as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye)?

What is happening there, as we know, is that on five days a week, the other partner might be working Monday to Friday. They would never have an opportunity for any family life.

As has been pointed out by many others today, we have people who are going to spend in six days the same as they would in seven, and yet one would be attracting seven days of overhead. That ultimately has to go back on the consumer in higher prices. I do not think that is what the majority of people want.

We have found in the many petitions and letters we have had, and our task force from this party found, the large majority of the people of Ontario are satisfied that, with the long business hours contained in six days a week, the seventh day is not necessary.

Mr. Warner: By the statements that have been made by some of the major owners of the malls, we are on the verge of what can best be described as civil disobedience. That is what it is, pure and simple. The owners, and in particular Cadillac Fairview and Trilea Centres Inc. -- Trilea owns 10 malls, including the Scarborough Town Centre, which happens to be in my area -- have decided those 10 malls will be open.

17:30

This afternoon, while its members were participating in the debate, this government has indicated that the law should be obeyed, that the Sunday store closing should be honoured and so on. What disappoints me is that it has shown absolutely no leadership in indicating the specific protection the people of Ontario have who are threatened by this opening.

By contrast, members will recall that in 1981 we had a strike by the hospital workers, which was perfectly legal when it was called. The Progressive Conservative government of the day decided hospital workers should not be treated fairly and decently and declared the strike illegal. As a result of that declaration, two labour leaders went to jail for civil disobedience.

After the president of Trilea opens 10 malls in what can best be described as civil disobedience, I wonder whether he will go to jail. I wonder whether the president of Cadillac Fairview will go to jail for opening his malls in defiance of our laws. We know the answer. There are two sets of laws in Ontario. There always have been, and as long as there are Liberal or Tory governments, there always will be. There is one set of laws for the ordinary folk and a second set for the corporations. Under a Liberal government, we will not see the president of Trilea or the president of Cadillac Fairview going to jail for civil disobedience or for flagrantly violating our laws.

Let us talk about employees for a moment. What will happen on Sunday is that if malls open in contravention of the law, as we understand they are going to, Metropolitan Toronto Police have indicated they will lay charges against the stores and against the managers. Each manager has been told, "You must be there." This indicates that if the manager does not show up, he will likely be fired. If the manager does show up, he will be charged by the police. This government offers nothing by way of protection for that employee or anybody else who is caught in that catch 22 situation.

I want to speak about the background of this. I had the privilege of serving on the 1976 committee that drafted the Sunday store-closing laws. I said at the time, and I will repeat, that we make a mistake if we allow anything other than prescription drugs to be sold and gasoline stations and restaurants to be open. It is a recipe for chaos to allow anything else. I conceded quite reluctantly on the variety stores, and that was the line. But no, some folks had to have their way and had to throw in a few other things. They threw in this tourist designation. That was an open-door policy for areas such as Harbourfront, whose tourists all live in Toronto. It has been downhill ever since.

We have some of the most bizarre things you can think of. Nurseries are allowed to remain open but not pool supply places. What happens? The nurseries load up on pool supplies. They are open on Sundays and selling pool supplies, but the pool supply stores are closed. That really is bananas.

What disappoints me as well is that the government knows the Supreme Court has two choices, and in either case legislation will be required. If the Supreme Court decides the law is not constitutional, then the government needs to address the labour issue of whether people should be forced to work. If the Supreme Court decides the law is constitutional, obviously we need to make some changes to take away the absurdities, such as the one I mentioned about the pool supply places. This government has given absolutely no indication that it has addressed either of those problems so far. It is derelict in its duty.

People talk about polls. I have gone door to door in my riding and have the results from 1,405 households. These results are very interesting. Question 1 was: "Should the government allow stores to open on Sunday?" The answer was yes from 46.3 per cent and no from 53.7 per cent. One could fairly say it is about a 50-50 split, with slightly more in favour of not opening.

Question 2 was asked of an additional 348 people: "Should employees be given a choice as to whether they work on Sundays?" Yes was the answer of 99.3 per cent, and only 0.7 per cent said no. People obviously feel very strongly that if the stores are allowed to open, individuals should have the right to choose whether they work on Sunday. To date, no such protection exists in law, and again this government is silent on the question.

Personally, I think the idea of Sunday shopping is sheer madness. There is no economic sense to it. Small shops are the ones that will suffer. No owner in his right mind is going to work seven days, but when you do not work the seventh day, you have to hire someone else to come in and run your small shop. It is economic madness for the small shop.

