Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP. ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock, the member for Cochrane South had the floor. He may continue his remarks.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The spokesman for the United Church of Canada.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at 6 o’clock I had stated that I had some ambivalence about this particular bill.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): And now he is opposed.

Mr. Ferrier: As a matter of fact, I was stating the things that I think need to be done, that we should accept responsibility for them and finance them from the general taxation revenues of the province. I don’t feel that this way of supporting culture and recreation, as it is probably designed to do, is very meritorious.

It used to be, before there were the amendments to the Criminal Code, that political parties depended a great deal on draws and the selling of tickets to finance a number of their operations; with the amendments, of course, that wasn’t possible. Now the federal government has changed its approach and has a bill with regard to political financing, and I think we are probably going to have one too, which suggests that people who believe in a political party and a political process will have a chance to make their contribution towards it, with some money being paid out of the public funds, because this is a necessary part of life in our province today.

Already the debate on this bill has triggered questions about political patronage --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely not!

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): The member’s colleague did.

Mr. Ferrier: -- and how tickets are going to be distributed; and already there are many suspicions --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s terrible.

Mr. Ferrier: -- so that even in the debate on principle it raises and brings to mind, amongst some of the members of the House, a side of life that is better done away with.

I think the principle that is inherent in lotteries is in many ways a denial of responsibility. It caters to two things. I think it caters to greed in people who want to get rich fast.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a mortal sin.

An hon. member: What can they lose?

Mr. Ferrier: It caters to those people in many cases or to the poor and the people in our society today who are hard-pressed by our system and are grasping for some way to get out of their financial burdens, as though the difficulties of life and the burdens that we are required to bear can be done away with by chance.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They might win.

Mr. Ferrier: Well, they might win but --

Mr. G. Nixon: They might not.

Mr. Ferrier: -- a lot of these people can ill afford to be buying lottery tickets --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. Ferrier: -- of $10 and so on, yet they are the ones who do it. I know in bingo when I lived in --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The United Church has bingo in Timmins?

Mr. Ferrier: No, they sure as heck don’t. I would like to hear what the Leader of the Opposition, as a prominent United Church layman who is going to be one of the leaders in this province, has to say about this bill --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Okay.

Mr. Ferrier: -- and how well he has been listening to the messages from that pulpit in St. George.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have a totally reconstructed minister.

Mr. Deans: What was he before?

Mr. Ferrier: Maybe so, and maybe not. But this idea, this philosophy says that the good life is dependent on money and material things and getting rich. A lot of people in society believe that today. Our whole economy is to make people want to buy things and so on. This is the pervading atmosphere here, but I don’t think that we necessarily need to go along with that or to give it the support that the government is giving it by enshrining it in a bill.

Mr. Deans: Withdraw the bill.

Mr. Ferrier: I remember preaching a sermon in a Presbyterian church in Timmins not too awfully long ago -- we have the ecumenical spirit up there -- and I remember quoting from a statement of Robert F. Kennedy when he was the Attorney General of the United States. It was his opinion, based on many investigations and statistics that came back from him, that there was a direct tie-in between organized crime and gambling.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): What about the booze he lived on?

Mr. Ferrier: Oh, sure. The widespread use of booze and over-indulgence in booze are no better than this kind of licence either.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is more serious than we thought.

Mr. Ferrier: Sure it is, but the truth of the matter is that this is not enhancing the moral life of the province by any stretch of the imagination. We have gone through a process in our political life today where we have seen one of the most morally degenerate administrations, I suppose, that the world has ever seen over in the United States where people were getting down and praying on Sunday and so on and yet were engaged in the crookedest kind of things that one ever could see.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That was that fellow named Nixon.

Mr. Ferrier: They were talking about law and order and yet there was the worst disorder that one could see and the most degenerate administration that one could ever imagine.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s what George used to say.

Mr. Ferrier: Even in this province the politicians are not above disrepute or above suspicion. I remember canvassing in my first election and introducing myself to a person in a little community and she says: “Oh, you are one of those politicians. You are a no-good so-and-so.” People aren’t always appreciative of the wonderful qualities that we think we have.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We appreciate the member.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Never mind. We love the member.

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t think any country or any province necessarily makes progress in a downward direction and I think that the government is moving downward in this particular piece of legislation. I would hope that there would have been a little more leadership shown at a time like this. But I suppose it’s a popular thing, now that the national lottery is pulling in the money that it is, and with the so-called popularity of the Irish Sweepstakes, that we’ve got to get on the bandwagon.

Mr. Deans: Look how well they’re doing.

Mr. Ferrier: It’s a popular thing to do, and so on. Well, I think it’s as much expediency as anything.

An hon. member: He’s right.

Mr. Ferrier: I know that they are laughing at me and think I’m a darned fool, but --

An hon. member: No, we think he’s right.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): We need his words of wisdom.

Mr. Ferrier: -- I think that some of these things need to be said and that we need not lose track of the fact that the moral quality of our province sometimes needs to have some special attention paid to it.

Mr. Roy: He’s darn right.

Mr. Ferrier: The Irish Sweepstakes were supposed to be a way of financing the hospitals in Ireland. The amount of money that actually got into the hospitals after the prizes were paid and the administration, and all that kind of stuff was looked after, was a mere pittance.

The culture and recreation of this province has significant value, and the government is enhancing it with a new status. It is putting it in a ministry and saying that it wants to increase our culture in many facets and many ways, and they need money for this. But I don’t think funding it through a lottery is being consistent. I think that if it is as important as the government says it is, it would provide moneys out of taxation revenue.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely.

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t know whether we’re going to have a division on it or not, but I know there are differences of opinion on it. Not too many think the way I do; but if there’s a division, I’ll vote against it.

Mr. Deans: Just judging from the numbers opposite, they wouldn’t want it.

Mr. Roy: Good for the member for Cochrane South.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make a few comments on the bill, An Act to incorporate an Ontario Lottery Corp -- and really speak in favour of it.

