Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m. Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I have here a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1975, and recommends them to the legislative assembly, Toronto, Dec. 16, 1974.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the government House leader as to when we may expect to proceed with the consideration of the supplementary estimates?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to bring about conclusion of whatever business will be discussed in the House this week, I shall arrange to speak to the House leader this afternoon and make arrangements for when they will be discussed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. members will be interested in knowing that there is a group of young people from Dale Road Public School near Cobourg, in that great county of Northumberland. Included among them is one of the young ladies who has been a page for the last six or seven weeks; she’s back here on her first day off to pay a visit to the Legislature again. I’m sure the members will wish to accord them their usual welcome.

Statements by the ministry.

NANTICOKE HYDRO GENERATORS

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, the members may recall that the Nanticoke plant of Ontario Hydro was shut down late last summer when one of the units was damaged by fire. It was then decided as a precautionary measure to modify the end rings of the generator rotors on each of the four units. I’m pleased to report to the House today that Ontario Hydro this weekend restored to full power one of the four large generators at the Nanticoke plant.

It is expected that two more units will be back in service by next Monday. Each unit has a capacity of 500,000 kilowatts. The fourth unit will be out of service for an extended period but as a result of the restoration of power to the three units, the provincial power grid is now in a favourable position to meet winter peak demands.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Would it be appropriate to ask the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet to give us a report on the state of the negotiations with the Civil Service Association over the weekend, to fill in what we have read about it? I hope he can do this without resorting to the kind of rhetoric that sometimes adds something more than just the information available.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Question.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Come on, get off that stuff.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tempts me to elaborate or make a statement, However, I think I will desist in that regard. We are going back to the negotiating table.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Very wise.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That is the best statement the minister has made in the negotiations so far.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, further to his report, two things. The one generator that will be out of commission for a period of time is the one that was damaged by the fire, apparently. Is it his intention to ask Ontario Hydro, the Crown corporation, to enter into a programme to persuade people to cut down on their utilization of electrical energy more effectively than has been done in the past? Is this useful, or are we still trying to maintain a very high level of utilization consonant with the expansion of the generating facilities that has taken place and will take place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, Hydro has been doing so for something like a year now. Their advertising programme has been directed to the wise use of electrical energy, and indeed they have been running some conservation-of-energy ads.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Wouldn’t the minister consider it to be to the advantage of all power users in the province to support Ontario Hydro in that regard and show some leadership with respect to conservation programmes? Secondly, has Ontario Hydro reduced its voltage in order to stretch its power supply?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer to the first part of the question is, of course, yes. On the second part of the question, I don’t think so but I will be glad to find out.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: What is now the loss that we’ve incurred at Pickering over the last number of weeks or months that the one has been closed down?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In what?

Mr. Lewis: In dollar terms -- the cost of not operating.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, it is something like $3,000 an hour in terms of burning coal at other plants -- the difference between burning coal and using uranium. The one unit at Pickering is out, but the news becomes more favourable from Pickering and we hope to have it restored in the reasonable future. Just how soon, nobody knows as yet.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Tweedle-dee or Tweedle-dum? In view of the fact that we are going to be importing, or there is a good possibility of importing, power from the United States at a higher cost than we can produce it in Ontario, does the minister not feel that some certain steps should be taken by Ontario Hydro in this regard -- for instance, the conservation of energy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think with Nanticoke restored to three-quarters of its power, hopefully by next Monday, I doubt very much that we will be importing power. But that doesn’t, of course, take away at all from the necessity of energy conservation generally and energy management in the broad sense. As I indicated, I think during second reading of the energy corporation bill, I would expect in the new year we will be giving the House the full details of the various programmes for energy conservation and wise use of energy which have been adopted and are under way, and a whole host of programmes within the Ontario government and indeed outside.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary then.

Mr. Good: Yes, well, this will, be a double-pronged supplementary. Has the investigation of the --

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have two more perhaps.

Mr. Good: -- fire at Nanticoke shown that it was accidental, or has there been any negligence assigned regarding that? Has the investigation of the breakdown of the Pickering plant power supply shown whether it was due to engineering faults or malfunction or material fault in the construction?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, there certainly has been no negligence in either case. I think in both instances, broadly speaking, they are engineering problems or technological problems. With respect to Nanticoke in particular, who is ultimately at fault, of course, is something which the makers and the insurance companies, I imagine, are going to be arguing about for some time into the future. In both cases, I think it can be fairly said they are engineering problems rather than anything more serious than that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside, the final supplementary.

Mr. Burr: A supplementary. I wonder if the minister was mistaken when he said just a few minutes ago that the loss is $3,000 a day?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: An hour.

Mr. Lewis: He said “a day.” I wondered about that.

Mr. Burr: An hour. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Has the leader of the Opposition further questions?

FUTURE OF METRO CENTRE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to put a question to the Premier pertaining to the report that he is negotiating with some of the federal ministers or officials for a resumption of the Metro Centre programme, particularly the aspect having to do with transportation.

Is he prepared to give us a further report on that? Is he also as concerned about the rental housing aspect of Metro Centre which, if the president of CNR is correct and is allowed to impose his views, is going to be in abeyance for some time to come, particularly in view of the fact that, according to the recent public accounts available as of March 31, 1974, we underspent a rental housing provincial allocation by about $20 million?

Would the Premier then report to the House on the basis of Metro Centre with the prospect of our going forward provincially at least with some aspect of a housing programme in that area, together with the transportation centre?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen any press report that indicates that I am discussing Metro Centre with any federal ministers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I may have that incorrect, but perhaps it would be of some assistance if we can have an answer. There was an indication that he, as the Premier, was concerned about its delay.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think what was said perhaps three weeks ago now, was that in response to a question I said in general terms the government would like to see Metro Centre go ahead. I think I also made it clear I wasn’t expressing a point of view as to the total content of the development in terms of the density or the amount of residential or commercial or cultural involvement.

I think I made it abundantly clear that the province was not getting involved in what might be an internal discussion about the preservation of a part of or all of the Union Station. I think I hopefully made that clear. I did point out that we had, as far as the government and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications were concerned, quite obviously an interest in the: planning and development of the transportation part of Metro Centre.

I think I also indicated I had had a conversation with the mayor of the city of Toronto to indicate that the province recognized that not only would it have an involvement, hopefully, in the planning of it, but that we recognized that, along with the railways and the federal government and Metro and whoever else is involved, we probably would have some financial participation. I have not, Mr. Speaker, had any conversations other than with the mayor of Toronto, nor was there any conversation by myself with the heads of the railways; and I, too, observed their observations last Thursday or Friday.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it’s something Metro council and the city of Toronto probably will wish to start dealing with early in the new year -- I am only guessing at this -- now that the new councils have been elected. Certainly from our standpoint, we are quite prepared to discuss with either council or the railways or whatever, the question of the transportation centre.

As it relates to the desirability of having housing of one kind or another, whether it be rental or some other form of accommodation, I thing that’s a matter, Mr. Speaker, that should be raised with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) -- although I think it’s premature to do so at this moment until we see what is happening. I can only, once again, restate my general thought, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in some form or other the government has been in support of that particular development.

I want to make it abundantly clear we are not saying anything in terms of densities or the mix or just how it’s structured. That is something I think is obviously the responsibility of the city and metropolitan council to the extent that they have some involvement in it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, the Premier’s interest in the transportation centre raises, for many, serious anxieties, which is the question I want to ask, about whether or not his government is then supporting the opposition which Mr. McNab, head of the transportation authority, put to the city council not so many weeks ago about the transportation centre; which opposition assumed the destruction of Union Station, which obviously is the central debating point. Has the government then taken a position which supports the end of Union Station; something, obviously, that many council members, of Metro and Toronto, simply don’t want and don’t see the need for.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what Mr. McNab raised with the city of Toronto or with Metro council or with whomever he was speaking. Obviously the authority with which Mr. McNab is involved has a very real interest in the transportation centre. Certainly as a matter of government policy we have never explored, as a government, whether a transportation centre can be developed with or without the main part of Union Station remaining or not remaining. As a totally unqualified person, non-engineer, non-planner, non-designer, I would think, really, you can do it either way.

Mr. Lewis: Well, some have strong feelings on it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, that’s just an observation. I haven’t seen any documentation that says, from the ministry’s standpoint or the government’s standpoint, that Union Station has to go. I don’t think that exists. I don’t think there has ever been any policy of that kind considered.

Mr. Lewis: That is how the authority feels.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact I recall now, it comes back to me, where I made my general observations. I think it was four weeks ago last Sunday at 6:30 on CFRB at which time I did observe that as a government we did not want to get into the discussion, because we didn’t think it was a matter that should involve the provincial government, that something had to be settled by the City of Toronto, and perhaps Metro, as it related to Union Station.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

STORE HOURS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Solicitor General, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Welch): Is any action contemplated against the growing number of major retail outlets that are staying open on Sunday and have specific plans, evidently, to test the legislation in this regard? I refer specifically to the Canadian Tire Corp. store at Yonge and Davenport, which is opening Sundays between Nov. 17 and Dec. 22; and Consumers Distributing, which is open in Scarborough and evidently plans to open and is open in a number of major cities. I would also like to know when the minister is going to bring in his long-promised legislation about store hours, which would probably mean a disposition of this problem, which has been a very awkward one now for more than two or three years?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, any prosecutions that take place now would be under the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act. This can be done locally; it requires the consent of the Attorney General. One of the reasons local authorities have been reluctant to lay charges is because of the small amount of the fine. The maximum fine, I believe, is something under $100.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It’s $25.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as the second part of the hon. member’s question is concerned, it is my understanding that there will be a statement during this session by the Provincial Secretary for Justice in relation to Sunday closings and uniform store hours generally.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: The minister really has said what is generally understood, that the law is actually breaking down because the $25 fine associated with it is a very small licence to pay to stay open for the lucrative Sunday market. But does the Solicitor General not feel he has a special responsibility, since it is the law and it is being broken in many major centres, and lots of smaller ones as well, and does he still stand on the statement made by one of his predecessors that it is for individual citizens to complain and not for the government, particularly the police forces, to enforce the law as it presently is, especially in view of the long wait for an amendment or a new law which would bring it up to modern requirements?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the law should be changed.

Mr. Deans: Who would the minister suggest ought to change it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as laying complaints is concerned, I don’t think it’s necessary for individuals to lay complaints. Certainly the police have a duty in various parts of the province from time to time, where there isn’t a bylaw in effect in respect to Sunday selling, to prosecute stores that are open, particularly large chain stores that are open on Sunday. As I say, the problem now is that under the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act the police have to get the consent of the Attorney General, which is a rather ridiculous procedure and why we need a change.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Instead of the maintenance of the law as an ass, using virtually the minister’s description of it in its present terms, and since the minister has wandered around Ontario hearing all of the public submissions which followed his green paper, which followed the intention to change legislation, what is he personally recommending, to his colleagues and to the Legislature, be done?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Didn’t the minister lead the donkey?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as I say, the Provincial Secretary for Justice --

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister recommending? He heard it all.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- will be making a statement. The position of this government will be known at that time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: After the Christmas season.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Certainly any influence or input I have regarding that statement will be reflected in whatever decision is made.

Mr. Speaker: The final supplementary. The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the Solicitor General considered the advisability of applying to the court for a mandatory order or an injunction restraining the law-breakers from breaking the law? If the fine is not enough and the minister is unready to change the amount of the fine that is in the provincial statute, why can’t he ask the Supreme Court of Ontario for some sort of mandatory order forcing the closing, and in breach of which the people would be in contempt and could be dealt with much more seriously?

Mr. Breithaupt: The court could do that while we’re waiting for the Dow suit.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The trouble with that, Mr. Speaker, is you would have, to make an individual application for each breach of the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act.

Mr. Singer: What’s wrong with that? You have to make an individual prosecution.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In other words, if one store opened in Sarnia, for example --

Mr. MacDonald: The administration of the law is an ass as well as the law is an ass.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- you would have to get an order in respect to that store. You’d be chasing all around the province, in court every day, dealing with individual stores unless they were a chain store of some kind.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has already chased all around the province.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think the best answer is that the sooner we do something about a new law, the better.

Mr. Lewis: The minister was the person who heard it all.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: No, the final supplementary was asked a moment ago.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I indicated the hon. member for Downsview had asked the final supplementary. A new question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can put another question on a similar subject, if you’ll permit, Mr. Speaker. Isn’t the minister aware that with the shopping pressures and the tremendous competition that the distributors and the retailers now are facing, that there is a tremendous movement toward Sunday shopping and that by the time a new law comes in, the whole attitude and habits of the community may very well have changed? We’re not here to debate whether that should be changed at this time or not, but wouldn’t the minister agree that the lack of policy is going to give him a great deal of difficulty in bringing in any government position that would want to maintain a closed Sunday? If in fact the government wants an open Sunday, what the minister is doing is leading directly to it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, there isn’t really a great deal of flouting of the law at the present time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, there is.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There are individual cases where chain stores and large groceterias are opening up; there is no doubt about that. I agree with the hon. member that if there is any undue delay in doing something about that --

Mr. Lewis: Undue delay! It has been three years.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- there would be a change in the general attitude regarding Sunday and the operation of stores on Sunday.

Mr. Renwick: He takes an entirely different attitude to trade unions.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: So I think with the undertaking that something will be done at this session, the hon. member’s fears are really unfounded.

Mr. Singer: Is the minister going to have another green paper?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West with his questions?

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STUDY

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, if I may. I am given to understand that the minister has received from the federal Ministry of Labour an analysis of measures which might be undertaken to protect workers in bankruptcy situations -- a full study. Is it possible for the minister to table that study for the Legislature and the workers involved?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, from time to time the member for Scarborough West asks me questions which he knows about -- at least he knows I have material and it generally turns out that he is right. I haven’t seen that analysis yet but I will certainly get it.

An hon. member: Spies, spies all over.

Mr. Stokes: Always happy to keep the minister abreast of what is going on in labour.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister’s deputy tells the member for Scarborough West about it before he tells the minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I have had certain correspondence with the federal government in connection with this matter, but I haven’t seen any analysis of any detail that I think the member is referring to. I will get at it and see if the federal government has sent it on to us. I doubt if it has been sent in any kind of confidence and I don’t see why it couldn’t be tabled, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Well, thanks. I will send the minister the correspondence which refers to it.

May I ask, by way of supplementary, do I gather properly that the minister has had an increasing number of examples of these bankruptcy situations, a number of submissions -- several sent to him from Star Alert in Windsor and around the province generally? When is the minister going to take some initiative to change the legislation or to enforce at least the upholding of the Bank Act as it affects provincial employees so that we aren’t constantly finding ourselves in these invidious and very disadvantageous positions for the workers involved?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that with the increased numbers of businesses that are having financial difficulties and in fact going under these days, I am getting many more of these across my desk than when I was appointed minister some few months ago. I still feel -- and we are getting co-operation from the federal government -- that it is the proper place for them to act and our efforts are directed in that way, that the federal government will take action. This review that the member says I have may be a further step to indicate that the federal government is about to act. I haven’t seen it; I hope that’s what it will show me.

Mr. Stokes: The minister’s colleague from Kenora would be happy to see it.

TIMISKAMING TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Education if I may, Mr. Speaker: Has his ministry intervened in the breakdown in negotiations of the Timiskaming school board with the teachers walking off their jobs?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with both sides and we are at present in the process of seeing if we can arrange a meeting to get both sides together; and, if they wish, to meet with myself, if that will be of assistance.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, how is it in a bargaining situation as sensitive as this that the teachers were forced to walk out because the board wouldn’t meet with them at all? Are these things not more closely monitored by the ministry? Does the minister not try to intervene in advance of the breakdown?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would regret this kind of thing ever coming to pass because I can’t imagine how sides can refuse to meet one another. But on the other hand, having been involved in these disputes over the past two years, I also can understand how it happens, and I can tell the hon. member it is almost impossible for us to prevent it from happening at times.

We have been urging the Timiskaming board and the teachers to have a mediator there. As I understand it at least one of the parties -- I think the board -- has been very negative to the idea of a mediator. I think a mediator can help in any situation, and particularly in these situations, even though people get to the point where they think there is absolutely no use in having a mediator.