There is no job gain, and I suggest there will be a job loss, because what will happen is that the trend from full-time to part-time will continue. Part-time jobs will be at lower pay and with no benefits. There is no job gain for our work force, and our family life will suffer. The hectic pace of the life we now lead in Ontario will become even worse. Surely to goodness, if people have concerns about the family structure and the family unit in our society, they will want to provide more opportunities for families to be together, not fewer.

The whole question of Sunday shopping must be addressed. This government has a responsibility, before Sunday, first to indicate specifically to the employees who are being threatened what protection will be available and then to inform the president of Trilea and the president of Cadillac Fairview that if they continue with their civil disobedience, they will go to jail. Perhaps for the first time in Ontario we could have one law for all the people, not a set of privileged laws for the corporations.

17:40

Mr. Polsinelli: It is a pleasure for me to participate in this so-called emergency debate. I note that although this emergency debate was proposed by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the opposition House leader, by my limited form of counting there are four members of the Conservative Party -- a shocking number out of their 51 members -- listening here this afternoon and participating in the debate. This is reminiscent of the emergency debate we had just a little while ago to discuss the Goodyear closing issue when only two of their members were present. I am shocked.

I would not like to diminish the importance of this debate, because it seems that notwithstanding the lack of participation from the official opposition, the things we say in this House today are being listened to by the people of Ontario. I note that Simpsons and the Bay felt they had been lectured by the Attorney General in terms of their previous decision, which they have now reversed, to maintain open their operations on Sunday. In effect, we can believe that some of the things we say in this House are listened to by the people of Ontario and are respected and followed.

I am reminded of one of my constituents, who is well known to the members of this House, furrier Paul Magder, who is currently taking a case before the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether our Retail Business Holidays Act is or is not a constitutionally valid law. I understand his position, and I understand the position of the economic community, which feels there is more money to be earned, more profits to be made and more of an opportunity to attract tourists from outside this province, if we allow stores to stay open on Sunday. I personally reject that position, as it has been rejected by many members of this House, along the lines that there is only a limited amount of economic dollars to be spent on shopping. Whether spent in a seven-day cycle or in a six-day cycle, it is still the same amount of disposable income. It is not going to make any difference.

On the other hand, I also accept the position taken by many of the small entrepreneurs in my riding who are concerned for economic reasons that if their large competitors open on Sundays, they too must maintain open their operations on Sunday to compete effectively in the marketplace. I respect their position and the concern they have in terms of maintaining their personal family ties, because the family is a very important component of our society and we as members of this Legislature must do everything within our power to ensure that the family unit is maintained, strengthened and enhanced.

I note that under the previous minority government, headed, unfortunately, not by our party but by the now official opposition, a law was passed, the Retail Business Holidays Act, as it is commonly known. Section 2 of that law is the operative section which prevents retail businesses from operating on Sundays unless they fall under one of the exceptions in section 3 and so on. We then go to subsection 2(2), which says that it is a provincial offence punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 to maintain open a retail operation open on Sunday unless it falls within one of the exceptions and that it is an offence, not only for the employer, not only for the business that decides to stay open, but also for the ernployee to go in on a Sunday and contravene this legislation.

We all realize the economic consequences that may result from an employee refusing to work on a Sunday, and we are cognizant that there is currently insufficient legislation on our books to prevent that from happening, but I urge the employers and the business community in this province to realize that if they choose to breach this legislation and to operate their stores on Sunday, they are not only breaching this legislation; they may also be breaching sections 77 and 78 of the Provincial Offences Act in terms of their procuring another employee to breach a piece of legislation. They are breaching more than one law; they are breaching a number of laws. I urge them to respect the law in order that we uphold the rule of law and the fibre that has kept our society going for these many years.

There is an interesting provision in this legislation which I had some experience with a number of years ago. It is another one of the exceptions. Section 4 is a permissive section. It permits a municipality to designate any portion of its city, county or town as a tourist area. That being done by a local municipality, that area would be allowed to have its retail operations operating on Sundays.

A number of years ago, in my former life as an alderman in the great city of North York, we came upon a proposal put forward by our mayor to declare all of North York a tourist area. He felt that if places such as Harbourfront could be designated as tourist areas, why could we not so designate all of North York?