The principle of the bill establishing a provincial lottery is one that -- as the previous member had made mention -- I’m sort of ambivalent about. I don’t approve of this method of raising funds, yet I look back in my own community and see the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are being siphoned away from the community, going into the Michigan state lottery. This is a lottery that is held on a weekly basis and nets the State of Michigan some $46 million to $60 million a year. And I wondered, Mr. Speaker, when the Province of Ontario was going to get into the line-up of jurisdictions attempting to raise funds by means of a lottery.

In no way are we going to eliminate gambling, whether we have the lottery on the provincial level or not. People are going to gamble. They’re going to buy tickets on sweepstakes, on basketball games, on hockey games. Just name it. The desire to get something for nothing, so to speak, is inherent in all of us. There isn’t one of us here who hasn’t supported types of lotteries. Maybe we have even conducted a lottery of our own. When we were a little younger and attempted to raise funds for a softball team or for a basketball team, we quite often set up a little lottery. We may have written out tickets and sold them to friends and neighbours, giving some portion of the total receipts to the winner of a ticket that was drawn.

That is going to continue. Even though the province may get into a lottery, and even though the federal authorities may continue with lotteries, we are still going to have these small lotteries conducted in municipalities. You’ll still find, Mr. Speaker, that certain service clubs, groups and organizations are going to conduct lotteries. They may not raise the same amount of funds that they have raised in the past because they will be raising funds essentially from their own membership, rather than the community at large.

The province, by the setting up of a provincial lottery, is, as I made mention, going to obtain substantial funds, but the funds from this lottery, Mr. Speaker, are apparently going to be directed, and I think this is wrong. I don’t think the funds should be directed. I think they should go directly into the consolidated revenue fund, as they are going to go according to the legislation, but they should be spent in areas that are of substantial need.

I know the minister will say that in physical fitness there is the need, in sport there is the need, but where was this government back in the late Fifties and early Sixties when they were spending $26,000 a year on fitness and $180,000 a year on racehorses? So, Mr. Speaker, you can see where over the course of approximately 15 or 16 years their priorities have changed from a minuscule one-half of one cent per capita they are going to now provide substantial funds to sports, recreation and to culture.

I am pleased to see that some of these funds are going into athletic endeavours. Canada has attempted in the past to make a fairly good show with its athletes in international competition. They have always worked under a real handicap. Facilities were lacking throughout the country. The athletes were enticed to go into the United States where they either received better coaching or received financial assistance to complete their education, but a lot of that is changing today. Athletes now are a little more nationalistic in their outlook and would prefer to remain within the confines of Canada or the Province of Ontario as they seek to excel athletically in an attempt to show to the nations of the world that we, too, in Canada can compete with the best and present a creditable showing. I hope the day is not in the too far distant future when our athletes not only compete with the best in the world but show that they are some of the best in the world in all areas of athletic endeavour. Likewise in the fields of culture -- referring to all the arts.

For too long, Mr. Speaker, the athletics commissioner has been sort of looked upon as an individual who gave out baseball bats or gloves, or hockey gloves and other minor equipment as a big favour to athletic groups and organizations in communities, and I am afraid that this ministry is going to simply do exactly that same thing, but now on a big scale. It is going to attempt to perpetuate itself in office by doling out funds to almost every organization that puts in an appeal for funds. Naturally there are going to be criteria set up, but you can rest assured that when it comes closer to an election, some of the criteria may be set aside and expediency is going to be the concern of the government in the interest of perpetuating itself in office, as it doles out assistance to worthwhile groups and organizations in the sports and culture field.

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to have seen the government raise its funds by a better method than this, but as I said earlier, people are going to gamble, they are going to buy lottery tickets from other jurisdictions, and if they are going to do that we might as well take advantage of their weakness and get some revenue from it.

One of the things that does disturb me, Mr. Speaker, is that there are going to be a lot of individuals who cannot afford, really, to purchase these lottery tickets who are going to buy them. I can see people on pensions who really need every dollar to maintain their standard of living who are going to be looking at the end of that rainbow and buying lottery tickets, plural, rather than the one ticket, hoping that they’re going to be successful and find themselves at least living the later years of their lives in by far better straits than they have to live today. I can see, likewise, individuals on social service benefits who are going to hold back $1 or $2, maybe even $5, in an attempt to buy an Ontario lottery ticket hoping they may become wealthy overnight.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall that the desire for a lottery has been expressed by municipalities throughout the Province of Ontario for years now. I think in my earlier comments, when we debated a private member’s resolution on a lottery, I made mention that back in the year of 1962 the council of the city of Windsor suggested to the province that lotteries be permitted for charitable purposes. You can see that the idea is an old idea, the idea of raising funds for charitable purposes by means of and though a lottery.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall likewise the mayor of the city of Windsor, Mayor Bert Weeks, commenting at one time, prior to having been elevated to the high office of mayor, suggesting that there be a municipal lottery. At the time that the heart-lung machine was an extremely popular issue in the community; at that time the lottery was sort of designated to raise sufficient funds to provide a heart-lung pump and ancillary facilities for a hospital in the community so that the city of Windsor would have the facilities to take care of patients who would need heart-lung attention.

I can likewise recall that at one time there was the consideration of financing some municipal projects by I means of a lottery. That isn’t the right way, Mr. Speaker, but you can see the desperate straits municipalities are sometimes driven to when they have to think of raising funds by means of a lottery and are having to raise funds by means of a lottery because of their inability, or their difficulty, in raising municipal property taxes any higher than they are today.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about lotteries I understand that even now our friends to the left have financed some of their activities by means of lotteries; so it’s nothing new at all to raise funds through a lottery.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring to your attention, in conclusion, that back in January, 1973, in one of the questionnaires that I sent out throughout the great riding of Windsor-Walkerville, I asked the following question: “Should Ontario operate its own lottery as do other provinces?”

At that time I had my questions on the questionnaire set up in a fashion where I could get the opinion of the male in the household and the female, and then the combined opinions. There were 4,400 returns on a questionnaire that had a distribution of some 21,640, giving a percentage, I think, of a little over 15 per cent.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Give it to us. Exactly what was it?