I think he could have been of help in Timiskaming and probably could have prevented this breakdown, but it is pretty hard for us to be able to stop people from not coming to the table to bargain. If I could, I think we wouldn’t have some of the disputes that we have in the province today.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, may I pick the minister up on it by way of a supplementary, because he raised an interesting point?

Isn’t it time, given the number of breakdowns in teacher negotiations, given the civil service dispute that now exists, given the disputes we had with teachers and transit workers in the past, given in fact the Big Brothers dispute in the public sector in the last several weeks; isn’t it time we moved this public sector bargaining out of the ambit of the industrial sector orientation of the Ministry of Labour and developed within his ministry, and perhaps the Ministry of Health where the hospital workers are concerned, a more sensitive response to the difficulties which occur in the public sector, to the differences which obtain at the bargaining table when the public is involved? Can the minister consider carving out some areas, in conjunction with his comrades, to deal with it this way, since the Ministry of Labour never deals with it effectively?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as my friend may know about a year ago in this House I introduced a bill -- which has never been reintroduced -- dealing with teachers-school board bargaining and which wasn’t, I might say, universally accepted, in fact far from it, by anyone. In that bill was a body known as the Educational Relations Commission which I still have hopes can be developed to the point where it can do the kind of things in the educational field that the hon. member is talking about. We’re still looking and investigating in a much fuller way how this can be brought about.

I must say I haven’t come to the complete resolution of that fact yet, but we’re still looking at it. I think that’s the kind of mechanism we’ve got to find for these public service disputes.

FATHER-LED FAMILIES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services? Am I to understand that Harold Currie, the noted case of the dependent single-parent family, father-led, is now being supported by a general welfare allowance and that the minister has not yet resolved whether or not he is entitled to a family benefits allowance that would be given to a single-parent family, mother-led?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, for the month of December he is being supported by the local Simcoe social services administration. However, it is our intention to pass an order in council to provide him with assistance under the Family Benefits Act so that he may continue to look after his children.

Mr. Lewis: Then by way of a supplementary, if the minister is passing an order in council -- I guess the first of its kind -- to support Harold Currie --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Well give me another case where a single-parent family, father-led in this situation, is finally being supported -- by order in council; bravo! -- under the Family Benefits Act? Is the minister therefore announcing a change in policy in this regard where he will treat men and women equally?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, as far as the General Welfare Act is concerned, it is our intention to amend the regulations whereby it will be possible, at the discretion of the local municipality, to provide assistance in circumstances that the local municipality deems appropriate.

With reference to the broader aspect of the question under family benefits, we have dealt with this case on its special merits. However, it’s very complex; it’s not a simple question, as some people understand it to be; whether family benefits should be allowed to everyone regardless of sex, this is one that requires further consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

The member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: No, I am just mulling that one over.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview was up a moment ago. He may ask his question.

DOW CHEMICAL ACTION

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General able to give us now his latest report on the progress of the Province of Ontario against Dow Chemical Co., recalling that he promised to talk about it to his officials a couple of weeks ago, and recalling as well that one Harold Stafford --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Hurray.

Mr. Breithaupt: Hurray.

Mr. Singer: -- seems very upset because of certain events that have taken place; and recalling as well --

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Defeated Liberal.

Mr. Singer: -- that his officials were quoted in the paper in the last few days as indicating he has made no progress at all since last April?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General did meet with counsel who had been retained with respect to that case.

The Attorney General is satisfied on the basis of that report that everything possible had been done and would continue to be done with respect to that litigation.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Stokes: Now that everybody is well muzzled.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I was just trying to think in terms of the date. There was some appointment taken out, I think this week, with respect to some cross-examination on certain affidavits that were filed with respect to a notice for particulars. The hon. member will understand that naturally, everyone was taking full advantage of whatever the rules may be insofar as that type of civil litigation is concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Meanwhile the taxpayers pay him for the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Reid: Is the Attorney General paying him $15 an hour?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am quite concerned that the former federal member for --

Mr. Singer: Elgin.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- Elgin, may be somewhat concerned, but I think he has other things to be concerned about as well.

Mr. Eaton: Defeated, defeated.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, in view of the fact that the stage we’ve arrived at was exactly the same stage that was carefully explained to us by the Attorney General’s officials --

Hon. Mr. Welch: No; we now have an appointment.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes; last April. I can read it to the Attorney General out of Hansard if he wants. What progress has the Attorney General made between last April and now? He was still asking questions about an affidavit -- I think a Mr. Hilton’s -- which haven’t been answered yet, so the defendant could get particulars in order to enable him to prepare a statement of defence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Put the Solicitor General back in charge.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would appreciate, because of his professional training, that these matters do take time.

Mr. Singer: Yes, yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The dates have now been established for the cross-examination. I’ve been quite satisfied, in a meeting with the counsel for the Crown, insofar as this matter is concerned that the time that has transpired has not been a waste of time. More research has been done. They are very technical, these types of pleadings, and I’ve every confidence that things will proceed in their regular way.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He is too easily satisfied.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Retain Harold Stafford.

Mr. Singer: On research.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker: Does he have in his possession a comprehensive report on asbestos in the Great Lakes basin? And if there is such a report, does it indicate there is a health hazard involved in drinking tap water in this city? And if there is such a report, why hasn’t he released it?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what report the member is talking about. As far as asbestos in the Great Lakes is concerned, our filtration plants will remove all asbestos -- if there is any -- to make the water very safe for drinking.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: What is the level in Toronto drinking water after filtration? Is it at a safe level, would the minister say?

Hon. W. Newman: According to my experts, it is at a safe level. I can’t give the actual readings, but I will be glad to give them if the member wants them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has an answer to a question.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I said that was the last supplementary; the time is just about up.

Mr. Shulman: Only one -- it is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me the same matter was discussed last week too.

Mr. Lewis: No it wasn’t.

Mr. Foulds: It was raised over six weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing.

VILLAGE SQUARE

Hon. D. B. Irvine (Minister of Housing): On Dec. 9, the hon. member for Rainy River asked the following question:

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could redirect my question to the Minister of Housing who I understand has the responsibility under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act, and ask him if he is aware of the Village Square situation and if these people will, in fact, receive reimbursement; and if so, to whom should they write?”

OHC was one of several organizations which had a contract with Village Square Ltd. Our contract was for them to deliver 50 prefabricated, detached housing units. They’ve all been delivered to various sites in northern Ontario. Our field staff have taken over completion of the units as a result of the financial difficulties which the firm is in.

With regard to the wages owed to the employees, OHC can do little to assist in that direction in one aspect of it. By that, I mean the prefabricated units supplied by Village Square are considered a sale of goods. As such, the corporation has no authority under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act to pay wages involved in the manufacture or delivery of these units. The erection of the units, however, is considered as a contract for work and service. As such the corporation can, under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act, pay wages to tradesmen involved in the on-site work.

Claims under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act must be made within 90 days of work stoppage. To date we have 15 claims registered.

The staff of the Ministry of Labour has advised us they are proceeding with the normal audit and are working with the receiver to determine what funds are available for payment of vacation pay of all employees. The wages in this case are ranked with other unsecured creditors. However, the receiver has committed himself to guarantee the payment of current wages of the employees, up to and including the end of the work day of Tuesday, Nov. 19, 1974.

Mr. Reid: I have a supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker, just for clarification. Will the people who provided goods and services, either gas and oil or room and board to the employees of Village Square, be entitled to reimbursement under the Act that the minister has just quoted, or will it be strictly for wages?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It will be strictly as to wages, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker. The point was brought up by the hon. member before. My information is, as I have stated, that it is wages only.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, if I may; very short, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any advice for those people who are in the position of having provided goods and services to the company as to what line should they follow?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I believe they would follow the procedure under the Act, as I mentioned, in the same way as any other unsecured creditors.

I have other answers, Mr. Speaker, if I could get them out, to the other questions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Solicitor General report to us as to how he is doing with respect to getting the appropriate permission to table the letters with respect to an inquiry of the SIU activities?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am tabling those today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. When will the minister send me the answers promised during his estimates on Oct. 24, recorded in Hansard on page S-1890, concerning the cause of such a high asbestos content in the Detroit River, from which Windsor gets its drinking water. And at the same time, will he respond to the question whether the distilling of asbestos-filled water or asbestos-containing water actually gets rid of all the asbestos?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, a lot of the questions arising from the estimates have been answered. We’ll have them all out before the Christmas recess.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that only 90 per cent of the large fibres are filtered out of the water and that it is the 10 per cent that remains, the smaller fibres, that are the greater hazard in the opinion of many authorities?

Hon. W. Newman: I am aware that it doesn’t all come out; but I am also aware of the fact that my technical people tell me that water is absolutely safe for drinking.

Mr. Shulman: Is it?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has another answer to a question previously asked I believe.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister understand the asbestos link in damage to health? It is hardly inconclusive.

H.O.M.E. PROGRAMME LOTTERIES

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, on Dec. 9, the member for Wentworth asked the following question:

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing: Given the wide-ranging comments and suggestions made by a number of people who were involved in the recently conducted HOME lottery, and given the time that’s elapsed between that and this date; can the minister indicate whether, before the next lottery is held in the Hamilton area, there will be substantial changes to the method of conducting the lottery and to the terms of the lottery as it might be conducted then for the number of homes available?”

Mr. Speaker, we have given considerable thought to the lottery system of allocating leased lots under the Home Ownership Made Easy plan. I do not feel, at this time, we should hold up further allocations under this particular programme while we determine a better method. For that reason, we will be using the present procedures in our next Hamilton offering early in the new year.

However, I am quite prepared to have a study done of these procedures, and I am having a report prepared which can be discussed at the appropriate standing committee of the House as soon as it is ready. This will allow not only the member for Wentworth but any other interested member to snake suggestions in order to ensure that we have the best method possible.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Is it the intention of the minister to make any changes to the rules and regulations governing; one, whether people should be permitted to enter the lottery if they already own homes; and, two, whether there will be changes to the way in which the builders approach the individuals with regard to the allocation of the properties in order to ensure they are given a choice in conjunction with the number they have drawn? Will the minister take a serious look at the builders involved in an effort to some to grips with some of the deficiencies and defects which have resulted from previous allocations?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought before the House by the member before. I have, as I mentioned, taken a very careful look at it. I do believe we have to have a further study undertaken by our ministry, which I have said we’ll do. I do think it’s quite proper to have a standing committee before the House discusses this lottery in detail.

I cannot undertake at this time to make any change whatsoever, though, in the present system, because I don’t see that we have a way of improving it at the present time. It may be there is, and certainly I’d be quite agreeable to going into it further after we have discussed it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can he tell us what action his ministry is taking, particularly the industrial safety branch, in regard to the problem of vinyl chlorides, since he now has a report from the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller)?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, my ministry deals with some 1,800 toxic substances. The reports of the various effects of these come to us from the Ministry of Health and we simply carry out the recommendations the Ministry of Health makes to us. As I say, that is the procedure we follow on all of them. If they have any recommendations to make we receive those recommendations and then the ministry’s inspectors carry them out.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Is the minister satisfied that in fact his people are assiduously carrying out the recommendations; and in fact are carrying out the investigations in those plants that use this substance?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: To the limit of our resources, yes, I am satisfied. But again, if the member has information on any plant where he thinks we are failing or more stringent methods or measures should be taken, I would be pleased to receive that information and give it to my officials.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

CO-EDUCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL IN THUNDER BAY

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Correctional Services: Has the ministry decided to cancel the juvenile co-educational training school that was announced for Thunder Bay in April of 1972; when did that cancellation take place and can he tell me what alternative services his ministry is planning in the area?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): I’ll have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. The question concerns Lake St. Clair.

Has the minister decided on a policy as to whether to allow commercial fishing to be resumed in Lake St. Clair, or is it his intention to leave Lake St. Clair as it is so that only sports fishing would be allowed?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, as the member I am sure is aware, we have done some very extensive testing for mercury levels in the various species of fish from Lake St. Clair. It is my understanding that the total testing has not been completed as yet. However, there are indications the level of mercury is down considerably.

I think it is fair to say that we have met with the commercial fishing industry to discuss possible ways and means by which we could bring a portion of the commercial fishing industry back to Lake St. Clair. These discussions are going on. There has been no firm decision reached as yet. As we go down the road, with further information, we will make a decision, which I hope will be within the next several weeks.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the minister if he has received a firm recommendation from his officials to permit commercial fishing to resume in Lake St. Clair?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I have not received any firm recommendations. The recommendations I received were that we should explore with the commercial fishermen and people in the general area for some consensus as to what direction we should go.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I called the last a final supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: This is a supplementary of the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You may place a new question.

Mr. Bounsall: Okay. A new question then, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Natural Resources.

In his replies to me with respect to the commercial fishing on Lake St. Clair or its possible resumption, he has mentioned a market for the coarse fish. Is this a market for the sale of those fish in countries or other places that value those fish more than in Ontario; or is it for the cat and dog food market? In any event, would those sales occur with the present levels of mercury still at the higher level?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say we are looking at all those possibilities, including the exporting of fish to a country that may accept coarse fish with the higher level of mercury. We are also examining in the possibility of going into the cat and dog food market at the present levels, which in some instances, of course, are higher than the acceptable levels for humans.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Well, it is possible. Whatever the minister does, I understand that the hook-line fishermen will not be reinstated in Lake St. Clair; that now is pretty clear. What form of compensation is the minister going to work out for those fishermen who are excluded from whatever policy decision the minister makes?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the member means when he speaks about a hook-line fisherman.

Mr. Lewis: Well, the distinction between nets and hooks.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Does the member mean the angler?

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, angling is allowed in Lake St. Clair. There has been no --

Mr. Lewis: No, no, not the sports fishing.

I mean those who fished for commercial purposes, of whom there were eight or 10 families, and who will be cut out regardless of what the government does. How do we compensate those people for undermining their economic livelihood in effect, admitting that the rules were right?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, until firm decisions are made with regard to fishing in Lake St. Clair, it is obvious we can’t make a decision on that particular point.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask you to consider something. If a question is asked and there are to be supplementary questions permitted, would you consider allowing a supplementary question from each party rather than simply one supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I think that would be reasonable. We were just about out of time and there were other people who wanted to ask new questions. We try to use a bit of judgment as to which is the most efficient way to carry on, but I think that is reasonable.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I am now tabling the exchange of letters between my deputy minister and the Deputy Minister of Justice in Ottawa regarding the Seafarers’ International Union.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 174, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, the most important amendments in this bill are similar to those in the regional municipality amendments, with the exception of one, which I will speak about a little later.

As in the other amendments to the other regional government bills, the county can now become a member of any Ontario municipal association and can send its employees wherever it wishes to improve their skills and services and pay for the cost. The county is given more latitude in the rates that it may charge for various classes and types of disposal in its waste disposal site.

The one matter in this bill to which I would like to make particular reference is that sections 74 and 75 of the existing County of Oxford Act are being repealed. Mr. Speaker, section 74 was the section to which I objected quite strenuously when it was inserted into the original bill. It states: “At the request of the county council or on his own initiative, the minister may, notwithstanding the previous sections --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is a very great amount of background conversation going on and I am sure we all wish to hear the hon. member’s remarks, particularly the minister.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make reference to the section of this bill which repeals sections 74 and 75 of the original bill. I had objected strenuously to the inclusion of section 74 in the original bill which reads as follows:

“At the request of the county council, or on his own initiative, the minister may, notwithstanding [the sections going before it] establish a police force for the whole or part of the county in such manner as he determines.”

Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly that the people of the region, or the county in this case, should have complete authority as to when if ever they wish to have a regional police force.

My own feeling, and it’s a personal feeling, is that a regional police force leaves something to be desired in that smaller units of policing do have a different effect on the whole image of police enforcement within a region. So I’m glad to see that section 74 and 75 are being deleted by these amendments.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I think when Bill 164 was being debated I made remarks which I felt at that time applied to these other bills, and as far as we are concerned we are in agreement with Bill 174 and will support it.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has come to me just today that there might be a further section added dealing with the number and composition of the conservation authority. So, with the permission of the House I will refer this bill to committee of the whole House. We’re looking into that possibility.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading on committee of the whole House? Committee of the whole.