When we looked at the inequity created by this section, which allows a place such as Harbourfront to be designated as a tourist area but not the Eaton Centre, Yorkdale or any of the other major malls that I am confident could compete as effectively as Harbourfront as tourist areas, the only way to remedy this inequity was to declare all of the city of North York a tourist area, thereby allowing all the stores to operate.

As a council, we looked at certain protections for the worker. We felt it was very important to protect them. The bylaw was never put forward or voted on, because we accepted that the majority of the people in North York did not want Sunday opening at that time, but we did look at protections for workers.

It was a provision of the bylaw that operations would be allowed only after 12 noon and that the employers would have only employees working there who wanted to work. It was to be on a voluntary basis for the employees, and any employer who breached the bylaw would be subject to a $10,000 fine. That was premised on the fact that the mayor favoured Sunday opening then. I think he has since changed his position, and he never brought forward the bylaw.

That is an indication of some of the things we were looking at as a council to protect workers. They may not be sufficient or adequate in this circumstance. I hope we will not be faced with the decision of having an open Sunday. As I understand it, the Supreme Court of Canada will be ruling on the constitutionality of our law. If it upholds that constitutionality, we may not have this issue before us.

It is interesting that a number of members of this Legislature, particularly in the official opposition, have indicated we should listen to their position and to the results of their task force. It is evident to me that the position of the third party on this issue is quite clear and unequivocal. We know exactly where they stand, but I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding the position of the official opposition.

The Tory press release of January 8 stated: "`The Progressive Conservatives -- unlike the Solicitor General -- start from the premise that the laws should be dramatically broadened,' Grossman said." "Broadened" means opening up Sunday operations, yet some members of the Conservative Party today have been saying their task force has discovered they should not be opened up.

I quote from another member. On Metro Morning, the member for Oakville said, "I must admit we, reading the public view, feel there is a real necessity for some change, probably towards broadening of the current laws." He was also saying at that time that we should be broadening the law. I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding where that party is coming from, whether its members now have an official position on this and whether they are going against their leader. I would like to hear from them.

Apart from that, it is important to realize that in a minority situation we must take the points of view of all members of this House into account in reaching a decision. We must reach a consensus. We will listen to the official opposition and the third party, but let me not be misunderstood on this very important issue. It is our party's position that it is our mandate to govern. We have been given that responsibility by the people. We will govern, and we will not shirk that responsibility.

17:50

Mr. McFadden: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which deals with a matter of great concern to people throughout Ontario. In researching what I might say today, I secured from the legislative library a copy of the report on Sunday observance legislation of the Ontario Law Reform Commission published in 1970. In the report of the commission, the first three recommendations read as follows:

"1. Ontario should provide legislative support for a uniform weekly pause day for as many persons as possible.

"2. The uniform weekly pause day should be Sunday.

"3. The Ontario legislation providing support for a Sunday pause day should be secular, and not religious, in both purpose and effect."

It seems to me that the recommendations of the law reform commission, which came out 16 years ago, remain valid and remain the approach that the people of Ontario would most choose to follow.

One of the other things in the law reform commission report that I found interesting was the variety of writings that pertain to the way Sunday laws have evolved since Roman days. I noted Constantine's edict of AD 321, which reads as follows:

"Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest upon the venerable day of the Sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields, since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain and the planting of vines; hence, the favourable time should not be allowed to pass lest the provisions of Heaven be lost."

It is interesting that Sunday observance and the need for a day of rest was observed back in AD 321, although it was clear even then that the Emperor realized some exceptions were perhaps necessary for the effective running of society. The current legislation covers the types of exceptions that society finds generally acceptable. I hope the debate we are involved in today indicates the concern of this House that the current law be enforced.

I found it interesting to listen to the speakers of all parties who have very clearly stated their concern that Sunday be maintained as a rest day for the people of Ontario.

Since 1970, various proposals have been put forward concerning how a rest day could be embedded in legislation. There was a proposal that we have a floating pause day, and it was suggested a floating pause day would be a good idea because one person could have a pause day on Monday, somebody else on Tuesday, somebody else on Wednesday and so on. This would mean the beaches and all the various recreational facilities would not be very busy, because people would not all be there on a Sunday or a Saturday, but some people would be there on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, on Friday or on Monday.