Mr. B. Newman: It is kind of interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the men preferred a lottery, but by a small percentage point over the women. Eighty-five per cent of the men replying said they would prefer a provincial lottery.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): What was that again?

Mr. B. Newman: Eighty-five per cent of the men, but only 83 per cent of the women.

So the minister can see that the men would prefer it. There may be a little more gambling instinct in them than there happens to be with the women.

Mr. Renwick: Oh I don’t know; what about the margin of error?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s a two per cent differential.

Mr. Renwick: What is the margin of error in those samples?

Mr. B. Newman: When they are conducted in the riding of Windsor-Walkerville, there is no margin of error.

Hon. Mr. Welch: How is that for the member for Riverdale!

Mr. B. Newman: Ten per cent of the men opposed the lottery and 11 per cent of the women opposed the lottery.

Mr. Renwick: Is that right? Those are really significant figures.

Mr. B. Newman: Five per cent of the men refused to answer and six per cent of the women wouldn’t answer. Combining both, Mr. Speaker, of the 4,400 who replied, 84 per cent said they would like to see a provincial lottery as against 11 per cent that would not, and some five per cent refused to answer.

As I had mentioned in my earlier comments one of the areas I’m concerned with in this bill is section 9.

Section 9 of the Act should be rewritten completely so there can be no discussion as to what section 9 means. I can recall discussing it with several of my colleagues and coming to an opposite opinion as to what the section really entails. I think Mr. Speaker, it would be better if the ministry took out section 9, rewrote it and made it absolutely, perfectly clear, so that anyone reading this bill would have no difficulty interpreting and knowing just exactly what that section means.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: We will amend it with no charge.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t wish to be repetitious, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This will be a very short speech then.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Sit down.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t intend to be, but I think it’s a sad commentary on this minister to come into the House without an opening statement which outlines in quite some detail how he anticipates this lottery will be operated, how the funds will be administered and with some kind of assurance that it’s going to benefit in a significant and a material way the very kinds of people we all hope it will benefit.

Mr. Renwick: It is going to help the minister because this is a stepping stone to the premiership of the province.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Riverdale can speak next.

An hon. member: Atta boy!

Mr. Renwick: He is the whip.

Mr. Givens: Boy, what a put-down!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Mr. Renwick: I wouldn’t be surprised if we voted against the bill now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, we’d all like to hear the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Riverdale is going to wind up for our party.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And the member doesn’t know whether he is going to vote for it or against it.

Mr. Stokes: I expect to be out of the House speaking to the parliamentary interns at 9 o’clock. I just want to state my position in advance of whatever he might say.

Mr. Renwick: Never mind; we’ll be solid on the vote.

Mr. Stokes: Basically I am in favour of the concept of raising funds by the lottery means. It has become an accepted practice by many reputable organizations in the Province of Ontario, some of them religious in nature and some of them doing tremendous social work right across the province.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is exactly the opposite of what his deputy leader said.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): What about those campaign funds in his riding?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; the member for Thunder Bay is making his speech.

Mr. Stokes: For the reasons that have manifested themselves in the past --

Mr. Renwick: We cannot get a licence for this. They are all illegal.

Mr. Stokes: -- I think I would be less than honest if I didn’t say that I was in complete accord with the method of raising money. With regard to the purposes and the uses to which the money is put, I am in accord if it is going to satisfy a tremendous need to bring recreational facilities and recreational services to most of the riding that I represent, and indeed a good percentage of the population in the province who are lacking in sports, recreational and cultural facilities; and if it’s going to provide those without a lot of the chicanery that could be associated with this sort of thing in the way in which these funds are dealt out.

I’m not going to be as uncharitable as to suggest that this minister or any other minister would stoop so low as to use these funds in the ways that some people have suggested in this House. I will be watching, and if I think that they are engaged in this kind of practice --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If they’re buying cultural votes --

Mr. Stokes: -- I’ll be the first to say so. But I have enough confidence, at least in this minister --

Mr. Renwick: I have no confidence in this minister.

Mr. Stokes: -- that he won’t use this kind of programme and these funds in a way that will bring disrepute to the whole parliamentary process in the province and in this country.

I want to impress upon the minister that his colleague who had responsibility for sports and recreation previously -- and that is his colleague sitting directly behind him, the hon. Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) -- represents the kind of riding that I do, which has the kind of needs that people in my riding have, where they have never been able to aspire to a significant, meaningful, well-rounded sports recreational programme. They have never been exposed to some of the culture that people who have lived in Metropolitan Toronto and other large centres of population have.

After having attended a 3½-day seminar last week at Quetico centre with the minister’s colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. McNie) -- I don’t know what riding he represents --

Mr. Renwick: Hamilton West.

Mr. Stokes: -- it came through loud and clear that the people in northwestern Ontario felt that one of the overriding reasons they weren’t able to attract the kind of professional, skilled and semi-skilled people we need to that part of the province was because of the inability of most communities to provide the social, cultural and recreational amenities that the people were used to in other areas of the province, or in fact, even in other countries from whence they may have emigrated.

So I think the minister is well aware of the tremendous needs with regard to sports, recreation and culture in the have-not part of the province. If these funds are going to be used in an honest, a sincere and a significant way to rectify that imbalance of those services, I’m all for this kind of bill. I want to assure the minister that I’ll assist in any way, even to sitting on his commission if he should wish me to do so, as a representative of northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Renwick: He’s all ready for an appointment.

Mr. Stokes: I want to assure this minister or any other minister who happens to be charged with the responsibility of operating this lottery --

Mr. Givens: Forty thousand dollars a year.

Mr. Stokes: -- that I will be at his door often. I’ll be as loud, as vocal and as repetitious as I have to be in order to get what I consider to be a fair share of the funds to achieve the kind of cultural and recreational programme we have wanted and felt we were entitled to for far too long in northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. C. J. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): I would just like to make a few comments on the principle of the bill which, as far as I am concerned, really boils down to the fact of whether the province should conduct a lottery or whether it shouldn’t. Although I haven’t been here to listen to all the members who have spoken this afternoon and this evening, there haven’t been very many speak, really, to the principle of the bill. I wish I could be as sure as most of the members in the Legislature that this is a good thing.