Agreed to.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 175, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, the only point I think that need concern us in this particular bill is that the district municipality is made a regional municipality for the purposes of the Regional Municipal Grants Act. There are certain powers and duties that that municipality will now have as a result of this. Since it has become a regional municipality it will have all the benefits and whatever the burdens are that the others within the province have.

The other points in the bill dealing with sewage works and other particular matters are things which appear to us to be routine.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, again I would simply say, as far as this group is concerned the bill is satisfactory. It’s housekeeping, and bringing into effect certain policies with which we agree, and we support this bill.

Mr. Good: One point I would like to ask. I asked it on the bill dealing with the amendments to the other 10 regional municipalities. I would like a clarification of why permission is now being given for the OMB to hear applications regarding the financing of sewer and water works before the method of repayment has been established.

I always thought that when an agreement on installation of service was made between the Ministry of the Environment and the municipality, the whole package was done up as to how it was going to be financed: how much out of frontage charges: how much out of usage charges; how much out of connection charges; how much on the general tax rate; and how much by grants by the government. Here is a point which I don’t understand and I’d like clarification.

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is going to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Good: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. White: The Regional Municipalities Act is going into the committee of the whole House, so I can deal with that and other questions that were put to me. There is a reason, but it doesn’t affect this bill.

Mr. Good: Well, it’s in the Muskoka bill as well, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. White: Could we deal with this in the regional municipalities bill, which is going to committee of the whole House, for this and several other reasons?

Mr. Good: If the minister could get the answer to my question by then, that’s fine.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Committee?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Committee.

Mr. Breithaupt: For this one?

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed to.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 173, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion or amendments on any section of this bill?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Yes, the minister has an amendment, does he not?

Mr. Chairman: Four amendments.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, these relate to section 27, section 28, section 34(a) and section 56.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 27?

Sections 1 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 27:

Hon. Mr. White moves that sub-section 2 of section 29 of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972, as set out in section 27 of the bill, be amended by striking out “of the construction, operation, maintenance” in the second line, and that amendments to the same effect be made to sections 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Could the minister explain what the significance of that is?

Hon. Mr. White: This motion is required simply to clarify the subsection in conjunction with the previous subsection.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, the question which I have asked the minister previously, regarding the OMB hearings --

Mr. Chairman: Is this section 27?

Mr. Good: -- affects sections 27, 28, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55. Maybe the minister could get an explanation of that in Hansard any time he wishes.

Mr. Young: No, third reading.

Hon. Mr. White: At the present time, and in the absence of this change, there is no way that a proposal for works can be put to the OMB as a matter of principle until such time as the area municipality or area municipalities come to an actual cost apportionment with the region.

This kind of a dicker very often takes quite a lot of doing, so the proposal is that they should be able to go ahead and get an approval on proceeding with the works at the regional level and then come back and present the apportionment of costs for the OMB’s further approval. This will eliminate any time delay in calling tenders and, in a period of rising costs, hopefully save the taxpayers some money.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on that point, do I understand it clearly then that when a municipality puts forth a proposal to the OMB for sewer or water works, the people would then have an opportunity to voice objections and cause an OMB hearing if they wished to object just to the proposal in principle?

When the cost apportionment has then been allocated, after the hearing, would there then be a further opportunity for persons to object and to cause another hearing relating to the cost; because it is the second matter, regarding the cost per household, which initiates OMB hearings when it comes to the installation of sewer and water works. It is not the principle; everybody is in favour of the principle, but when you find, as in one municipality in my area -- where the cost is going to be $307 per household -- of the 900 people in the little village, 150 voiced objections and there was an OMB hearing, there would then be two separate opportunities for people to object and cause an OMB hearing on that particular issue.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, that is quite correct. There will be an appeal provided for each stage. It is believed by the experts in my ministry and elsewhere that separating these two stages will enable the proposal to be considered more quickly and, if agreed to, the work to proceed more quickly. As I mentioned, while costs are escalating, hopefully, it will save the taxpayers some money.

Mr. Good: It will ease the people into the idea of it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

On section 28:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to section 28 of the bill.

Hon. Mr. White moves that subsection 2 of section 31 of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972, as set out in section 28 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “the”, where it occurs the second time in the second line, “establishment” and that amendments to the same effect be made to sections 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, this motion is required simply to clarify the subsection in conjunction with the foregoing subsection.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): By just adding the one word “establishment”?

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I don’t see how it can carry without a quorum.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, there is not a quorum to carry it at present.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, I see a quorum.

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with section 28 of the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, which amends the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972. Any comments?

Motion agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

Section 29 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 34:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has another amendment.

Hon. Mr. White moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“34(a) Subsection 3 of section 26 of the said Act is amended by adding at the end thereof ‘that this provision shall not apply in the year 1974.’”

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion?

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, this amendment allows Peel region, in the year of 1974 only, to retain auditors who may have had a management consultant role with the region in 1973, when the region was being organized.

Motion agreed to.

Section 34(a) agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further amendments? On section 56:

Hon. Mr. White moves that section 56 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Subsection 9 of the said section 119, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1974, chapter 5, section 7, is repealed and the following substituted therefor: ‘Where any local municipality has passed a bylaw that prior to its coming into force requires the approval of any minister of the Crown, any provincial ministry, the Municipal Board or any provincial body or agency, and such approval has not been obtained prior to the 31st day of March, 1974, the council of the successor area municipality to such local municipality, or the regional council when the subject matter of the bylaw pertains to a function of the regional corporation, shall be entitled to initiate or continue the procedure to obtain such approval to the bylaw passed by the local municipality, insofar as it pertains to such area municipality or the regional corporation, and the provisions of the subsection 8 apply mutatis mutandis to any such bylaw.’”

Mr. Deans: I want to ask about this.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Hon. Mr. White: Let me just offer the explanation. All that those words simply mean --

Mr. Deans: I think I understand it.

Hon. Mr. White: -- is if an application had been made to the OMB by one of the previous municipalities, the successor municipality could continue with that application instead of originating a new application.

Mr. Deans: I understand that. What I wonder about is in the case of individuals who may have applied for such a thing as a rezoning within an existing municipality, and after the changeover the municipal name, council and authority have been transferred, does that also apply equally to those individuals in the event an OMB hearing were required and applied for,

Hon. Mr. White: I am advised it does.

Mr. Deans: Right. And on the other question -- I want to be clear -- what the minister is saying is the municipality need not make any additional application. But it is obliged to follow through on the original decision of the old municipality? Or is it then obliged to inform all of those who may have been affected by a decision of the municipality that they have discontinued the application for any change as of a certain date? Do you follow what I am saying?

Hon. Mr. White: No, it wouldn’t bind the new municipality with the decision of the old municipality. The new municipality could discontinue the application, if it wished,

Mr. Deans: Well, would the new municipality be required then to inform interested parties of its decision to discontinue any action that had been started by the old municipality prior to the transition?

Let me give you an example. It’s entirely possible that a municipality may have initiated a bylaw at the behest of a number of residents. If the new municipality decided to go ahead, then that would be fine. But if it decided not to go ahead -- it may have required approval, for example, from some branch of municipal affairs -- if it decided for some reason or other not to proceed, those residents could be sitting there waiting for this to be approved and never knowing it. Is there any requirement on municipalities to inform any interested parties that they have taken a position different from the position originally taken at the time of the original application?

Hon. Mr. White: This section is silent on that. Briefly, the new municipality can carry on with an application made by the old municipality. If it doesn’t do so, it’s on the same basis as it would have been had there been no restructuring take place, which is to say on the same basis as every other municipality.

Mr. Deans: I have a second question then. Is there a requirement on the part of the new municipality to inform the approving agency or ministry that it is desirous of going ahead with the action of the old municipality or is there a requirement on its part to inform the approving agency that it doesn’t wish to proceed?

Hon. Mr. White: The new municipality would have to tell the authority, the OMB or whoever, that they were proceeding with the old municipality’s application or discontinuing it.

Mr. Deans: One final point then --

Mr. Good: He has completely reversed his stand.

Mr. Deans: You’re not kidding. Is there any requirement then on the part of the old municipal authorities to inform the new municipality what sorts of things were outstanding?

Hon. Mr. White: We have that.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I think you’d better go back to the drawing board.

Mr. Deans: Really, you have got a problem. There have been substantial changes in some municipalities and bylaws may well have been before approving authorities awaiting approval. There have been substantial changes both administratively and representative-wise within municipalities. I want to be sure that all of the information which ought to have been carried forward is carried forward.

How do you intend to inform municipalities of this particular change? Are you going to inform them separately, by letter under separate cover, over and above the sort of normal circularizing of the changes to the Regional Municipalities Act?

Hon. Mr. White: On the latter point, they will be informed in the same way as they are informed of all other changes, by circulating copies of the legislation when passed by the Legislature. This is the reason they all have municipal solicitors.

Dealing with a previous question, all books, papers and records must have been handed over by the old municipalities to the new municipalities. That’s a requirement enacted by law.

Mr. Deans: Just one final point. I’m thinking of people who may have applied for a zoning change and who made the application in the fall of 1973, in the case of the Hamilton-Wentworth municipality, and who were turned down -- but who have since applied to the Ontario Municipal Board. There is now a new municipality involved. I am thinking of one particular case, and maybe now I understand why it’s December of 1974 and nothing has happened. Is it possible that because the municipality named in the original application was the old municipality, the OMB would not be in a position to proceed with it, since it is now a new municipality with new municipal laws?

Hon. Mr. White: This is entirely possible and this may be corrected by the amendment before the House. If the hon. member could give me the details, I’ll check it out for him.

Mr. Deans: I will have to do it, because it now begins to clear itself up for me.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, this amendment as I see it in its positive side, is enabling legislation for either the new area government or the new regional government to continue the application that is still awaiting approval of a ministry, or one of the agencies of government.

But it could also be used to let an application more or less die on the order paper. If it’s not pursued, and if the OMB or the agency of government decides not to approve it, this section could be used to let a bylaw completely pass out of existence by not being pursued by the new government or by the region if that particular bylaw applies to a function which the region now takes over.

I am thinking particularly of the matter of water supply and things of that nature. There now could be regional responsibilities, when formerly they were area government responsibilities. I would certainly be in agreement on this as enabling legislation for the new people to carry on. But I am somewhat concerned now that this technique could be used to completely ignore or let die applications of a former area government, some of which may be no longer in existence for that form of government. They could just let them pass out of existence and the efforts of former elected representatives would now be frustrated by the new government. I don’t think that it would be proper to use it in that context.

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, this will enable new municipalities to proceed or not to proceed with previous applications. In this respect, it puts them on all fours with other municipalities. If we don’t pass the enabling legislation, the new municipalities may either reapply or not apply to the provincial agency or authority as is so desired. So this in no way weakens the position of the ratepayers or residents.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, all the regional government bills have said one thing: that the new regional governments or the new area governments are bound by the bylaws of the old municipality. Now you are saying they are bound by all the bylaws except those that are awaiting government or agency approval. What you are saying is that the new government can decide whether or not it wants to be bound by any bylaws which have not had government approval. This is really what this section is saying. At the present time, and without this bylaw, all of the matters in process will not be carried forward. Instead, the new council would have to reapply to the OMB. It’s to avoid that further delay and the additional paperwork and so on that the amendment is being offered.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: Is the minister saying then, Mr. Chairman, that any bylaws in the application form would not automatically go through to approval and become mandatory for the new municipality? They would just die as they were, so to speak.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s right; oh, yes.

Mr. Good: Well, in that case --

Hon. Mr. White: And as has been pointed out -- I suppose it is evident to the members -- this does not affect any existing bylaws.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I think the questions I had in my mind have likely been asked. One question that I would like to direct to the minister is, has this amendment been initiated because of certain specific incidents of which he is aware or is it simply a general policy which he foresaw might be needed here?

Hon. Mr. White: The region has asked for this so that it won’t have to recommence a number of applications which were part way through the stream when the new regional government and area municipal governments came into being.

Motion agreed to.

Section 56, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 57?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the co-operation of the House to go back to an earlier part of the bill. My reasons are that this was raised with the minister late last week, I raised it with municipal officials in Ottawa and very bad driving conditions held me up by an hour and a half on my trip down from Ottawa today. Otherwise, I would have been here, as I had intended, by the beginning of question period rather than at 3:15. Could I have agreement? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the question I want to raise with the minister is on the amendment to section 86 of the Ottawa-Carleton Act, which would have the effect of bringing Ottawa-Carleton into line with the other regional municipalities, giving the upper tier municipality full control over day care, rather than the present mishmash that we have in Ottawa right now. Has the minister been able to look into that?

Hon. Mr. White: I have no objection to this, and my ministry has no objection to this, but as I may have mentioned to the hon. member last week, Management Board is in the process of doing a quantitative analysis so that the consequences of such a change to the municipal governments affected and to the provincial government are known. Quite frankly, it’s really unwise, almost impossible for me to proceed with the amendment which my hon. friend is suggesting in the absence of this advice from Management Board.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, perhaps I can ask the minister to consider moving right now. Without getting into the politics of 1975 in too great detail, there is at least a possibility that we may have only a short session or short sessions in the spring, and it may not be possible to return to an amendment of this particular Act until the latter part of 1975, which is a year away from now.

As the minister is aware, the amendment which has been requested, and to which he has no objection in theory, is one which simply brings Ottawa-Carleton into line with other regional municipalities.

The problem which is created right now, because of the present structure of daycare powers in Ottawa-Carleton, is that the larger area municipalities -- Ottawa, Gloucester, Nepean and so on -- do provide or support daycare services, while the smaller ones don’t. Problems are created, for example, when a child has his parents move from one jurisdiction to another and no longer becomes eligible for subsidies. They are very practical problems that are created.

Since most of the population of the area is now in municipalities which have agreed to ask for daycare services under the terms of the existing Act, the problem that is created now is more a matter that there are some jurisdictions that do it in a kind of haphazard way, rather than making a major financial commitment.

Hon. Mr. White: My hon. friend may be entirely right, but there is apparently some difference of opinion between Ottawa proper and some of the surrounding municipalities. I simply cannot agree to this amendment until I know more about that difference of opinion and until I have the advice of Management Board.

It is self-evident, I think, that we are going to be back here in January, and if this matter can be agreed to by the government, because this is a government of equals, as my hon. friend knows, then I would undertake to offer such an amendment; but I have to say that this would be if the government agrees to do so. I have to get a better evaluation of the local politics of the matter and I have to have a cost analysis of the matter.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister is making a commitment, as I understand it, to make legislative time in January to do this if there is agreement from up there. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. White: Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. I appreciate that. Perhaps I could press him a bit further on it and say that the disagreement in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton was over a proposal to have a major expansion of regional municipal daycare services, and that proposal eventually was turned down.

Whether the powers are exclusively regional or whether they are shared, the power of the regional municipality either to embark or not to embark on a major expansion of daycare services is basically unchanged. I wonder whether the minister would also commit himself to making time for this amendment in order to bring Ottawa-Carleton into line with the other regional municipalities, if he finds that the disagreement over day care in Ottawa is not related to this particular question of those powers?

Hon. Mr. White: I can’t commit myself to a time when I’m not able to commit myself to making the change. I said if the government finds that the costs and political attitudes in the area warrant, and if the government thereby decides to amend the bill, I’ll bring it in very quickly.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, just one final point. What will the minister’s reaction be if Ottawa-Carleton says, unlike the other regional municipalities we like our system because basically our present legislation, according to what they may say, frustrates people who are trying to provide more day care in the area? Will the minister go along with that?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, if I knew the answer to that one we might proceed with the amendment today. That I don’t know.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of the House for letting me have that time.

Mr. Chairman: Any questions on sections 57, 58, 59 or 60?

Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 173, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and ask for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

PROVINCIAL PARKS MUNICIPAL TAX ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 81, the Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill before us today was introduced last spring, and there has been quite a lot of controversy and discussion on this particular bill. The principle of the bill is roughly that the three parks systems -- the Niagara parks, the St. Clair parks and the St. Lawrence parks -- are going to be included along with all other provincial parks under this particular bill, which says that the government will pay to the municipalities in which the parks are located a sum of money in lieu of taxes. The sum is based briefly, Mr. Speaker, on an amount of $5 per acre for the first 100 acres and $2 an acre for each acre in excess of 100 acres.