While this seems theoretically to be an interesting idea to look at, in fact, on very careful study by the law reform commission and by social scientists since, it does not hold much water, since it would create havoc for families. You can imagine the situation where, say, the father is off on his rest day on Tuesday, the mother's employer allows her to be off on Thursday and the kids are off on Saturday and Sunday. Therefore, the law reform commission recognized back in 1970, as this Legislature and most people who have looked at the issue through the years have clearly recognized, that there should be a common pause day so people can more properly organize their affairs.

It is very clear that the concern being raised in this House today and by people who are concerned about the proposal to make Sunday an open day is that simply opening up Sunday would do absolutely nothing to enhance family life or to promote healthy community values. In fact, quite the contrary, a wide-open Sunday would very seriously damage healthy family and community life in Ontario.

People need a day to share with their families. Fathers and mothers need a day to share with their children, and husbands and wives need a day to share together. We also need in society a day that is quieter than others, a day of rest, a day that is not as commercial as every other day, a day when people can go out and share recreational activities with their family and friends. That is a healthy approach to legislation. It is an approach to life that we should be following in this province.

In addition to the whole area of family life, I would like to raise a matter that has not been touched on today but is of real concern in my riding. In the riding of Eglinton, we have a number of major thoroughfares that are significant commercial districts: Yonge Street, Eglinton Avenue, Mount Pleasant Avenue, Bayview Avenue and Avenue Road. Today, the amount of commercial activity that is taking place on each of those streets is creating a tremendous disruption for the surrounding neighbourhoods as a result of traffic congestion and a very serious shortage of parking spots.

The people who are living near commercial areas such as Yonge and Eglinton in my riding, and in ridings throughout Toronto and around Ontario, would find that a wide-open Sunday would be tremendously disruptive as well for their neighbourhoods. I hope we try to ensure in this province that the kind of disruption caused by commercial areas adjacent to neighbourhoods will not be a feature of Sunday life, as it is on other days of the week.

I would like to join other members of this House in urging the effective enforcement of the existing law dealing with Sunday observance. I urge retailers throughout the province to obey both the letter and the spirit of that law. I commend the various retailers and others who have chosen not to follow some of their colleagues in seeking to break the law openly in a way that brings disrepute to commercial life in this province.

I hope that, regardless of what the Supreme Court may do, we will continue to ensure that we have a common rest day for families to observe their religious practices, if they choose; or if they choose not to observe it as a religious day, at least to allow people to have a day of rest when they can go out and be with their families in fun and recreation.

I believe that is in the best interests of this province. It is a value this Legislature should be advancing, and I am very pleased that the members who have spoken so far today have all gone along with that point of view. I think that is in the best interests of all of Ontario.

Mr. Philip: In the very limited time available, let me say it seems to me that what we are talking about is not a religious issue; it is basically a family issue. Dr. Mutchmor, for whom I have had the greatest admiration over the years, always used to talk about how Sunday closing had nothing to do with religion; that if we were not Christians, if we did not believe Sunday was a day of rest, we would still have to invent it. There would have to be one day in which families could recharge their batteries and get together. That is the issue we are facing.

When I think of the kind of telephone calls I have been getting, I must empathize with the people in my riding who are concerned about it. I had a call today from a woman who said: "I am a teacher. My husband is a manager at Canadian Tire. Canadian Tire franchises have been told to stay open on Sunday. As management, he has no choice. When will we have a time to get together with our children?" That is the issue.

For some small businessmen, it means they have to stay open to compete. Some other small businesses, such as bakeries and so forth, say that if the large stores are allowed to remain open, they will be forced into bankruptcy. We can talk about labour laws as much as we want, but essentially we need a tough law that prevents the stores from opening. No matter how strong the labour laws are, there will be a certain amount of coercion on the employees.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on the motion by the member for Nipissing.

I understand the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) has information on the business for next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. On Monday, December 8, the committee of the whole House will deal with Bill 26, on the retail sales tax, which will be followed, time permitting, by Bill 7 in committee of the whole. On Tuesday, December 9, we will continue consideration of Bill 7 in committee of the whole, if started on Monday. Otherwise, we will deal with legislation in the following order on Tuesday and on Wednesday, December 10: Bill 14, then committee of the whole on Bills 7, 158, 108, 112, 90, 139, 127 and 167.

On Thursday morning, December 11, we will deal with private members' business standing in the names of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) and the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner). On Thursday afternoon, we will debate three committee reports concerning conflict of interest -- orders 50, 52 and 53.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

4 décembre 1986