Mr. Renwick: I agree with that.

Mr. Apps: Admittedly, there are lotteries being held all over the place. The Olympic lottery, I think, has been one of the most successful lotteries that has ever taken place anywhere. Lotteries are being held in Manitoba, in Quebec and in the State of Michigan for governmental purposes. There is no question about the fact that the majority of people really approve of this type of fundraising. I worry a little bit about the government getting into the act here. Really what we are doing is catering to the --

Mr. Stokes: Is the member saying it was not discussed in caucus?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Yes.

Mr. Apps: I listened very carefully to what the member for Thunder Bay said. I am trying to be serious about this, because I have reservations in my own mind about the propriety of a government getting into the lottery business --

Mr. Renwick: So do I.

Mr. Apps: -- and the member can rest assured I made my voice known in caucus on that basis.

Mr. Stokes: Fair enough.

Mr. Apps: What I am trying to say here today is that the government is catering to the gambling instincts of people to raise additional money, in this case particularly for culture and recreation.

Mr. Stokes: Every time you walk out on the street it is gamble.

Mr. Apps: Sometimes I think there are enough people already catering to the gambling instincts of our populace without the government getting into the act; and although I don’t always agree with the hon. member for Cochrane South, I think that once in a while we should sort of stop and take a look at where we are heading to see whether it is really necessary, particularly for the government, to raise money in this way.

People say we are spending money on lotteries from outside the country and that the money is going outside the country. I don’t think we are going to spend any less. I think the money is still going to go outside the country. This is going to be additional money that will be raised over and above the lotteries that are already in progress. It means we are going to spend a little bit more money on lotteries than we spent before.

I don’t agree with those who have suggested that this money should go into the general revenues of the province and then be spread out all over to do anything the government might want to do. I think it should be specific. I think it should go exactly where they say it’s going. At least that way we know where it is going and we have the opportunity of buying a ticket or not. This really is the only choice that is sort of left open for you.

I don’t know whether I am going to buy any tickets or not. I don’t think I will, because fundamentally I don’t really believe in this method of raising money. However, I realize that the great majority of people do. The member from Windsor indicated, I think, that about 83 per cent of the people in his riding thought this was a good way of raising money. I think that is general throughout the province, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I have to agree with it.

I am going to support the bill; I am going to support it with very grave reservations. I think that if we really wanted the extra money we could have found some other way, through some other type of taxation, to raise that money. But it’s the going thing: People like to do it; people like to put a dollar here and a dollar there. I do the same thing in many other ways.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On an occasional hockey game?

Mr. Apps: Maybe on an occasional hockey game? -- no, I don’t bet on hockey games because I don’t think that’s right. But sure, we bet on various things; there is not much difference between a lottery and betting on various other events.

I am going to support the bill with reservations, as I say -- with a word of caution that we should not get carried away with the amount of money that we can take from the people through lotteries because, as has been indicated by many speakers here tonight, many of the people who buy those lottery tickets really can’t afford to do it. They are buying them in the hope that maybe they’ll be the lucky one, but the chances are 999,000 out of one million that they won’t be the lucky one. They are just going to throw down the drain that money they might have put to better use.

I am a little concerned, as I indicated before, about the aspect of a government getting into the lottery business. I think this is the principle that should be debated on second reading. Most of the members agree. I accept that, because most of the population agree. I don’t necessarily agree.

Mr. Stokes: The member is talking against the bill, but he is going to vote for it.

Mr. Apps: I am just explaining how I feel about the lottery. I don’t agree with the hon. member that this is a good thing to have. Sure, money is going to go to culture, to recreation and, hopefully, to sports, which is fine as far as I am concerned; I hope a lot of it goes to sports. I hope they don’t forget the sports as against the cultural and recreational end of it, because there are a lot of sporting activities that need this particular money.

The principle behind this bill is that now the government is into the lottery business, let’s not get carried away with it and think that this is the way of raising the money. If we need to raise any money, other than that, let’s do it through normal channels and say: “All right, we are going to tax so and so, and so and so to raise this money.” Rather than appealing to everybody: “Well, buy a ticket. You might win $1 million.” Well you might win $1 million, but your chances of winning it are very remote. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am a great admirer of the member for Kingston and the Islands, and I have listened carefully to what he said. In many respects we have the same kind of antecedents. Our families came from the same part of the world. We went to the same university.

Mr. Renwick: The member for Brant can’t play hockey.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And I cannot for the life of me understand why I can’t --

An hon. member: He is a better stick handler.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- play hockey better than he can; or at least as well. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in hearing what’s going on here this afternoon and this evening. So many people have spoken against this bill who are going to vote for it. I don’t see why they don’t vote against it.

I don’t see that there’s a great matter of party solidarity required here. This is a matter that is going to be associated with the revenue of the province. And if you are against it, by God, vote against it. Why not? What’s the matter with it? The member for Riverdale is just aching to get up and unload his views at length on this --

Mr. Renwick: I am not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is going to speak against it, and then he is going to vote for it -- unless, of course, he persuades his colleagues to follow his views.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I cannot see why we, as members of this House, should not feel, in a matter like this, that we are prepared to speak our minds and then vote our minds.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly don’t like to accuse anybody of hypocrisy, and I don’t do so. But having said that, I will tell you that our family has been buying Olympic lottery tickets. And maybe our conscience, if it is bothered at all -- and I don’t believe it is --

Mr. Renwick: It is not a matter of conscience.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- is soothed by that athletic kind of multiple picture on the front. You say: “We are helping all those poor athletes in Canada, and therefore it is okay.” I reject that as an argument.

I don’t see anything wrong with this as a method of raising funds. I well recall some years past, and some others perhaps remember too, the former member for Brantford, George Gordon, a saintly man indeed. He used to argue in our caucus against lotteries. He would speak in the House against them, because he felt they took money from families who could ill-afford to spend the money on such a long range, long odds chance. I respected his views.