When we look at the statistical information regarding parks in Ontario, we find that even without the St. Lawrence parks, the Niagara parks, and the St. Clair parks, there are about 10 million acres of parks I n the Province of Ontario, which would seem like a handsome sum of money. However, when we look further we find that those parks situated in unorganized territories are not included in this particular amount. Among those, of course, Mr. Speaker, would be Quetico Park, with 1.5 million acres; Polar Bear Park, with about six million acres; Lake Superior Park, with about 391,000 acres; Algonquin Park, with almost two million acres; Winisk, half a million acres; Killarney -- and dear knows how many other parks -- that would be excluded from the list on which the government would pay a grant in lieu of taxes to the municipality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry I did not have time to look up the exact words of the former provincial Treasurer, the member for Chatham (Mr. McKeough). But it was my thought that it was always the intention of government to give larger and larger grants in lien of taxes so that the municipalities in which public buildings or parks are located would not lose any more than is necessary from having public buildings within their borders.

We have seen where the government has made efforts to give more money to the municipalities, especially in the case of university cities, where the presence of a large university or universities, plus other public buildings, has meant that a great deal of assessment in the municipality is not tax-producing.

In my own municipality of Waterloo, Mr. Speaker, over 25 per cent of the assessment was not revenue-producing. Then the government saw fit to allow the municipalities to charge the universities so much per student -- which I believe has risen from $25 to $35 per student -- in lieu of taxes. I think in the case of Waterloo university this represented about 18 or 19 per cent of the moneys they would have received had these institutions been attached according to their assessment.

So I was always under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the government was making an earnest effort to pay municipalities grants in lieu of taxes, The amount was not comparable to the amount they would get for taxes, but it was on the way up in scale and size so that municipalities would not feel it was detrimental to their tax base to have a property owned by the Crown in the right of Ontario within their municipalities.

The amendment last spring to the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act brought this question to light at that time when government bodies in that area, along with the Niagara Escarpment and the areas affected by the parkway planning development and any other planning and development area, would be included in this particular bill, so that the amount of money paid to the municipality in lieu of taxes would be $5 an acre for the first 100 acres, plus $2 an acre for that amount over 100 acres.

At that time I brought the matter before the then parliamentary assistant to the provincial Treasurer, who is now the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine). The minister replied to my statements -- which were similar to what I have just completed -- and I will quote him from Hansard of June 27, 1974:

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might interject for a minute. I waist to say to the hon. members that I wish to make an amendment to this bill and to the next one, Bill 86, in the committee of the whole House, because of the fact we are not proceeding with the Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act. It passed first reading in this session, but we will bring it forth in the fall I expect that at that time there will be a change in the maximum set out in the Act at the present time. I believe that is the point to which the member is speaking.”

Well, I am led to believe by the words of the now Minister of Housing that there will be an amendment to this bill upgrading the monetary considerations that will be available to the various parks. However, not knowing that until just now -- and the minister did shake his head that it will be forthcoming -- there are a few comments I would like to make.

First of all I want to say that of the annual reports of the three parks systems involved -- Niagara, St. Lawrence and St. Clair parks -- only the Niagara Parks Commission puts out an annual report that can give one any detail at all as to the financial situation in these particular parks. The member for Hastings (Mr. Rollins), who is chairman of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, has assured me that as of this year that commission will be putting out a comprehensive financial statement along with its regular report. I would certainly urge the government to make these reports more comprehensive. The Niagara Parks Commission is very good and I was able to ascertain what the situation is in the Niagara Parks Commission.

The Niagara parks, presently, are made up of about 3,000 acres and they have been paying, from the information I was able to get from their reports, $54,113 in 1972 and $56,140 in 1973 in municipal grants to the municipality of Niagara Falls in lieu of taxes. If we were to go to the formula presently presented in the bill, for the first 500 acres they would get $500 and for the last 2,500 acres they would get $5,000, so the grant to the municipality would be reduced to $5,500.

I understand there is considerable discussion, and always has been, on the amount of money being paid by the Niagara Parks Commission to the local municipality. Some municipal officials have made quite an issue of this and I understand, Mr. Speaker, that if the municipality of Niagara Falls is to have its grant from the Niagara Parks Commission reduced from $56,000 down to $5,500, as this bill would do, the situation would not be very healthy in Niagara Falls. I wouldn’t be surprised if that issue alone would see the present member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Clement) probably defeated in the next provincial election.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): This, of course, does not touch those large parks commissions. Section 4 deals only with the conventional provincial park which is under the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): No, it means the Niagara parks as well.

Hon. Mr. White: It’s not touched by section 4.

Mr. Good: Right, Section 1 of the explanatory note says:

“The categories of parks in respect of which a payment in lien of taxes may be made by the province to the municipalities in which they are situate are enlarged to include those parks operated under the Niagara Parks Act, the St. Clair Parkway Commission Act and the St. Lawrence Parks Commission Act; in addition, wilderness areas and historical parks are made eligible for the payment.”

What could be plainer than that? The way I read the Act is that these parks will be included. This has been a real live issue in these areas, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to hear what the provincial Treasurer has to say about this.

Hon. Mr. White: At the present time, these commissions are indeed paying property tax on grants in lieu of property tax on the structures owned by the commissions. This section doesn’t impair that at all. It doesn’t affect the amounts of money which have been paid to date, but what it does do now is, for the first time, it permits the government itself to make grants in lieu of taxes in addition to the payments being made by the several commissions listed.

Mr. Good: So I would then assume that there will grants made by the Niagara Parks Commission, as well as by the government, and the formula of the grant made by the government will be as set out in this bill.

The catch to this, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that St. Lawrence Parks Commission has never made any grants to the local municipalities for parks in that particular area. Even though the Niagara Parks Commission has paid $56,000, I’ve been given to understand that the St. Lawrence Parks Commission has never paid anything to the local municipalities and, under its new formula, which the member for Hastings was kind enough to give me, I now find that they are anticipating making a grant of about $23,390.

This brings up another point which I would like to refer to, Mr. Speaker, and that is whether or not the provincial grant will be made on an individual parks basis. For instance, under the St. Lawrence Parks Commission they have 14 different municipalities and they appear to be making their calculations on the basis that the first 100 acres in each municipality would be treated as a separate park and there would be a $500 grant, plus $2 per acre over 100 acres. I’m in agreement with this particular formula because it eliminates that inequities which result when a large acreage is taken into consideration in the municipality and all but 100 acres of that is treated at $2 an acre, which makes the grant on a large acreage very small.

This particular problem is very evident in some of the intermediate-sixed parks, such as the Mono township park up near Flesherton. In that area, Mr. Speaker, the average taxes on 100 acres -- and here are a few examples -- are about $500. There is one 91-acre site here on the 6th concession of Tosorontio township where the taxes are $643; this is vacant land. On another 100 acres it is $543. On yet another 79 acres just south of the park, lot 1 concession 7, the taxes are $788. So it would appear that the revenue generated by these open lands before they were used for park purposes was somewhere between $500 and $700.

If the province were to pay $5 an acre straight through for all the properties that were assembled in 100-acre parcels, the municipality would come out all right. But if they are going to pay $5 per 100 acres only on the first 100 acres and $2 an acre on all the rest after they are assembled into one huge parcel, the municipality is certainly going to lose a lot of revenue from this formula.

While this formula has been in existence [or some time it certainly will not do anything to help the municipalities in the loss of the revenue they had received before the space became provincial parks or which might be generated by that property had it been used for some other purpose.

For instance, in Vesper township, which contains Springwater Provincial Park, the taxes on 100 acres in one piece of property beside the park are $322. Another 98 acres south of the park generate $428. Mr. Speaker, I think there is concern in these rural townships, especially those in southern Ontario, that they are going to see a great loss of revenue by the establishment of this policy as it applies to farms that have been assembled into one large piece of land, when the government applies the formula that they get $5 an acre only on the first 100 acres.

I think the formula should be applied to each 100 acres if the land has been assembled 100 acres at a time or 200 acres at a time. In any event, it always has been in my mind that the policy of the government was going to be to upgrade these grants in lieu of taxes to the particular municipalities.

On the St. Clair Parkway I could find no information at all. Not even the library, Mr. Speaker, has any information which gives any financial statistics on the operation of the St. Clair parks. Now I think that’s a pretty sad situation and I think the parks commission should be brought to task for it.

It was only through the courtesy of the member for Hastings that I was able to get any statistical information on the financial aspects of the St. Lawrence parks. But I will say the Niagara Parks Commission puts out a good report, including the information that is required to talk about this bill.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. I think the government is going to shortchange the municipalities if they adhere to the principles in this bill and I would certainly like to hear what the Treasurer has to say, especially in light of the comments made by the now Minister of Housing to me last spring.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, before anyone else speaks let me say that the undertaking given by the Minister of Housing with respect to this bill, that we are going to enrich the payments under section 4 of the bill, is perfectly correct. As he said at that time, we will be doing this by amendment in the committee of the whole House. That will add 50 cents per acre on quantities over 10,000 acres. That will greatly increase the payments to townships like Dysart from $20,000-odd to double or treble that amount.

I haven’t got those figures here, Mr. Speaker, because I wasn’t prepared to take it into the committee of the House, but I will have them available for you. As a matter of fact, I think it is only fair to say that the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) was the one who drew these inequities to our attention and, as a consequence, we are prepared to make these improvements. A great member he is too -- a very good member; he’s not much to look at, but he’s always thinking.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Now he can’t use the quotation.

Hon. Mr. White: The fact of the matter is that we will now have the authority to make payments to some number of provincial parks and commission parks in a way that wasn’t the case before.

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister’s presentation very long? If it is, it should be left to the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to speak lengthily on the bill. I think that the previous speaker has put the points that we would have raised in general. We share the concern that the amount of money paid, even on the first 10,000 acres, could be sweetened or improved, rather than being left at the present level.

I would welcome an assurance from the minister that the fact that the lands belonging to the Niagara Parks Commission, the St. Clair Parkway Commission and the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, now are to be considered provincial parks for the purposes of this Act, will not be taken as putting a ceiling on the amount of money which those commissions now may be paying to local municipalities. If they wish to pay more, in other words, they should not be held back from so doing because of the terms of this particular bill.

In fact, going further, I suspect that an assurance would be welcome from the minister that those commissions will not pay less to the area municipalities than they now are paying -- whether they pay any more or not obviously is up to them, but that they will not pay less. I think that would solve the uncertainties which are introduced by redefining the lands which are held by these various commissions and bringing them in under the new Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, it’s a rare occasion when I can say that I do support the bill, and I support this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): That handsome fellow from Victoria-Haliburton wants to speak.

Mr. Cassidy: He is getting some flak from that side of the House now.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Sock it to ’em.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: When the minister is amending the bill I would like him to seriously consider the word “municipality,” because under the previous Parks Act the Provincial Auditor did not consider a municipality to mean townships; and when there was more than one township under a municipality, he did not consider that to be a different schedule. That’s a very important point in view of the restructuring of counties, in which townships are going to be amalgamated to make a new municipality. There might be several townships or several portions of townships in a new municipality.

I would like the minister to seriously consider changing the word “municipality” to “township,” because I think that would overcome that difficulty. Also the idea of paying 50 cents an acre over the maximum of 10,000 acres will greatly help much of the area of Ontario and will overcome many of the objections. In the case of Dysart, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that the revenue would go up from $20,300 to about $58,000, which would be in line with the assessment and the taxes that would be paid normally.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, I certainly will give the member for Ottawa Centre the assurance that the municipalities will get more and not less as a consequence of these changes. I think that’s the assurance he sought.

Mr. Cassidy: No. In the case of the Niagara Parks Commission and the St. Lawrence Parks Commission certain arrangements are apparently being made now which provide far more revenue to the municipality than they would get under this particular Act. Their lands, however, are considered provincial parks for the purposes of this Act, according to the definition section. That’s the concern that the member for Waterloo North and I were expressing.

Mr. Good: They aren’t paid a nickel.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. White: I have been assured by the Minister of Housing, who had this bill through its decision-making stages, that there will be no diminution on the part of the parks authorities as the government itself increases its payments.

Insofar as the definitional difficulty is concerned, I will indeed have a look at this before we come to the committee of the whole House. I do point out that the interpretation has been altered in the bill, and section (a) now reads:

“‘Municipality’ means a city, town, village, township and improvement district.”

My hon. friend is suggesting that the singular in use there may be troublesome to us. I will certainly undertake to explore the possibility of heading off any difficulty in that respect. We will be amending the Act and offering an amendment to the bill in committee of the whole House and, at that time, I can deal with these other matters also, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to be referred to committee of the whole House.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 175, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Bill 173, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Mr. Foulds: There is no quorum, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves second reading of Bill 176, An Act to provide for the Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no quorum.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Yes, there is a quorum.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, I see a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: There is a quorum. The member for Kitchener wished to speak to this bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the bill will be brief.

This bill has obviously been a long time in coming forward to us and we are certainly happy to see it brought before the Legislature. The responsibility that the Minister of Colleges and Universities has includes the provision and protection of various areas with respect to the heritage of Ontario and the continuation of this protection is certainly the prime goal of this bill. In the regional municipality of Waterloo we have had through the Ontario Pioneer Foundation the development of our own Pioneer Village and the development through the Waterloo Historical Society of a great interest in matters historical over the years, in fact, that society celebrated its 50th anniversary several years ago. Similarly, in many other parts of the community of Ontario we have found a greatly increasing interest in areas of our heritage. We certainly think that those groups who are interested particularly in historic matters and the preservation of heritage, should have a bill to which they can turn when there are problems that can arise very quickly as buildings are in the ordinary case threatened by development or as certain historic sites may otherwise be used for a purpose not consistent with our present view of our heritage.

There has been an increasing awareness in historic matters. I can think of none better than the work done by the Advocates’ Society in Toronto to arrange for the moving and preservation of the house of the former Justice Campbell. As we see that house now restored and we recall the dedication of it and the reopening events in which Her Majesty the Queen Mother participated this past summer, we can see how the placing of that house on a former park area at the Canada Life building property is something which all aids the preservation of areas of concern within the community.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the ministry is to be commended in finally providing in one piece of legislation the modern approach that we should take to the heritage of the province.

We are interested, of course, in noting that there will be tenders called for any significant restoration matters. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was much said in the early part of this year with respect of certain of the work in the Fort William area and the problems that were raised with respect to tenders and other such matters. Surely, where large sums of public moneys are being spent, particularly in areas that might have a greater restorative cost than is apparent when you look at the outside of a project, we must make sure that tenders are being used to as great a degree as possible so that we are getting good value for the work being done on these projects.

I suppose that one thing we could refer to is the chairmanship of the foundation. It is interesting to see that the former member for Carleton East has received the chairmanship and will, I presume, continue in that position. The minister might choose to comment as to the emolument and other amenities which that gentleman will have as he oversees this particular foundation. One can expect that we will see his shining face around the building on some occasions in the future. Of course, that is always pleasant, even though the no longer has the responsibilities of representing that constituency.

I suppose that one who has been involved in historic work and the various other projects along this line might well comment that the bill does not go far enough or that there should be further amendments. I trust the minister will in the next session bring forward additional amendments, or be prepared to strengthen this bill if such proves necessary.

One could say that an additional background of funds for restorative work could be done as well as the acquisition of new buildings or new projects. I suppose that the government, as it looks more to the preservation of the various projects and buildings and other matters and sites of historic value, may be prepared to come forward with funds. I would appreciate hearing from the minister as to whether he foresees a change in the public funding of various conservation projects and whether the funds presently in existence for this work are going to be increased. There is a review board which will he, I think, of use as various projects compete for the obviously scarce funds which are otherwise available,

I do, as I say, bring the support of our party to the minister as he develops this kind of legislation -- which we think is long overdue -- and which we hope will be used as a strong tool to preserve and develop the heritage of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We support the general principles that are embedded in this bill. The physical preservation of the heritage of the province is something that our party supports, and many of us in the party have as fine a historic sense as the minister and the government, I’m sure. We know that aeons and aeons hence, centuries from now, people will be well pleased to see the preservation of an obscure Premier’s home in Brampton, Ont. I’m sure the government wishes to have the bill passed before that becomes a historic moment, and that’s one of the reasons why it is bringing it forth at this moment.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): There’s lots of time for that; years ahead.