I don’t happen to agree with them. I believe that people have the choice to buy a lottery ticket or not. If they don’t win, at least they have the fun of expectation. And whether the money is directed toward cultural or recreational pursuits, we should assume that if it goes into the consolidated revenue fund, it’s going to be spent in some way for the welfare of the province. I, for one, would not like to see the funds earmarked.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the NDP have a caucus meeting and decide what it is going to do about this bill?

Mr. Ferrier: Why doesn’t the member get on with his speech?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have always felt in principle that it was bad business for a government to earmark revenues. As a matter of fact, I mentioned that to somebody in the --

Mr. Renwick: There is no earmark here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, I think the earmark is --

Mr. Renwick: There is no earmarking here.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is making his point.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can hardly wait for the member for Riverdale to express his views, if he ever finds out what they are.

But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that whether the bill directly earmarks it or not, in my view I think it is a bad practice. I have read the bill and I feel that the so-called earmarking section is rather vague.

For my part, we might sometime in the future feel we would like to spend the money on pensions for, let’s say, defeated Tories or some such worthwhile project.

Mr. Eaton: What happens to the Liberals?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We will look after the member for Middlesex South. We will look after him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have the greatest respect for the former cabinet minister who said that he wants to have these special funds to assist the Heritage Foundation. He is the present chairman of the Heritage Foundation. He is not under the clock now but he was, looking with expectation. The two Gelbers, who are very, very interested in cultural pursuits in this province -- the arts, music and so on -- they were there. I have a feeling that what the minister thinks of as culture is not exactly what the Gelbers have in mind, but that remains to be seen. We’ll just see how those moneys are spent. For recreation and sports, great! The minister well knows of my dedication to those pursuits --

Mr. Stokes: The Leader of the Opposition is no sport; what kind of recreation is he?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But I do believe that it is bad practice to earmark any revenues. I personally believe very strongly in a system of responsible government where the ministry spends the money from the consolidated revenue fund as it sees fit and then stands the public test, as from time to time they are required to do. I personally favour that.

For my part I would say to my colleagues, if on a basis of principle they feel opposed to this, certainly they’re free, as far as my concern is expressed, to vote as they see fit on a matter such as this. I can’t see why other people can’t do the same. That’s what we’re here for, to express our views and vote those views. For my part, I intend to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Any further speakers?

Mr. Renwick: Are you waiting for me, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I was just waiting for somebody. The hon. member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: This is exactly what the government does. They intended a long time ago to introduce the lottery into Ontario. We get the bill on Jan. 30, there’s a weekend, the bill isn’t printed until Monday morning and we’re supposed to have definitive views on it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: His caucus hasn’t had a chance to meet, right?

Mr. Renwick: The caucus has met.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But they don’t agree with him, right?

Mr. Renwick: It’s not a question of whether they agree.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The best two out of three.

Mr. Givens: Say something, speak up already.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t mind if a little time goes by. We need five members.

Mr. Eaton: It is too bad they can’t get more than that in the House.

Mr. Renwick: Well it’s relatively difficult considering the way in which the Tory party deals with the assembly.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: When there is a matter of fundamental importance such as Syncrude, of course, we don’t have any debate on it. We get a unilateral decision of the government. When there’s another matter, such as the enhancement of the present Minister of Culture and Recreation in his pursuit for the leadership of the Tory party --

Mr. Speaker: Could we get back to the principle of the bill please?

Mr. Renwick: It’s quite clear. The minister and I understand each other.

Mr. Eaton: Nobody understands the member.

Mr. Renwick: We’ve watched him in politics for a long time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: A party such as our party has immense difficulty with this bill. It has immense difficulty with party solidarity on a bill such as this.

Mr. Eaton: All the time.

Mr. Renwick: That distinguishes us, of course, from the Liberal Party, which is constantly accustomed to divisions on bills of all kinds.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have noticed that the member is the one that is sort of on the outs with his caucus now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Couldn’t we get to the principle of the bill?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member should think about that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t particularly feel that way about it at all. I have immense concerns; not so much about whether or not I participate in lotteries, I buy lottery tickets and I’m quite sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands buys lottery tickets.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the member for Riverdale is thinking of those with lower moral fibre who should be protected.

Mr. Renwick: No, I am concerned about whether or not the Province of Ontario, which is a wealthy province, should be purporting to pursue social goals through a revenue-raising provision, which is so expensive. On the very opening statement of the minister, he tells us that the revenue he anticipates when the thing is in full swing is $100 million, the prizes and expenses will be $60 million and the province will net $40 million. Those are the figures, as I understand them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is a very conservative estimate. They should net $60 million.

Mr. Renwick: I’m not a numbers expert. One of the few things I can’t do is either arithmetic or use a calculator.

Mr. Roy: Is that all he can’t do?

Mr. Renwick: But it seems to me there’s something fundamentally wrong in this for a province like the Province of Ontario. I speak from my own background about a matter such as this, strangely enough a background which I share to some degree with the minister who is introducing the bill. I haven’t risen quite as high in the lay levels of the Anglican Church --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In fact the member has slid back.

Mr. Renwick: -- but I was certainly brought up fairly closely to them. It seems to me to be passing strange that this minister would consent to this method of funding the ministry of which he is now the first holder. The strange thing is that in the other ministries which he has held in the last year --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Eight, I believe.

Mr. Ruston: Seven.

Mr. Renwick: -- or since I have known him he hasn’t introduced -- oh, I shouldn’t say he hasn’t introduced, he has occasionally introduced a bill for first reading, but he has never debated a bill of fundamental importance in any of the other ministries which he held.

Mr. Roy: He brought in privacy in the courtroom.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He was very big in the medical area. A denturist at one time.

Mr. Renwick: Well I know. He also nudged into the question of matrimonial property; the bill stands on the order paper in his name but will die.

Well, I am certainly glad the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has arrived in order to --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He heard the member speaking.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): I wouldn’t want to miss it.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I am quite sure. If I thought for a moment there was any good reason for the bill being introduced to provide $40 million for the minister to disperse in the Province of Ontario; and if the bill had any specific guidelines as to the way in which that dispersion of those funds would be made; and if the Tory government had not been concerned about replacing the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) as that representative of the ethnic community by my friend the member for Humber (Mr. Leluk); and if I were not concerned about the ongoing, if I may say, problem of the Tory party with representation in the ethnic community; and if I were not concerned about the attitude of the Conservative government toward the LIP projects; and if I were not concerned about the picayune way in which the Ontario Arts Council has been forced to deal with the bubbling-over of theatrical performances by amateur theatre groups in Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere in the province; if I were not concerned about the niggardly number of dollars which were available throughout the province for other cultural activities; if I were not concerned, as a member of the Legislature, to find that two or three times a year I get a letter sent to me indicating that some people in my riding got a few baseball bats or gloves or balls, or a few hockey sticks or a goaltender’s mitt; if I weren’t concerned about those things, you know, Mr. Speaker, I might think there was some merit in the bill. But I am concerned about them; and as a result I think it is phoney.

We had great difficulty in the caucus. Colleagues of mine think strongly about the whole question of the lottery as a system. Colleagues of mine representing the kind of ridings which we represent, generally are the people who participate by buying the tickets, which is a substitute for a tax to provide viable programmes in areas of essential need in the Province of Ontario. And my colleague the member from Sudbury, put it very succinctly, as he always does: Will the people who buy the tickets benefit from the number of dollars which are spent? In this good-deeds attitude toward governing the Province of Ontario, to what extent is this minister going to encroach upon the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to community centres? To what extent is he going to encroach upon the funding of the Ontario Arts Council for specific projects among those with whom the minister would curry favour?

The minister denies it but I happen to know, deep down in my own feelings about Ontario politics, that he has dedicated himself to a single proposition: to succeed the man who sits on his right as the leader of the Tory party. We had almost come to the point in time, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Can we keep to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Renwick: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, would you repeat your remark? I was on my feet, and I never listen to you when I’m on my feet.

Mr. Speaker: I was suggesting that we keep to the principle as enunciated in the bill.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right, because that’s exactly what I’m going to do.

I grew up in the Province of Ontario, and when I grew up in this province --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He made a great impact too.

Mr. Renwick: Yes that’s right, keep commenting. Some others did too; and some others will recall what I’m going to say. There was a patronage department at the federal government level and there was a patronage department at the provincial government level. One of them was called the post office and one of them was called the department of highways. Now there is no patronage area left in the Province of Ontario, because of the sophistication of our governments.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh!

Mr. Renwick: Okay, there are areas of patronage and there are areas of specific patronage, and there are means by which we can find those particular areas of individual patronage. We’re not doing badly about that. But there is no longer the pervasive influence in the Province of Ontario of the patronage system.

Mr. Roy: It’s not as obvious.

Mr. Renwick: All right. I’m not saying it’s not as obvious or anything else. I know the way in which the game is played.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He ought to read the Shouldice letters.

Mr. Renwick: But there isn’t a department of highways as a patronage system and there isn’t the post office as a patronage system.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A great government.

Mr. Roy: Ross Shouldice said that.

Mr. Renwick: So far as we are engaged in what we all are engaged in, Tammany Hall politics, we all have to make the effort to see what little leverage any one of us may have.

But do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this particular minister is engaged single-mindedly in making certain that he has at his disposal an immense number of dollars which will cut across innumerable ministries of government which have statutory authority.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s not true and the member knows it. All these branches of government are part of the ministry. He lust hasn’t understood the bill.

Mr. Renwick: No, I haven’t understood the bill from the beginning; of course I haven’t understood the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He didn’t have time to study it.

Mr. Renwick: That’s usually my problem. I never understood what the -- what is the ministry he presently holds?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Renwick: The Ministry of Culture and Recreation. I never understand that minister. I followed him through each of his portfolios with a great deal of concern --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): And he is speedy too!

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is all there. It is all in the new policy.

Mr. Renwick: -- because never, in the course of the time he has sat in the House during which I have sat in the House, has he made a definitive statement about any matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I wonder if we could return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. G. Nixon: Get with it, eh!

Mr. Renwick: I’m simply saying to the minister that in his opening statement on this bill, which I have read three times --

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the member had had the same training that I’ve had, he would never attempt to get so low as he is getting tonight by attacking the personality involved rather than speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Get on with the principle of the bill. The member shouldn’t lower himself the way he is doing right now.

Mr. Renwick: Thanks very much.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What a disgrace.

Mr. Renwick: I’ll make the decision, thanks very much. I can quite understand that the minister is immensely concerned about it. I can tell from his posture.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As a gentleman, it is very unbecoming.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Let’s return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: I can tell from his posture that he is very concerned about it.

I have read the initial statement made in this assembly --

Hon. Mr. Welch: He is embarrassing his group over there.

Mr. Renwick: -- by the minister, which is his first act as the minister of a new ministry of government, explaining what he intends to accomplish by this operation. I look at the bill, and there is nothing in the bill which indicates what he is going to accomplish.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Riverdale hasn’t read it.

Mr. Renwick: I have read the bill, and quite obviously the minister is concerned. It will be very interesting to hear his reply --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can hardly wait.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, do you know what I would suggest to the minister? I happen to have a 1,052-page volume of the biography of William Pitt the Younger which deals with the financing of government, the purposes of government and the prevention of corruption in government. I am simply saying to the hon. minister that whether or not the lottery is an acceptable way of raising funds, unless there is a definitive statement by him of what he proposes to do with the $40 million which he anticipates will be the revenue of his ministry, for something so amorphous as recreation, sports and cultural activities, then I say to the minister that the ministry is introducing into the Province of Ontario a programme of giveaways related to the kind of thing to which I had hoped a government such as the government of Ontario wouldn’t have to stoop.