Mr. Foulds: There are, however, a number of clauses in the bill which we think more appropriate to deal with in committee, by questions and answers about specifics, and I would therefore request that the bill go to committee, if only briefly.

One thing that does bother me to some extent -- and I understand the difficulty that the minister and the ministry would have -- is that the bill itself is entitled, “An Act to provide for the Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario,” and nowhere within the terms of the bill is the word “heritage” defined. That seems to me to be a very serious oversight, if it’s not an impossible task to do in legal terms.

For example, it does not bother me that Mary Pickford’s home is no longer in existence on University Ave. and it has been replaced by the Hospital for Sick Children. There are certain things that we have to come to grips with in terms of meeting the needs of our present society, and that seems to me to be one of the most important balancing acts that the board and the foundations that the minister envisages in the bill will have to cope with over the next number of years.

There are three principles embodied in the bill that I, in a rare moment of conviviality, would like to pay tribute to the government for bringing in. I am particularly pleased about the principle embodied in section 10, subsection 1, which puts squarely on the minister the responsibility for policies and priorities being established. I think that is an extremely valuable principle in this kind of legislation, because it does mean that a number of issues raised in the public mind can be brought directly to the House and to the Legislature for consideration.

The fact that that is clearly spelled out in the bill is a principle that our party would support, not only in this bill but in a number of others. We wish it were so in a number of other government agencies, such as Ontario Hydro and OHC, although I must say the present Minister of Housing is doing a yeoman job of defending OHC at the present time.

The second principle that I’d like to see the minster comment on before we leave second reading, if possible, is the principle that is embodied in part 4. If I understand the part correctly, it gives the authority to the municipality to designate sites and to establish the advisory committees necessary, and I think that that’s an important principle, because surely we have to allow, in province-wide legislation, for the variation necessary from region to region within the province.

For example, just in terms of the age or the youth or the growth of the buildings, a frame house built in northwestern Ontario in 1910 may very well be a historic monument where here in southern Ontario that would not be considered so, simply because there is a difference in the age of the history of the different areas of the province. It seems to me that that is the part in the bill that allows for that variation to be considered by the local people -- and then approved or not approved by the provincial body.

The last principle that I think is worthy of some note and some praise is section 32, which provides for the review process, if that is necessary. If an owner feels that he has been done an injustice in the designation of his property he can appeal through that route.

So I think we on this side would support the principles embodied in those three sections in particular. I know my colleagues have some comments they wish to make, and I would just like to end the lead-off on this and say that in principle we support the bill. There are a number of clauses we would like clarification on and my colleagues will be speaking specifically to some of those. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. We are glad to see the general legislation. I believe Kingston and Toronto were the only municipalities that had private legislation permitting them to designate certain buildings as historical sites.

With the repeal of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act one matter must be brought forth here. I see in this bill no provision made for compensation to owners who have the market value of their building reduced by having it designated.

Permission is given in this bill for municipalities to designate certain properties as historical sites. I agree this must be done. I think we must retain a link with our past, and our heritage is certainly wrapped up in properties and buildings. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the recent publication of the Ontario heritage magazine, they had an article on the work they are doing. They say “some you win and some you lose;” and they said “here is a picture of one we lost,” and they had a picture of the Kitchener city hall on a half page of the magazine. The Heritage Foundation did have an active part in trying to preserve that building, but the city fathers saw the problem as something different, and the city hall in Kitchener was torn down.

Under the other Act, Mr. Speaker, that is being repealed -- the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act -- there is a section which reads as follows:

“Where land is designated under sections 2 or 2(b), and no agreement as to the terms and conditions upon which the designation is made, including payment of compensation, if any, has been reached by the minister with the owner, the owner shall be entitled to compensation:

“(a) for any reduction in market value of the land designated;

“(b) for any reduction in market value of any land contiguous to the lands designated, owned by the owner or used under unified control of the lands designated by the owner.”

I think we get right back to the old purpose which has come up for debate on numerous occasions in this Legislature. That is, when something must be done for the public good, or for the good of the majority. I don’t think one segment of the population should have to bear the whole brunt of the cost.

This goes right through our planning development legislation. We argued that principle where one group in society -- for instance the farmers -- don’t feel they should have to pay the whole shot to have good land-use planning in the Province of Ontario, and we had the principle established in the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act that compensation should be paid and would be paid to those who had the market value of their property reduced in view of the fact that their property had been designated as an historical site.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, there might be a compromise --

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Could I just interrupt the hon. member?

Mr. Good: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If he refers to section 62, subsection 2, which is on page 33 of the bill, I think he will find that in fact the old provisions are continued and somewhat extended. That’s in part VI.

Mr. Good: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This then is a new addition to the bill. The last time I spoke to the people in the ministry they told me there was no provision for compensation, and I must confess I didn’t catch that in the bill now.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can understand that. The hon. member has not had too much opportunity to read this since Friday.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right; we haven’t as a matter of fact. For a major bill it’s a disgrace to bring it in like this.

Hon. Mr. Auld: But it is simply the same section, as the member will notice from the Revised Statutes of 1970, transferred in here.

Mr. Cassidy: And the minister expects us to read it in advance.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad to note that I can’t grasp the whole intent of these sections right now while standing here. The last time I had spoken to people in the ministry I was given to understand there had been no provision made for compensation. Certainly I will say again that I don’t think any particular class or person in society should have to accept the whole financial burden for something which is for the good of all.

The other provisions of the Act have been long sought by historical societies, especially in my own area. They’ve had an active interest in this legislation for two years. I’ve been phoning the ministry for two years trying to get information about when the bill is coming. I was assured just a year ago that it would be in the last session. I understand now the bill has been expanded and is more comprehensive. I certainly hope this will serve the needs of those municipalities which are rightly taking more and more interest in the preservation of the past.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I, too, share the concern of my colleague from Ottawa Centre about the inadequate amount of time that was given to members of the House to read in detail and to understand fully the implications of this bill. From a very superficial analysis of it, I think it is a good I bill, but I would have liked much more time in order to study it and see the significance of it. It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that for a bill of such far-reaching importance as this adequate time wasn’t given for perusal of it. I don’t think any of us saw it until we came into the House and saw it in our order book this afternoon.

Mr. Cassidy: Precisely.

Mr. Stokes: However, I am going to make some comments on it, Mr. Speaker. One of the things I am pleased to see in it is that it provides for greater protection for Ontario’s archaeological resources. Coming from an area of the province that hasn’t the kind of historic background by way of buildings and man-made structures that previous members have spoken on, I am particularly concerned about the protection and preservation of archaeological sites.

I don’t know what the minister means by heritage conservation, but I do know there are a good many historical sites in the province that have been named and designated based on a previous activity of either the voyageurs or the migration of natives many hundreds, and indeed many thousands of years ago. Without going into detail, the minister is saying; “Yes, this was an historic site and we would like to bring it to your attention.”

I want to get into something much more specific than that. I want to deal very briefly with part IV of the Act where it states, quite specifically, what the legislation will be and what the regulations will provide for the proper protection of historic or architecturally valuable edifices. I want some kind of assurance -- and I haven’t had time to go through the bill in detail -- but I want to know if there is going to be a similar kind of protection for areas without municipal organization.

I’m thinking in terms of a church that was built by the Jesuits many decades ago to serve native people. There may be a plaque stating that this was an area where native people did certain things, or certain groups of Jesuits or other clergy came to so-called Christianize our first citizens. There are still a few of those buildings left. I can think of one right now up on Highway 11 overlooking Lake Helen, just north of the town of Nipigon.

I’m wondering what kind of mechanism the minister is going to set up, or what kind of information or what kind of resource people he is going to draw from in order to designate or pinpoint these things that have some historical significance? It there going to be the same diligence on the part of the minister and the people who are going to be responsible for carrying out this Act? Is there going to be the kind of diligence that is going to be required in order to protect the historical significance of certain events of the past?

I’m also concerned about the licensing of activities for exploration of archaeological sites. I’m also concerned that a lot of this so-called uncontrolled digging has gone on in many areas under Opportunities for Youth grants. I’m not at all aware that licensing was required in the past.

I think this is something I welcome in the bill. I know that over-zealous groups of youngsters, headed up by one archaeologist, went into an area. They really did not fully understand what they were doing in removing these artefacts. They were supposedly well-intentioned, but from what I’ve been able to gather really did more harm than any good that might have been achieved.

We have a small museum in the town of Nipigon, and a group of very dedicated people are gathering artefacts and things that will remind us of the life-style of the past. They are aware of certain digs that have gone on in the past, particularly on the east shore of Lake Nipigon. People, either authorized or unauthorized, have gone up there and removed some very valuable artefacts.

I can think of one batch right now that’s sitting stored in the basement of the Royal Ontario Museum, just up the street here. We have tried, to no avail, to get those artefacts back, because it is a very important and integral part of the early history of our area. We want to preserve those things. If I may, I want to get some kind of assurance from the minister that whenever a dig is authorized by way of a licence under this Act, it just doesn’t give somebody the unilateral or unchallenged right to come in, do a dig and to put artefacts on display down here in the ROM. I think it’s something that belongs to the people in the area. While we only have one museum of any consequence in my area, and it has only been in operation two years, I want to pay tribute to them now by saying I think they have done an excellent job; they are in the process of cataloguing all of the artefacts they have.

With this kind of legislation, and if we can get this kind of co-operation from this minister and this ministry, I think we can provide a much more detailed and much more historically accurate record of what went on in many areas of the province; and of course particularly the part of the province I am concerned about, which stretches all the way from English River to White River and from Lake Superior up to Hudson Bay.

To indicate to the minister how strongly we feel about this, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from a letter that was sent to Mr. Campbell Currie, who is with the Ministry of Natural Resources and whose primary responsibility is dealing with native people, particularly in the far north. It was also sent to a Dr. Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum. It was sent by people from the Toronto Sick Children’s Hospital to Mr. John MacFie of the Ministry of Natural Resources in Parry Sound. It was sent to the historical department of Hudson’s Bay House in Winnipeg.

To indicate how important it is that we he made aware of some of the historical sites that have been neglected or perhaps weren’t even known, I want to quote from this letter, which gives information regarding Old Fort Severn. Fort Severn, on the shore of Hudson Bay, is the most northerly place in Ontario where anybody lives; it’s in the riding of Thunder Bay, by the way --

Mr. Foulds: A well-serviced riding.

Mr. Stokes: The letter states:

“In connection with the University of Toronto medical school involvement in the so-called Sioux Lookout project, I have visited Fort Severn for one, two, three or four days in each of the last five years.

“On my first visit in September, 1970, I was taken to the site of the recently discovered Old Fort Severn by Moses Kakakaspan. This site evidently was discovered in the late 1960s by people from Fort Severn cutting firewood in a fairly recent burn. They discovered bricks underneath the surface of the recently burned forest floor.

“The site is on the mainland, two or three miles south of the present settlement on the east side of the river and nearly opposite the north end of the so-called Sugar Island. I believe it has been visited by one or more representatives of Ontario Lands and Forest from time to time, and there is a rumour that some bricks have been sent to England and the time of manufacture has been identified.

“I gather that the site is visited fairly frequently by inquisitive goose hunters and whatever other tourists reach Fort Severn, but in my judgment even on a second visit the site is really not very much disturbed although I, of course, know virtually nothing about the digging of anthropological sites.

“My last visit to Fort Severn was June 24 to June 25, 1974, and on this last occasion I brought back samples of bricks and tiles. These are now in the custody of Dr. R. G. Bowes, room 650, Whitney Block, Queen’s Park. Dr. Bowes is senior archaeological research supervisor in one of the ministries of the Province of Ontario.

“In addition, on July I notified Dr. Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum by telephone about the site and the bricks, which I brought to Toronto. On a day in September or October, 1974, I spent a very enjoyable couple of hours with Dr. Campbell Currie, chief of the division of fish and wildlife in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Our meeting was in the Whitney Block. I discussed with him the matter of the old fort site.”

I am not going to read it in detail, but he says:

“At the start of our discussion centred around an article in the Beaver Magazine [which is the official organ for the Hudson’s Bay Co.] in the spring of 1970 by John MacFie, entitled, ‘Severn House 1770,’ Mr. Currie kindly allowed me to speak to Mr. MacFie by telephone at Parry Sound.

“Mr. MacFie’s article gave an excellent review of the history of the Hudson’s Bay Co.’s activities at the mouth of the Severn River. It includes photographs of artefacts retrieved from the crumbling river banks.

“In our conversation, he confirmed that these artefacts were recovered from the river bank of the site of the present Hudson’s Bay post and village. He also confirmed that when he visited Fort Severn the site of the old fort bad not been discovered. He told me also that he has a number of other artefacts which he would be willing to contribute to some form of permanent record of the history of Fort Severn, if proper arrangements were made for the housing and care of the permanent historical exhibit at Fort Severn.

“In my opinion, such an exhibit at this site should be chosen by and decided on by the Fort Severn band, whose chief is Mr. Elijah Stoney. There would, of course, need to be consultation between the band and any financial supporter in the project. It seems to me that the discovery of this old fort provides an excellent opportunity for a formal archaeological investigation of the old site by the proper authorities of either the Province of Ontario or the Dominion of Canada or both. It also provides some employment opportunities for some of the people at Fort Severn, and in addition it should provide an excellent opportunity for the people of Fort Severn to identify themselves with their rather long and quite interesting history.”

It is signed by a Dr. William S. Keith who is semi-retired. I think he is a surgeon down here and is taking an active interest in this very subject, and of course he lives in Toronto.

I just wanted to prevail upon the House long enough to read that into the record to indicate that this is just one of many sites that have been neglected. Since it is in an area where it is very remote, I am hoping that within the framework of this particular Act the minister will instruct those who are responsible for carrying it out to get out into the field to identify these sites, particularly sites that have historical significance as they pertain to our first citizens. We have many areas in the province that have been designated where we have had Indian pictographs. We have got them down in Agawa Canyon, north of Sault Ste. Marie. We have got them in Worthington Bay south of Schreiber on Lake Superior and we have got them in Quetico Park.

This is all a very, very important part of our historical past. I would ask the minister to pay particular attention to them when he is setting up this mechanism, particularly for those areas I am concerned about where there is no municipal organization. I am not speaking in terms of buildings now, but I am thinking in terms of artefacts and historical sites. The history of other races iii some cases goes back 6,000 or 7,000 years. I hope the minister will pay particular attention to them. I see this as not only an opportunity for the native people to see what their links are with the past, but if we can get a sufficient amount of dollars it will be an opportunity for them to be gainfully and productively employed in preserving these in a building or in some form of setting that might provide immediate employment. It would serve as a means of making them a very important part of the history of the past and making them aware of the fact that we too are interested in their past.

There could be some financial significance in setting these items up in the form of a museum, particularly in those areas where we may be able to attract a significant number of tourists, in order to make it, in an attractive way, something that would attract tourists. Thus it wouldn’t only be just an educational thing and a documentation of the past, but it would provide some means of income on an ongoing basis.

As I said in my opening remarks, I didn’t have enough time to go over the bill in detail, but in general I welcome it and I hope the minister will be able to give me some kind of assurance that he, too, is concerned about the preservation of these sites; and hopefully if there are any licences issued under it, they are not all moved down here for storage to enhance viewing of people in southern Ontario, but they should remain in the north, much closer to where they are found, so that we, too, will have something to boast about by way of retention and cataloguing of what has gone on in the past, and hopefully assist our native people in the process.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a few comments on Bill 176, an Act to provide for the Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario, and refer specifically to probably the one area in the province that is filled with maybe more history and variety of history than is any other area, and that is the area of Essex county.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh it’s the Ottawa Valley. How could the member get it wrong?

Mr. Breithaupt: Let the member for Ottawa Centre speak next.

Mr. B. Newman: Well, I said one of the areas that is probably filled with more history than is any other area in the province.

Mr. Cassidy: We had Champlain, for example.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the Essex county area and the attempt on the part of the residents in the county and the professors at the university regarding the development and the preservation of some of the historic artefacts and buildings in the county. The minister, when he was the Minister of Tourism and Information, does recall the many times that I brought up in this House in connection with the need for the development of a Jesuit village and/or a seigniory in Essex county.

I always made mention to the minister of the fact that our American friends to the north of us have developed, in Dearborn, the Ford museum and also the Greenfield Village; the Ford museum generally being a museum dedicated to the automotive or similar type of transportation, whereas the Greenfield Village has the most outstanding collection of various historical buildings throughout the United States. The minister will be aware if he has visited it -- and I would assume that he did as Minister of Industry, or Minister of Tourism, in the past -- of the laboratory in which Thomas Alva Edison developed the first electric light bulb; that being one of the numerous exhibits in the area.

I can foresee, with the passing of this Act and the interest on the part of the ministry, the development of something similar, but on a small scale, in the Essex county. area, the area in which early settlers made their first home on their journey up into what is now the State of Michigan and eventually going right through to the Lakehead. I make mention of a Jesuit village, because to my understanding the area was the first permanent settlement in Lower Canada -- that is what I would refer to Ontario as, although I am always confused as to whether to say it was Lower Canada or Upper Canada -- at any rate, the first development or settlement of the Jesuits was in the area around what is now Assumption Church and the Assumption College or University of Windsor.

The people who live in the River Canard area have in the past expressed desire for the development of a seigniory, something that could point out to our many visitors who come into the “garden gateway to Canada,” the “sunshine parlour of Canada” -- the Essex county area -- just exactly how the early French settlers did get along and just exactly how they did live.

The minister is also aware of an historic building that could have been preserved by this government, and that was when the public school men teachers attempted to have a former school -- later turned into a library and then torn down for the development of a housing project -- made into a museum. That building could have made an excellent museum for the community so that our present generation could see just exactly how their great-great-grandparents were educated in that school building. It was a sorry day when the government thought it more important to place a housing project in the area rather than to preserve that site for its historic benefit.

The minister is also aware that the Essex county area was the first point in Canada where the slaves entered when they left the United States in their pursuit of freedom under a British flag. I think there are a lot of extremely worthwhile buildings that could be preserved in the county that trace their construction to the earlier days. There is an organization or association that originally started as an historic vehicles association in the Windsor and Essex county area that has expanded by purchasing a site around Arner, sort of in the centre of the county. On that site they are attempting to place various buildings of historic significance. To the best of my knowledge they have already placed on the site a former schoolhouse that dates back well over 100 years. They are also interested in purchasing other buildings throughout the county area to place in this location, so that our future generations can at least look back in history by visiting that area.

I hope that the legislation we are passing here today will also permit the minister to provide funds to non-profit organizations that would be interested in the development of historic areas and sites in the province. What he has done in the Upper Canada area is an excellent example of what should be done in other parts of the province. We live on the extreme southwestern end of the Province of Ontario. We are sort of a dagger projecting into the heartland of the Americas. We are, in the Essex county area, only eight hours’ drive away from approximately 50 million people. Surely, from the historical point of view itself, it would be worth the minister’s while to see to a development either of a Jesuit village or a seigniory in Essex county.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister does take into consideration some of the comments I have made and that he does look favourably, in conjunction with the community, on the preservation of many of the historic areas in the Windsor-Essex county area. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, want to put it on the record that I think it is an absolute disgrace that a government of 74 members, or however many they have, and with all the resources of the civil service behind it, which has had an intention for three years to bring forward legislation relating to historic preservation, can’t do better than to produce the bill on a Friday, to publish it on a Monday and to begin to debate it an hour or two later. I think that is an absolutely shocking disgrace.

I think it is an insult and an affront to all of the people who submitted briefs in response to the report of 1971 on a programme for the conservation of properties of historical and architectural significance in Ontario. All of those groups have taken an enormous interest and have co-operated with the government and have been willing to take at face value the government’s assurances that it really intended to do something genuine in this particular area. They have dealt fairly with the government; the government has not dealt fairly with them.

Can I just say that I regret I don’t see here in the House the presence of Mr. Bert Lawrence. His interest in heritage is well known and his hopes that he would be able to do something with the Ontario Heritage Foundation under the expanded legislation also is well known. I wish him well in that particular endeavour. I am sorry that he is not here.

For that matter, I don’t think I can see Mr. Larry Ryan here in the galleries either. He has been the secretary of the Heritage Foundation for several years. He has struggled on, basically with sealing wax and chewing gum, in an effort to have any kind of a provincial programme of heritage preservation over the last few years. He has done a good job with the resources that were given to him. But a government which is now, I suppose, telling us it is making another commitment to heritage preservation in the province, and which is bringing forward legislation to that effect, has left the Heritage Foundation basically penniless -- or just about penniless -- and they have been able to do very little over the last few years.

Perhaps I can begin by reviewing that record, Mr. Speaker. The record of the government toward heritage in the years since the creation of the Ontario Heritage Foundation in 1967 is an unfortunate guide to its credibility, if it now intends to expand the work of the foundation and to expand the powers of the municipalities to designate historic buildings. I am afraid the record of the Heritage Foundation, as far as the foundation itself is concerned, is one of gallant struggle; but the record of the government as regards the Heritage Foundation is a miserable one.

There has been a $500,000 endowment over the period since 1967, if I read the accounts of the Heritage Foundation correctly. It has dispersed out of its general fund the total sum of $442,000. Of this, $250,000 was dispersed for a particular purpose, which I would suggest, is perhaps more related to the Ontario Arts Council than to the Heritage Foundation; and that is, apparently, the acquisition of the Firestone property.

I would appreciate it if the minister could explain just what that means, either during the course of the second reading debate or during the course of the committee study of the bill. My understanding had been that the bequest of the Firestone property, the physical property housing the Firestone collection in Ottawa, was a gift to the government. There was not an actual payment to them by the government of Ontario for their residence, but rather a guarantee to the Firestones of life tenure in that particular property, so long as they wished to stay there.

At any rate, the Firestone collection is related to heritage preservation and the very valuable work of early Ontario artists, particularly those in the Group of Seven; but it is not related to the preservation of historic buildings, which was the prime purpose of the Heritage Foundation. If you take away the Firestone collection payment, Mr. Speaker, less than $200,000 has been dispersed out of their general fund and only half a dozen properties have been acquired.

I noted with interest and some pleasure that the Heritage Foundation has tended to devote a fair amount of its effort to eastern Ontario. That’s possibly because of the enormous historical legacy in that part of the province which, of course, was settled and flourishing before Essex county was more than a dream in the eye of some American settlers, I suspect. Nevertheless, what they’ve had to cope with has been really inadequate.

In 1972-1973, which is the latest year for which I could find their report, on the very short notice that we had, Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Foundation disbursed the enormous sum of $35,851 on half a dozen projects. It was reduced to putting out nickels and dimes, relatively speaking, and simply could not embark on any major programmes of preservation.

Mr. Speaker, that’s been the situation up until now. I think before passing second reading on the bill this House deserves to have a statement from the minister of just what are the intentions of the government as regards the Heritage Foundation, since this is a major vehicle that will be created in the course of the Act. It’s powers are augmented; it’s destined, I gather, to become a more important body. But will it have any money to back that prestige or will it be wandering around the province with money enough to put up plaques but with no other resources in particular to speak of? That needs to be said. The government’s credibility is on the line.

I would suggest, too, Mr. Speaker, in the course of looking through the legislation with what time we’ve had available, that I just can’t help feeling this bill would benefit from being held over after the second reading debate until the session which, apparently, we’re going to have in January. I would plead with the minister to commit himself to put the bill out to a committee and that that committee have the power to bring in representations from groups like the heritage committee in Ottawa which has been taking a great interest in this, historical societies across the province, people interested in preservation here in Toronto and so forth.

I think that the bill itself would benefit from that kind of scrutiny. We would understand what we’re getting into. There would be publicity for municipalities and that might encourage some of them to get into it more quickly. We could generally strengthen the bill and repair the kind of problems the minister is creating for himself by this sudden, last-minute imposition, if I dare say the word, of the bill on the Legislature.

I have followed this with some interest. I happened to be in the House today. The bill was not announced, as I recall, as having any priority when the orders were read out late last week and we had only received it, so we didn’t expect to get it today. I find myself scrambling even to discuss the bill at this time and I would wish for more time as well. I would say, in particular, Mr. Speaker, that there are two areas which cry out for further study and further discussion before the bill is passed in legislation and is enacted. One is that I don’t think that the economic problems of conservation of buildings of historic or architectural interest have been fully dealt with in the course of the bill.

In one sense, those economic problems are touched upon when a building is designated as being of either historical or archaeological interest by the province, because, if an owner doesn’t want to have his building so designated, or wants to wiggle out of it or wants to alter it or, as I understand it, wants to demolish his building after designation by the province, he has to lodge an appeal. It goes to the Conservation Review Board which, in turn, reports back to the minister and the minister may make a final and binding decision. He may, in fact, tell that particular owner: “Your building deserves to be kept as part of the heritage of Ontario and you do not have the right either to tear it down or to alter it, and that’s that.” That’s the final decision.

In certain instances I would expect that the minister might make an arrangement with the Heritage Foundation in order that some of the costs of maintenance or whatever might be supplied if there is a real economic hardship that is being done. Nevertheless, at the provincial level -- and I think quite rightly -- there are final and binding powers to order the preservation of a particular building. But the economic problems of conservation are not really dealt with nearly so adequately when it comes to a building which is designated at the municipal level.

We have to assume that some structures which are designated at the municipal level would be considered by a provincial advisory committee -- if one was created in this bill, which it isn’t -- as being of outstanding provincial historical interest, but which for various reasons it may well be possible that the minister of the day won’t have designated in a particular municipality and a particular region. Maybe he will be fairly cautious or conservative about his use of the powers of designation, and the municipalities will feel compelled to step in and try and repair the gap.

If the owner of a designated building doesn’t like it or wants to alter that building, there is a procedure laid out here where he also goes before the Conservation Review Board and that review board then reports back to the municipality and says, “look, the alterations are fine,” or “They are terrible,” and at any rate it gives some advice to the municipality as regards alterations and the municipality can make a final and binding decision. They can say to the owner, “Look, we are sorry. We know you want to turn this into bachelor flatlets with a brand new frontage, but you can’t do it. We won’t let you.” Or, “We know you want to turn this into a series of boutiques to look quite different than it looks right now. You can’t do it,” and that’s that.

On the other hand, because the economic problems of conservation of heritage property are not fully seized in this bill, an owner who was frustrated in an effort to get alterations may then decide to go the whole route and seek to demolish. If he seeks to demolish, the municipality has the powers to delay and it also has the powers to expropriate within that 180-day period. It has the powers to make loans or grants to that particular individual or to the property owner. That’s fine. But in the case of an impasse, however, after 180 days have passed, given an intransigent owner on the one side and a council which does not have the resources to acquire the property through expropriation on the other, then a piece of priceless heritage in the province goes.

I would ask the minister -- and maybe his officials can advise him on this -- for example, in the case of the Rideau Convent, just or Rideau St. in downtown Ottawa, whether the powers proposed here could ultimately have prevented the demolition of that convent? That was property Mr. Speaker, which sat on valuable commercial land, close to Rideau St., a major shopping street in Ottawa, but which was also of inestimable and irreproducible historic value in the province.

At the time that the new owners sought to demolish the building there were appeals down here, there were appeals in Ottawa; the owners agreed to delay for a while, the National Capital Commission and the city got involved in the act, there were appeals to the federal ministers and federal MPs for the area, and to the provincial people, all in an effort to find enough money to acquire the property. But the acquisition of property when the lands values are in the order of $20 or $30 a foot or more is a very expensive proposition. The money wasn’t there and there were no means by which the municipality could compel the owner to sit down and look at an alternative kind of proposal which would have allowed commercial redevelopment of the newer portions of the Rideau Convent and preservation of the historic portions, the oldest parts of the building. This could be suggested -- and was, in fact, discussed -- but there were no means to compel it and those means are not provided for in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, in a discussion by the Heritage Ottawa committee of the questions of heritage, they point out the kind of economic problems which exist when you get into these situations, and that sometimes the problems arise not even because of an increase in the value of alternative uses but because of the added expense or increasing expense of maintaining heritage property.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I inquire of the member if he has further remarks to make? If so, would he move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Cassidy moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 9

Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No. 9, by Mr. Walker.

RESOLUTION: That the government of Ontario enact legislation providing for an Ontario lottery sponsored by the government.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): I move resolution No. 9.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London North moves resolution No. 9.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing so persuasive as an idea whose time has come, and in terms of the question of lotteries I think that the time has come.

Three or four years ago I made an announcement concerning my interest in a government-sponsored lottery on the Queen’s Plate, and at the time it drew a reaction that was basically a zero; maybe it was because I was announcing my candidacy or something like that.

But in true tradition I thought it appropriate to recycle it again this summer and indicated that I would move a resolution or a private member’s bill this fall in the Legislature for a government-sponsored lottery. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the reaction was frankly nothing short of phenomenal. I was really impressed.

I suppose one must ask, why is there a sudden change of feeling amongst the public? I’m sure it must relate to the legitimizing of lotteries by the Olympic lottery. Probably most people are impressed by lotteries. Almost everyone has purchased a ticket in a hockey pool or bought a Kinsmen ticket on a new automobile or what have you. In fact, I’m sure we have all coveted the winning of an Irish Sweepstake in our fondest dreams. Probably the Irish Sweepstake provided us with the impetus to take these chances, and the Olympic lottery made it legitimate. But today there is undoubtedly a reaction to have lotteries. They are legitimate. They are good forms of revenue-bearing machines.

Man by his very nature takes chances; I think every time we turn around we are taking a chance. It’s a life of risk. In fact, all of us think we have a chance of winning an Olympic lottery, but none of us think we have a chance of getting hit by another car, and therefore of needing a seatbelt, so we don’t buckle up. However, we do assume that we are going to win a lottery, and the chances there are somewhat fewer certainly than they would be in getting into an accident.

We are surrounded by lotteries in all the provinces. The western provinces have a lottery. Quebec has a lottery. I believe there is one in the Maritimes. The American states have lotteries. New York has a very successful one, and Illinois and Michigan have them. I even heard a story today about the lottery that was recently introduced in Ohio; the problem there is that federal broadcast regulations prevent the lottery agency from broadcasting the winning numbers on either radio or television, so they must rely on the newspapers. Unfortunately, in Cleveland there is a strike of the newspapers. So they have had to hire a few town criers to go around Cleveland carrying signs bearing the numbers. I guess this is how they are getting the message across.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): They used a helicopter finally.

Mr. Walker: Yes, I think a helicopter was invoked to tow the numbers about the city. Such is the interest in lotteries. It’s definitely developing to a fever pitch, and undoubtedly the Olympic lottery has created most of it.

The most interesting lottery I know of, Mr. Speaker, is Loto Quebec which, not to be confused with the Olympic lottery, is operated by the Province of Quebec. They have a variety of different -- what shall we call them? -- games of chance. They have 50-cent weekly lotteries on a $5,000 draw. They have $2 monthly lotteries on a much higher purse. They also have, I believe, a $4 quarterly draw on an even larger booty than the monthly draw. They have perfectas based on the running of horse races and a number of computer draws as well. Always, of course, we have that international lottery -- the Irish lottery -- that we heard so much of in the 1950s and 1960s. I don’t know if they had it in the 1940s, but it was pretty popular in the 1950s when I was growing up.

Mr. Speaker, the design that I would see in an Ontario provincial lottery would be one that had a wide variety of approaches, not just geared to one single event like the Queen’s Plate, although I think that many of these could be encouraged. We could have lotteries perhaps based on the Queen’s Plate, the Stanley Cup, the Grey Cup, a number of special events, and other sports attractions. In addition, we could have a variety of computer draws, again on the weekly, monthly or quarterly basis. I would think that it would be not correct to restrict the lotteries to any one field, but rather to give a wide opportunity for the investing public to invest its money in this opportunity for great reward.

I don’t think I need to mention to the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, the lost revenue that this province alone must suffer. How many Irish Sweepstake winners have we had in Ontario in the past five years alone? I think probably a dozen every year, and they usually win $200,000 or $300,000. If you assume that there must be $1 million or $2 million a year in actual booty that comes into the province from the sweepstakes, there would have to be an appropriate outflow from the province for these people to have won. So we could assume from there that probably $2 million, $3 million or $4 million a year is going out of Canada just to the Irish sweepstake alone. No doubt Ontario contributes its fair share to these particular lotteries in Ireland -- perhaps as much as half of that.