If the government had specific social programmes related to sports, recreation and cultural activities, then I would have assumed that the minister would have said on the introduction of the bill: “These are the programmes. This is what we are going to do. These are the things we are going to accomplish. We do not feel it is possible to divert this number of dollars out of the tax revenues of the Province of Ontario for these purposes. Therefore, we are saying we will provide a lottery, because it is fashionable now to provide lotteries, and we will accomplish these programmes.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, that’s not what he’s going to do. Only after the event, will we in this assembly know where the $40 million has gone. We don’t know whether the Theatre Passe Muraille will benefit from it as a suppliant to the government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He can’t spend the money without an estimate.

Mr. Renwick: We don’t know whether or not the Injured Workmen’s Consultants will benefit from it as a suppliant of the government. We don’t know whether or not there will be immense competition amongst the municipalities in the Province of Ontario for recreational facilities which the government will set up from the $40 million.

The minister probably doesn’t understand that what has vitiated extremely valuable community projects, which were sort of sponsored by and had the ferment of the times involved in them, is that the brains of each and every one of those recreational, cultural, sports and related activities has been devoted to being the suppliant of the government for funding.

By this bill, in my own particular view, we will produce about $40 million which will be in substance a fund to be disbursed by this minister as he sees fit in his own pursuit of not offending anyone in the Province of Ontario for the purpose of succeeding to the leadership of the party of which he happens to be a member. I know that’s unacceptable, because people don’t believe that to be so. But anybody who has followed his career in politics knows very well what is happening in the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order, I am wondering if the hon. member would return to the principle of the bill, please.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I --

Mr. Roy: Right on. Give him hell.

Mr. Renwick: No, it’s not a question of giving him hell; it’s a question of trying to draw to the attention of the assembly that we know nothing about the purposes for which $40 million are to be spent. There is no background or history to support what he may be doing. He is not the successor to other, branches of government that may have been involved in the field and that could be a spinoff, a legitimate spinoff of a specialized activity for the purpose of providing a social need in the province.

That’s not it. That’s not it at all. He is being given an entirely different organization to say that he can raise -- disguised as he will be by the title of Minister of Culture and Recreation or Recreation and Culture -- $ 100 million, of which we are being asked to authorize the expenditure of $60 million so that the Province of Ontario will net $40 million to be spent on programmes we don’t understand.

We understand it even less than we understand the $100 million to be devoted for a five per cent interest in Syncrude. At least that’s clear. At least we can find out, somehow or other, where that money is going to be spent.

The minister said to me a few minutes ago that I don’t understand the bill. I can’t possibly understand it, I’ve almost lost it. But in section 9 of the bill -- and I am going to read it in extenso because that’s the purpose of the bill --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the member read it all too?

Mr. Eaton: Read it into the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Renwick: Well, I might very well, as a matter of fact. It might be worth doing. I doubt very much whether many of the absent Tory members of the assembly would bother to read it. If I thought they would, I would accept the view of the member for Middlesex South and I would read it in extenso.

Mr. Breithaupt: All 64 of them?

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps, if I may say to the member for Middlesex South, if one extracts the essence of the bill maybe even the member for Middlesex South will understand what I am talking about.

Mr. Deans: I doubt it.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): There is very little essence.

Mr. Renwick: I doubt it.

Mr. Speaker: I’m wondering if the hon. member would direct his comments to the chair rather than to the hon. member for Middlesex South?

Mr. Deans: If you keep interrupting, he will.

Mr. Renwick: I would prefer to do that.

Mr. Speaker: And to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: The net profits of the corporation, $40 million, in the minister’s estimate, after provision -- well, no, I shouldn’t say that, because even they don’t know how to draft the bill. It says: “The net profits of the corporation after provision for prizes and the payment of expenses....” Well, I thought that was what profits meant but apparently not.

I would have assumed that the gross profits of the corporation -- the gross profits being $100 million -- after provision for prizes and the payment of expenses of operation, $40 million; eh? $60 million, sorry.

Net profit, $40 million, “shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund at such times and in such manner as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct....” Well, presumably $40 million will find its way into the consolidated revenue fund.

And then it goes on, “ ... to be available for the promotion and development of physical fitness....” The minister’s physical fitness? Is that what we are concerned about? Or the government’s physical fitness?

Mr. Roy: Does the member think $40 million is enough?

Mr. Renwick: I doubt it very much.

Mr. Eaton: The member for Riverdale could use some.

Mr. Renwick: Participation.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What about our mental fitness?

Mr. Renwick: Continuing: “ ... sports, recreation and cultural activities, and facilities therefor.” Someone indicated that that was an earmarking of the funds. That’s not an earmarking. William Pitt the Younger indicated quite clearly what earmarking of funds meant. That’s not an earmarking of the funds.

There is no way, except by amendment to the Financial Administration Act, that one can earmark funds in the consolidated revenue fund. But somehow or other this minister is going to have $40 million to distribute across the province, but all of the questions are unanswered. He hasn’t said it in his opening statement; he has not said on any occasion what he is going to do with the $40 million.

I simply say I have no confidence in the minister to distribute $40 million amongst the areas which are concerned, other than to suggest to him that it is an immense additional slush fund for the Tory party across the Province of Ontario. He doesn’t like that language.

Mr. Deans: It’s true.

Mr. Renwick: He objected to me some time ago when he was the Attorney General and Provincial Secretary for Justice that I suggested that --

Mr. Eaton: A lot of people object to the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: -- perhaps there was some other motivation, and he told me not to lower myself.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. Renwick: I wouldn’t want to lower myself again tonight about it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I said that as a friend of the member; a fellow human being.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: Shall we return to the principle of the bill?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Riverdale has always had great promise.

Mr. Renwick: There is no difficulty about it at all, Mr. Speaker. We were introduced to the bill on Jan. 30, and it is now Feb. 4. It is extremely difficult for 20 members of this assembly, members of the New Democratic Party from across Ontario, to assemble to discuss the principle of the bill and to come to a conclusion about it. I make no bones about that. I don’t worry about that kind of thing. There are strong feelings in our caucus. Our caucus decision was that we would support the bill with reservations.