The Loto Quebec has made great inroads, Mr. Speaker. In effect, it’s a new tax. One would ask how much money it can return, and it’s estimated that the Loto Quebec returns revenues to the province of something approaching $100 million a year. It is also estimated that of this $100 million, probably Ontario contributes a fair share, because there are a lot of sales, I am told, at least from Toronto to our eastern frontier with Quebec. There is no doubt a great deal of money that goes into other provinces and other states for the lotteries, certainly from the border cities.

On the Loto Quebec amount of $100 million per year that is estimated to be their return, it is again estimated that between 40 and 50 per cent is a proper overhead for prizes and cost of producing the lottery. The net profit, then, is $50 million to $60 million a year. If we transport that figure to Ontario,

I think we can find that the value of this tax would be immensely evident, insofar as $50 to $60 million would suddenly be coming into our coffers that might not otherwise be so.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): We’d get more from taxing the corporations properly.

Mr. Walker: I should think the next question one would ask is: What would the government do with the money that we have? I think it is important, because lotteries are based on sports activities, to return them to sports activities and plough the money back into sports and into fitness. I would suggest that this special tax have a special purpose that would be geared for the good health of the province. The benefits are again evident. It would certainly reduce some of our hospital costs if we had a much fitter and healthier society. So we get some inherent benefits that are not even considered at the present time.

I would suggest that these moneys be used for special add-ons, Mr. Speaker, that we wouldn’t normally have. It should be devoted to the sports activities in this province, though capital projects such as building swimming pools, tennis courts and ball diamonds, and equipping rowing clubs and canoeing clubs, lawn bowling clubs; whatever it is -- attempting to get it into the community. If $50 million or $60 million were the estimated net revenue for the Province of Ontario, one year’s revenue alone could build upwards of 1,000 swimming pools in this province. That would touch every community, if every town and city in Ontario could be in some way accommodated with a swimming pool.

With five years of this money being properly spent, Mr. Speaker, at the $50 million to $60 million rate, it seems to me we could have in this province a fitness that just wouldn’t otherwise be seen. It would do a credit to this province, and as a by-product it would produce the kind of people who are going to be very successful, particularly in the Olympics coming up later in the decade. I think we could be very proud of them and with these moneys we could provide the necessary facilities throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, my guess is that even during a recession lottery tickets would be purchased. It would be one of the last ones to be given up. That revenue would still be available and we would still have a fit society even during a recession. It might have some mental imbalance but it wouldn’t have any physical imbalance.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that as a name, I would like to propose it be called the Ontario Government Fitness Lottery or Go Fitness. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in resolution No. 9 which states that the government of Ontario enact legislation providing for an Ontario lottery sponsored by the government.

I must say when I first saw this resolution go on the order paper and I noted that the member for London North was the sponsor, I immediately thought that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health was flying a trial balloon for some sort of hospital sweepstake. He did mention it or make a comment during his remarks, but that seemed to be the first thought that I had. However, I see with the estimates that have just been introduced that that ministry is asking for another $213 million, so the lottery won’t be in time for that.

I am very pleased to be able to participate in this private members’ hour which allows us to exchange comments mid ideas, particularly in the field of lotteries. During the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) because of time limits we had very, little time to discuss the details of the most recent results of lotteries.

I have noted at the present time that to some extent the government is controlling lotteries that are held in Ontario. By the most recent statistics of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, by the most recent report, it appears that bingo, raffles and bazaar raffles haven’t increased to any great extent since 1972. There has been no, as I would say, alarming increase.

But in my view it’s really time to look at lotteries realistically. What purpose do we want to satisfy? Do we want to raise funds for charitable purposes and community programmes? Do we want to satisfy the gambling instincts of the residents of Ontario or do we want to try to contain funds in Ontario that are now sifting outside the province, particularly to other countries? I realize it’s a very complex situation.

It’s my feeling that we ought to be operating a provincial lottery which will give people so inclined to this type of game the opportunity to participate. In turn, the monetary benefits would be available to the public in general.

Local lotteries, I am sure, are here to stay. Of course, today we are talking mainly of a provincial lottery. I believe that experience indicates that lotteries aren’t all as profitable as sales suggest. I still believe that they generate a great amount of funds, as was pointed out by the previous speaker, and are of social benefit.

I think the one problem is: What can we do to maintain the money in Canada that now is going out into the international field? When we were talking earlier in the session about speculation tax, I think that tax should have been directed to the benefits from sweepstakes and other lotteries from other countries.

The present Olympic lottery is really Canada’s biggest. I think it is a most useful lottery and, of course, will be of benefit to many Canadians. I notice in many articles it’s been stated that lotteries, of course, are no substitute for taxes. This is very clear to me, because I don’t believe it’s an equitable way to extract funds from people. And I hope that lotteries, if sponsored by the government, would not be interrelated with the actual tax base.

There are a lot of benefits from lotteries. The previous speaker mentioned some. I have thought for a long time that they would be very beneficial to historical projects. It’s quite possible that some of those funds could be funnelled in that direction in the future if such a lottery took place.

Now, over the last years I’ve noticed many newspaper headlines related to lotteries; and I think by producing these headlines the local media have prepared the public for these lotteries. We’ve seen headlines such as: “Ontario Athletes Gain $368,000 As Lottery Share.” Or. “It’s Time to Set Up an Ontario Lottery.” Or, “Lottery Could Net $60 million for Ontario.” Headlines such as these prepare the public for a provincial lottery. Since many people have the irresistible impulse to gamble, or cherish dreams of easy money, these lotteries could be very beneficial.

I believe the director of the lotteries branch has stated on a number of occasions that at the present time approximately 25 per cent of the money taken in is used for prizes; and approximately 50 per cent of the money is used for promotion and administration. This leaves only 25 per cent for the worthwhile causes. To me, this seems hardly enough left for the purpose which they should serve.

I noticed an editorial very recently in the London Free Press, the home town paper of the member who sponsored this resolution.

The editorial seemed to be in favour of provincial lotteries. Again, however, it stated that lotteries are no substitution for taxes; and that if the government used this means of revenue, it should do so with caution.

Generally, I’m not in favour of government control. But I believe in this case it might be better if it preserved control, if a provincial lottery was established.

Some thinking should be given to what must rank as one of the prime examples of double standards in the country -- as I say, the schizophrenic attitude toward sweepstake tickets. It’s still against the law to sell such tickets; but the winners of such ventures are always local heroes with no thought given to the confiscation of any of these earnings. If we are going to have bingos, lotteries and sweepstakes, let’s have one official ruling on the subject that will permit everyone to know where the law stands.

Mr. Speaker: The member has about 30 seconds.

Mr. Edighoffer: In finishing my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I will say I will support this resolution. However, I am wondering if it is placed here again as a trial balloon because of the large Olympic complex which the government expects to produce out in the Bronte area. If a provincial lottery is established to produce another grandiose government scheme. I am afraid I can’t support it. However, if the lottery seems to benefit all the people throughout the province, it is time to get started.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, coming from a riding in eastern Ontario that virtually borders on the Province of Quebec and the State of New York, I can say the people of Stormont are extremely familiar with the whole concept of lotteries. As was pointed out by the member who sponsored this resolution, lotteries are very popular in eastern Ontario and speaking as the member for Stormont, I must say I endorse this resolution. I don’t do so on any doctrinaire or dogmatic grounds, but pure -- pragmatic reasons lead me to support this motion.

First of all, it seems to me that lotteries are an essential part of life. Whether we like it or not they just aren’t going to disappear; they are a basic fact of life in Canada in North America, and around the world. It is about time the government of Ontario faced that fact and took full advantage of that fact, and channelled that situation to beneficial social purposes.

It is also an extremely useful way of raising money; it may not be the best but it certainly is useful. When I support the concept of lotteries it is on one fundamental condition that has been pointed out already by, I believe, the member for Perth -- that it not be used as a form of substitute taxation. We must have a fair, just and equitable form of taxation, but at the same time we can have lotteries.

I realize some people would say lotteries are a form of tax on the poor. Sometimes there is some truth in that, but for a fellow who works in a mill, for a fellow who is a dirt farmer, for a fellow who is on unemployment or on welfare, the opportunity of investing $2 to gamble on something based on his dreams or his hopes is something worthwhile in life, and I don’t consider that an unfair tax on the poor. If the middle class and the upper class can go to the stock exchange or to the racetrack and gamble the money they have, then the working man has the same right to indulge in some of the pleasures of life. Just because he may not be wealthy doesn’t mean we have to deprive him of certain pleasures, certain fantasies or certain dreams.

I was interested to note that in the State of New Jersey, where they have a lottery, they did a survey and they found out that 70 per cent of the people who bought lottery tickets in the State of New Jersey earn more than $7,500. So the lottery in New Jersey wasn’t being supported by poor people. I also found out that 72 per cent of their customers had high-school educations as well, so it is not exclusively something confined to the working class.

Mr. Speaker, lotteries have been around for a long time. They are nothing new in North America. In fact they were started by private outfits in 14th century Italy, where they were known as lottos, and they are very common in Italian society. France started one in 1553, for example. In 1664 England had a public lottery, and you can go through the other countries in Europe: Poland in 1808; Denmark in 1870; France revived the national lottery in 1933.

If you look at the history of Canada and the United States, it is nothing new to see public lotteries. All 13 of the founding colonies of the United States had public lotteries. Even Thomas Jefferson publicly advocated state lotteries.

Here in Canada, the city of Montreal in 1873 had a municipal lottery for the purpose of raising money to construct a new jail. In 1932 the people of Vancouver voted by a margin of 25,000 to 9,000 to have a public lottery. On Feb. 14, 1934, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada officially endorsed the concept of a public lottery when they said:

“In view of the fact that lotteries or sweepstakes exist all over Canada, thanks to different subterfuges, we reiterate our demand of last June that a measure be adopted legalizing lotteries and placing them under the supervision and control of the government.”

Also, in 1934, Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec, through the Legislature in Quebec, passed a bill authorizing lotteries. Eventually that was ruled unconstitutional, but in 1934 they went on record supporting the concept of a public lottery. Also in 1934 the Senate of Canada -- that scrap heap of has-beens, was-beens, never-will-be -- suddenly took some initiative and passed the lottery bill by about 37 to 20, endorsing lotteries. It was ultimately rejected, however, by the House of Commons.

If you look at Canada today, Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out by the member sponsoring the-resolution we have lotteries in the Province of Quebec and in the western provinces. They’re legally and soundly established, widely accepted by the people in their respective provinces and definitely revenue-producing sources.

In the United States, New Hampshire revived theirs in 1964; New York, 1970; New Jersey, 1970; and a variety of the states of the USA now have lotteries. If you travel today in Europe, Mr. Speaker, you will see that almost every country in Europe has a national public lottery. In South America, virtually the same thing applies. In most parts of Asia and Africa they have national public lotteries and, to go down under, New Zealand, for example, and Australia are both known for their lotteries.

A variety of options can be chosen, and when this is brought in, whether it’s brought in as a trial balloon or as an actual bill, I would like to know eventually what kind of lottery the government has in mind. If they’re bringing in lotteries I would hope that they would be sufficiently flexible to incorporate a variety of options as mentioned; the monthly, the bi-monthly, the weekly and the daily.

I understand the daily lotteries in both Quebec and New Jersey have proven highly successful -- in New Jersey possibly because of the particular crime problems involving the numbers racket. But in the Province of Quebec the Mini-Loto has been extremely successful and I would think in Ontario, especially in my riding with the heavy working class concentration, the Mini-Loto, Ontario style, would also be very well received.

I note that in the State of New Jersey they’ve raised $102 million from Jan. 1, 1971 to June 20, 1972, for a net revenue of $25 million, on the daily 50 cent lottery. Massachusetts has raised an average of $11.80 per capita with their lottery. New York State in 1972 raised over $72 million, and they’ve expanded their lottery since. Connecticut raised $12 million in the first nine months of 1972; Massachusetts, $22 million; and as has been pointed out, the Province of Quebec has raised over $100 million.

So, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of lotteries. I think the Province of Ontario for a long time has somehow submerged itself in a cocoon of Victorian puritanical morality, while at the same time it bred disrespect for the law, hypocrisy and all sorts of double-dealing. The same concept that applies to the liquor laws of Ontario I think applies to the gaming or gambling laws of Ontario.

If a lottery is to be brought in, though I would like some questions answered -- and I think the public are entitled to certain answers as well -- regarding the administrative structure, the appointment of the people to administer this lottery, the question of frequency. Would the lotteries be held on a daily basis, a weekly basis, a bi-weekly basis, a monthly basis? Who would be allowed to sell the tickets? Would non-profit organizations have a role in this?

I would certainly hope that if we had a provincial lottery there would still be room left for private community organizations, non-profit organizations, to have municipal or regional lotteries as well. It seems to me we can still have the two at the same time.

I would also call the attention of the member to the system used apparently in New Zealand whereby when people deposit money in the bank, for each dollar saved they’re given a number and at certain times of the year their draw is based on the amount of money accrued through interest. This way, nobody loses any money; everybody wins one way or another. I would ask the government to take a serious look at New Zealand’s system of state lotteries.

I would also hope that when the system is devised that we would have a maximum set for expenditure for promotion and prizes.

I would hope also that we would come up with possibly a better idea, and that instead of necessarily giving money for edifices like swimming pools and arenas, if we’re having lotteries we possibly consider that we help the people in Ontario who need it most. It seems to me a swimming pool is not considered a necessity -- a nice recreational feature, yes; a necessity definitely not.

I notice in New Hampshire that 42 per cent of the earnings are retained; in New York it’s 45 per cent; in New Jersey it’s 30 per cent. So I would hope that we set very rigid criteria as to how much money is to be kept from the lottery and where it is to be spent.

I say again, I would like to ask the government to consider the role of private lotteries in this whole concept of state lotteries, but I do wholeheartedly endorse the concept of public state lotteries; and I would hope in 1975, election or no election, that the Province of Ontario introduces such a lottery. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Humber.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for London North in his submission of this resolution to the House providing for the establishment of Ontario-sponsored lotteries. I think the timing of the resolution is excellent in that the Ontario government is at present undertaking a comprehensive policy analysis regarding the benefits and disadvantages of establishing a province-wide, government-sponsored lottery.

While I do not possess full knowledge of the in-depth considerations regarding these benefits and disadvantages, I think it is safe to assume that this comprehensive study would include not only economic considerations, but also moral, ethical and psychological factors. I would hope that the policy-makers are addressing themselves to the problems of timing, the size of winnings, the number of tickets to be issued, the general administration and management of any lottery system, and the organizational structure to be adopted for housing this lottery approach.

I also hope that the policy-makers of the lottery issue will examine the impact of a provincially-sponsored lottery in competition with the existing number of lotteries sponsored by charitable, religions and municipal organizations throughout the province.

The historical debate, either for or against the establishment of state-sponsored lotteries throughout the world, has been a long and at times emotional process. Lotteries have formed one of the major techniques of legalized gambling since colonial times in the United States. In order to legitimize and make more publicly acceptable the concept of gambling, state governments in the original 13 colonies resorted to a number of worthy and humanitarian causes for which the moneys derived therefrom would be used. Certainly lotteries have helped in the founding of educational institutions such as Harvard and Princeton universities.

However, corruption and scandals over the administration of lottery schemes in the latter part of the 19th century brought the lottery concept into considerable contempt and eventual demise. Congress legalized, through various Acts, the abolition of the lottery as a money-raising venture. It was not until 1963 that the state government of New Hampshire legislated ifs revival.

Canadian provinces do not share the same historical experience with American states over lottery schemes. That does not mean to indicate total absence of interest on the part of the provincial or national legislators regarding the lottery issue. On the contrary, debates have exhibited an intensity and a passion comparable to the pros and cons of conscription in World Wars I and II.

During the great Depression, Ald. Trepanier of Montreal argued that lotteries would be useful to finance hospitals and vacation camps and even to provide moneys for relief to needy families. Mr. Trepanier made it very clear be had never gambled except to any an occasional Irish Sweepstake ticket.

During the early Thirties a number of parliamentarians introduced various bills advocating the establishment of a lottery. The central council of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada in 1934 argued for one overall national lottery, rather than nine provincial ones.

The policy questions which I raised earlier need to be seriously considered before any lottery venture in Ontario is established. The basic rationale on behalf of lottery advocates, that Ontario must become involved, is mainly a financial one. These advocates argue that over an estimated $100 million in capital raised by other lotteries of foreign countries and other Canadian provinces has left Ontario. Ontario, by having its own lottery, they argue, would reverse this outflow of capital so moneys raised by an Ontario lottery venture would remain within the province for the benefit of all Ontario residents.

These same people also contend that the larger number of existing lotteries is in certain ways seriously undermining public confidence in lotteries or at least has the potential to do so because some organizations sponsoring lotteries will be unable to meet their sales targets or their promised prize obligations.

My major concern centres on the role of these existing lotteries to compete in the face of an Ontario government-sponsored scheme. Does it mean that the many worthwhile lotteries sponsored by numerous charitable and humanitarian organizations in the province will be completely phased out? If so, is the revenue produced by a larger lottery scheme to be used to finance the source of funds presently used by these organizations?

I think that it is most important that some accommodation be made within the province-wide-operated lottery framework for these most worthwhile operations to continue within certain areas and regions of Ontario.

This financial rationale of many lottery advocates for the immediate establishment of an Ontario lottery can raise unrealistic expectations about the size and the future potential of revenues to be derived from a province-sponsored lottery scheme. We must not be overawed with the prospect of using revenues of any lottery venture as a solid substitute for a broadly-based tax. I believe the members for Perth and Stormont both touched on this.

The New Hampshire experience of raising more than $5 million to finance state school districts, and the tremendous success of Olympic lottery Canada, in no way can guarantee consistent and stable amounts of revenue to be raised through the operation of lotteries.

One of Canada’s lesser known folk heroes originated a story of the gambling partners marooned in a little river town a few years before the Civil War. He apparently found a faro game -- for members who don’t gamble, this is a card game -- and began to play. His partner urged him to stop. “The game is crooked,” he said. “I know,” he replied, “but it’s the only game in town.” Certainly a province-supervised and administered lottery would be honestly and efficiently operated.

Mr. Foulds: Not by this government.

An hon. member: Hey, hey now; just a minute.

Mr. Leluk: Well I won’t agree with that, but as our folk hero suggested, it could become the only game in town. Supposedly the myth is continually perpetuated in assuming that a state-administered venture would help to drive out the underworld from its total dominance of illegal gambling. To assume such an attitude is being naive to the ultra degree. Lotteries will still have to compete with the underworld because the latter can offer extended credit, runners to place bets and the opportunity to conceal earnings from gambling. The legitimatization of lotteries will not drive the credit sharks from the temples of a thriving enterprise.

One basic consideration concerns the impact; of lotteries on low-income families. I believe the member for Stormont touched on this. In the jurisdictions which have these lottery ventures at present, from my own experience or research, I could not find any substantial study which demonstrates clearly the financial impact of this form of gambling on low-income families. The Family Services Association of Greater Boston estimates that gambling addiction figures prominently in about one out of every 20 marriage counselling cases. That is the closest in terms of statistical data which I could find.

Such studies may exist, and I would strongly recommend that if the provincial government moves to legislate a province-wide lottery operation, that social research would be immediately undertaken to determine what effect any lottery system would have on low-income families. Perhaps this is arguing for locking the barn door after the horse had escaped; however, it is a beginning and I feel this is absolutely essential.

Whatever form the new lottery venture assumes, I think it is important that it does not necessitate any large bureaucracy to administer and manage such a lottery operation successfully. The experiences of New Hampshire and New Jersey indicate that existing government agencies can be used successfully for the distribution and marketing of lottery tickets. I don’t think there is a need for an independent lottery commission or agency to be established in order to carry out this task. It would be better to have a small lottery section for this purpose, within either the Revenue or Consumer and Commercial Relations ministries.

On the matter of distribution, the question has to be raised: Should tickets only be distributed to government liquor stores and the like or should a wider distribution system be adopted in order to raise the greatest amount of revenue from the lottery scheme?

Should lottery revenue be specifically earmarked for certain charitable, research or educational functions, or should all such funds be put into the general consolidated revenue fund? These and other matters have to be seriously studied before we rush headlong into establishing a lottery system for Ontario.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the concept is a good one, and can be implemented successfully provided the general public does not acquire highly unfounded expectations about any lottery venture. Let’s approach the issue moderately and adopt a policy which is both balanced and realistic in its approach.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to endorse the resolution of the member for London North, that the government of Ontario enact legislation providing for an Ontario lottery sponsored by the government.

We have heard four speakers up until myself, Mr. Speaker, and we all know that all four have endorsed the resolution. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, you call for a vote on it now and we would save the other 20 minutes and we’d be allowed to go for a meal. You can see it is unanimous on all sides of the House that the government do just exactly what the resolution indicates.

Mr. Young: No, it is not unanimous.

Mr. B. Newman: I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that back in 1962 -- I just happened to have picked this up out of one of my files -- that a particular resolution was passed by the Windsor city council. This goes back in the early days when a dollar was a dollar, not 39 cents.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): The member means before Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister, doesn’t he?

Mr. B. Newman: The following resolution was adopted by the Windsor city council on May 16, 1962:

“That the resolution of April 4, 1962, adopted by the inter-service club council urging legislation to authorize non-profit community service organizations to conduct raffles, bingos, lotteries on behalf of charitable purposes be endorsed.”

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, the demand or desire to have lotteries by all segments of our society, including city councils, is a thing that probably goes right back to the first time man set foot on the face of this earth.

At the outset I would like to state, Mr. Speaker, that I don’t look upon lotteries as a means of replacing some method of taxation. I don’t look upon them as being a substitute for regular taxation. But I do look upon lotteries as being a means of producing revenue, and substantial amounts of revenue. But just as has been indicated by practically all of the speakers, lotteries should never be considered as a substitution for taxation.

Mr. Speaker, back on Nov. 28, 1969, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) asked the Premier of the day the following:

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. As I recall, the amendments of the Criminal Code permit provinces to make arrangements to have lotteries under the jurisdiction of the province.”

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, back in 1969 we on this side of the House were questioning the government of the day as to its attitude and stand concerning lotteries. The Premier at the time, John Robarts said:

“Yes, Mr. Speaker, the changes in the Criminal Code will come into effect on Jan. 10. At that time, legislation provides that provinces may license -- and there are various classes of lotteries, and so on -- provincial lotteries, and may license other bodies for charitable purposes to operate lotteries.”

However, the government of the day, Mr. Speaker, wasn’t concerned with taking advantage of the opportunity of implementing any type of lottery. Back on Dec. 7, 1972, I asked the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations the following question:

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Relations. In view of the fact that certain provinces do conduct provincial lotteries, and likewise that states bordering the Province of Ontario have their own state lotteries, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of Ontario’s funds are being siphoned out by these lotteries, is the province considering conducting its own provincial lottery?”

The minister replied:

“Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the province is considering it.

“I should point out to the House that a suggestion has been made to me by a constituent of a neighbouring community that a province-wide lottery might be the answer to some maidens’ prayers. He suggested, firstly, Mr. Speaker, that the lottery be run and that the net proceeds used to defray the costs of education; and secondly, when I displayed some interest in the subject, that he have the concession to run it in the city of St. Catharines.”

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that even back in 1972, when the province had the full authority to institute a provincial lottery, they were not seriously concerned.

Back in Jan. of 1973 I mailed out a questionnaire to my constituents. I mailed out in all 21,640 copies and analyzed the first 4,400 of the questionnaires received. The questionnaire read: “Should Ontario operate its own lottery, as do other provinces?” The men replied to the extent of 85 per cent; the women, 83 per cent. The men did not want a lottery to the extent of 10 per cent, whereas 11 per cent of the women did not favour a lottery; five per cent of the men couldn’t make up their minds and six per cent of the women did not make up their minds. But, all in all, 84 per cent of the people who replied to the questionnaire were interested in the establishment of a provincial lottery.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 1973, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations:

“Is Ontario going to take a full role [in the national lottery] or are we going to try to maintain a provincial lottery in support of the Olympic Games so that when it all clears away and all the bills are paid, we will maintain a provincial lottery for our own purposes?”

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was not interested at that time in a provincial lottery. He did reply quite extensively, but said nothing that indicated a serious interest other than that he was looking into the whole matter of a province-wide lottery but the province had not made up its mind.

Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 29, 1973, I followed up once again:

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the fact that the Michigan state lottery has been a tremendous financial success, to the tune of netting some $64 million within the past year, is the minister considering implementing a provincial lottery?”

The minister replied:

“Mr. Speaker, it is a matter which is being reviewed by the director of lotteries and his staff. We have not quite decided which is the best avenue to follow. When one does underwrite a provincial or statewide lottery, one must consider the ramifications insofar as those other organizations -- charitable organizations -- conducting similar activities in the province are concerned. I have had placed before me this very morning a report by the director of lotteries, the contents of which I have not yet examined. It is a matter that he did refer to, so he has advised me, in that particular recommendation he has put forward to me.”

We can see that on Nov. 29, 1973, well over one year ago, the minister did have a report from his director as to whether the province should or should not implement a provincial lottery. The minister has had well over a year to decide on that and we would hope the report can come down as quickly as possible, because from all indications we were to have had that report by the mid-summer of 1974, It still has not been presented.

Mr. Speaker, various other speakers have made mention of the tremendous success of the lotteries that have been conducted in various provinces and states in the union, and not only were they financial successes but in many instances they were sort of therapy for a lot of the individuals who bought a ticket. It at least allowed them to dream that maybe for one time in their lives they may become extremely wealthy, and the fact that one does invest some amount of money in a lottery does always buoy up one’s it gives him a different outlook on life.

I don’t agree with the member who introduced the legislation when he says that the lottery should come along and the funds should go solely for a fitness purpose. “Go Fitness” or “Fitness Ontario.” I think the funds from the Olympic lottery are designated to a good area, but I think the municipalities themselves should decide just exactly as to how their funds from the lottery should be used.

If Ontario establishes a lottery, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that they would follow the pattern set by the Olympic lottery. That is, a certain percentage of the funds be directly returned to the community in which the tickets for that lottery have been sold. I would like to see the municipalities be able to benefit by the sale of the tickets within their municipality. I would like to see for my own community, if they went to the community in that fashion, those funds used for the development of a heart-lung pump machine. Those funds could be used for the development of a burn unit in the community. I think, the community should decide what use the funds should be put to rather than the province deciding.

Mr. Speaker, I endorse the resolution. I hope it will lead to some type of legislation, so that we in the province can compete on balance with the states around the Province of Ontario, as well as other provinces that are adjacent to ours. It’s time Ontario got into the 20th century.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate members on the amount of research that has obviously been done here this afternoon on this whole issue. I’ve been precipitated into this debate by the whip within the last five minutes. All I can do is raise a question or two perhaps.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): He pulled rank on the member. I don’t think it’s at all fair.

Mr. Young: That’s right; so here I stand.

I did gather, however, last night on the CTV Fraser Kelly show that the government has already made up its mind there is going to be a provincial lottery. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was on. When he was asked the question, he did hedge just a bit. He didn’t say: “Yes, we’re going to have it.” But he did indicate the study was pretty well done. The only question left now was the timing as to when it was going to come.

I presume this is a kite-flying expedition on the part of the hon. member this afternoon to try to test the waters and find out just exactly how the House feels and the various parties within the House.

I’m not sure I’m one of those who is as enthusiastic about a provincial lottery as some of the others who have spoken this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. For years and years I’ve been soaked in the idea that you have to work hard to achieve success in any field. That’s what I was brought up on; that’s the Tory philosophy, no reward without hard work.

Starting from that philosophy, Mr. Speaker, how do you square the idea of getting rich quick with the idea of reward for work? I know the stock market has been a great gambit for the whole idea of getting rich and getting rich without too much effort. But you have to have at least something to start with, Mr. Speaker, to invest in the stock market and you have to do some saving there. A lot of people have become rich, but by and large for every person who gets rich on the stock market thousands become poor. It’s a case of taking from one to give to another. That’s fundamental philosophy, I suppose, in this kind of a system in which we live.

The question always arises is that ethically right? Is it proper we should maintain a system where you’re going to make one person or a half a dozen people or a hundred people rich at the expense of a thousand or a hundred thousand or a million, Mr. Speaker? I just have mental reservations about that kind of a philosophy in this kind of a land where we do pay homage to the Judaic-Christian tradition, and where we preach one gospel on Sunday and then go out to implement the other idea of rob your neighbour in a legal way if you can; and if you can’t do it that way then change the law so you can.

This is the thing which makes me hesitate about this whole thing; the concept of getting something for nothing, the whole idea that if I buy a $2 ticket or a $10 ticket, then at the expense of thousands of others I’m going get rich. That’s the whole thing that’s behind it. Even though we put a worthy purpose on it, it still doesn’t change the fundamental ethical concept.

It comes to this matter which has been raised, that we are going to do this thing for special purposes; for recreation, for education, for improving our health facilities, for installing certain equipment in the community. I think that’s, again, fundamentally wrong.

If these things are worthwhile, then as a society we should make the decision that we’re going to have these things as a society; and we’re going out to raise the funds by each one of us paying a certain amount through taxation for putting these worthwhile things into effect. I would be very afraid, if we are going into a recession right now, as everybody seems to think we are, that we’re taking a serious risk in order to build these worthwhile projects. What we do is we separate them from the taxing power of the community, and we say that if these things we want are worthwhile, then we are going to make them dependent upon whether or not the raffle is a success, not upon levying upon our community for these worthwhile things. If something happens, say the recession comes, and we don’t sell the tickets, then what suffers? What suffers is these worthwhile projects which we are supporting by the raffle itself. That’s why, in many cases in the past, projects that have been based upon raffles have gone down the drain when the raffle itself did not succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this afternoon that if we as a society make up our minds that we have things that society needs -- education, recreation, whatever it may be -- then we as a society should not base the fate of those undertakings upon the chance of a raffle.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Absolutely. I agree.

Mr. Young: We should make them a part of our taxing structure and not just leave them to the vagaries of a raffle fate in the future.

But more than that, the thing that we do -- and let me come back again --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let the hon. member be careful; he is going to save that whole bunch around him before he is finished.

Mr. Deans: What is he going to do?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He is going to save that whole bunch around him.

Mr. Deans: The minister is beyond saving.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Would he have spoken against the resolution?

Mr. Young: I would say that if we are going to have a provincial raffle, and it is obvious the government has made up its mind we are going to have one -- then the income from it should go into the consolidated revenue fund, and not be earmarked for these specific things and make them dependent upon it. That’s the point I want to make in this case.

Mr. Foulds: A very good point.

Mr. Deans: Excellent point.

Mr. Young: One other thing that I want to point out is that in a province like Ontario, with the great wealth we have in timber and metals and all the rest of our great productivity, we should be taxing the natural resources of this province to do the worthwhile things in this province. When we talk in terms of a raffle to raise money, we are begging the question. We are saying that we haven’t any new sources of revenue so we have got to go to this one, an easy one. As a result, we take away the attention of our people from the logical source of revenue in the natural resource sector. We are saying, in effect, that we can raise the money this way; we don’t have to tax our corporations, particularly the American corporations, any higher in order to raise the revenue to carry on the work here.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a word about this matter of hope. We heard this afternoon that we are giving the guy who buys the ticket a little slice of excitement or some hope that he is going to be a millionaire or that he is going to be rich; so he has the hope for a little while. But for every one that has the hope fulfilled, there are thousands who have their hopes dashed.

I simply raise these questions in connection with this debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to point out that when we go into this whole matter of a raffle, as I suppose we are, we ought to go into it with our eyes wide open, realizing that we are violating certain fundamental things in our society and turning our acks on the long experience of the human race in its struggle toward better and better societies for the future.

I ask this House to seriously consider these things, and before we rush headlong, pell-mell, into raising money this way, let us make mighty certain that we have exhausted all the other sources of income in a rich province like Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: This completes this order of business.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.