Some hon. members: Oh, no!

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is a matter of high principle.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right; and we are expressing our reservations.

Mr. Renwick: There is nothing to laugh about in that; nothing to laugh about.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: That’s exactly what happened in that caucus of the government; that’s exactly what happened in that caucus -- no question whatsoever.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what he is accusing the Liberals of.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: If they had no reservations, they would have had a lottery years ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Divide on it.

Mr. Renwick: I think we will, as a matter of fact.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sure.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t think the mere fact that there will be a division does not indicate what the ultimate vote will be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, he hasn’t made up his mind yet.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Eaton: He probably won’t vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the bells ring as long as they usually do for the Tories to produce members, we’ll have ample opportunity to decide whether or not --

Mr. Cassidy: We’ll support it, but with reservations.

Mr. Renwick: -- we will support the bill, or whether we will vote against the bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They have six members over there, let the record show. Six NDP members are in the House; one is leaving. They have six members over there and they are losing one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale has the floor. Would he return to the principle of the bill? Thank you.

Mr. R. S. Smith: We are going to support the vote too.

Mr. Renwick: I always worry when there is the motherhood issue presented to us. It is that everybody else is conducting lotteries, therefore we should conduct them. And the fact that we can always gain a pretty substantial share of the market, since a goodly number of people of the Province of Ontario participate in them anyway; since the prizes will be attractive; since some advertising agency hired by the government will be engaged for the purpose of advertising the programme; and since the government doesn’t really believe in physical fitness, sports, recreation and cultural activities, except as a peripheral operation of government; and since the minister is dedicated to the proposition of becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party by marshalling these funds.

Now, there are such serious reservations that subject always, of course -- and we in this caucus always listen to the ministers -- subject, of course, to the way in which the minister responds to the questions which have been raised by this caucus about the bill, about the integrity of the bill, about the integrity of the minister -- as the minister -- in propounding this bill, about what he proposes to do with $40 million, and presumably a division would make very good sense considering the obvious divisions within his party, within the Liberal Party and within our own party. And with those few words I would call upon the minister to deal with the bill in substance and in depth, to sea whether or not this government has any conception of what they are going to do with $40 million -- which will cost $100 million to raise for the purpose of funding social programmes, about what those programmes are that we are being asked to support by supporting this bill -- because everyone knows that the people in my riding will buy tickets, as the people in all the other members’ ridings will buy tickets. That’s the question. Let’s get on with it. Perhaps the minister can reply.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak very briefly on this Bill 191, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp. There has been quite a bit of discussion on it already, and at the beginning I would like to say that I am going to vote in favour of the bill. There have been discussions about what might go on, or a division or something, but I will be voting for the bill.

I think money raised by running a lottery should not be used for the essential things that a government has to supply. It has been mentioned that it should go into the consolidated revenue fund and then the government should allocate it out, but I don’t think that we should be selling lottery tickets to raise money for education or health and such necessities of life. That should be the responsibility of taxation and collected on the ability to pay, because lottery tickets are often bought by people who don’t have the ability to even pay income tax -- they often think that they might win and they will take a chance and throw out $5 or $2, as the case may be. So I would think that that principle is all right.

I don’t really think we needed a new ministry to run this lottery and I don’t think we needed a Ministry of Culture and Recreation -- maybe by itself. However, that was what the government thought was necessary and that is what goes. But I feel very strongly about these funds. If we are going to allocate the money for recreation, culture and other items, in our area we have had a little trouble in trying to buy an arena and recreation complex -- we are having a few problems where it’s a joint operation with three municipalities. We could certainly use some funds from some kind of a lottery, so will look forward for some assistance in that way.

I suppose that having bought a $10 ticket on a car in the village of Wheatley not too long ago on a Friday evening about 9 o’clock --

Mr. Turner: Terrible.

Mr. Ruston: -- and it’s a strange thing when you buy tickets and no one knows what’s going to happen to them.

However, they announced that they were selling tickets on this lottery when we were at the bingo game at the opening of the new arena in Wheatley. A fellow came around to sell tickets; he didn’t have a pen, Mr. Speaker, so my wife loaned him a pen. I gave him the $10, and my wife put the boy’s name on the ticket. As we were leaving the next evening, she said to the boy, “Steve, you had better listen for the phone tonight. I have a premonition you are going to win a car.” Well, you know, we went out that night for a dance or two -- as my leader says: “Always going to a dance some place.” We came back about 12:30 that evening and Stevie was sound asleep. At 1:30 the phone rang and I wondered who was calling. Somebody must have had a problem with unemployment insurance or something. I jumped up and answered the phone.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Or workmen’s compensation.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, workmen’s compensation. One night at about 4:30 the phone rang and somebody had a dike break. What should I do? Anyway, this phone rang at 1:30 and, of course, being my usual self, jumping up in a hurry to look after my constituents, I answered the phone and said: “Yes, what can I do for you?” And the fellow says, “Is this the Ruston residence?” I said, “Yes, I think it is. At this hour of the morning I’m not sure.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: He said, “Does Stephen Ruston live there?” I said, “Yes, he’s in bed. Is it important?” And he said, “I’m not sure how important it is. This is Dr. McGibbon calling from Wheatley to tell him he just won a car.”

An hon. member: It was important.

Mr. Ruston: I do have a ticket in my pocket for the Olympic lottery, Mr. Speaker, and I guess I’d be very hypocritical if I didn’t vote for this bill. But I think it’s very important that we keep the price of the tickets within the range of what I figure everyone can buy. I think that is in the $1 or $2 range at the most. The State of Michigan, and we’re very closely oriented to Michigan in our area, has a lottery. They may have a different way of handing out the money. You might win $200,000 but they give you $20,000 a year for 10 years. The idea of that, of course, is that if the lottery has the money it can put that money out at interest of eight or nine per cent and that almost pays the payments each year. There are different ways of doing this. They may collect it as it comes in. There are two different ways I suppose.

An hon. member: That’s what Manitoba does.

Mr. Ruston: It’s something that the minister might look at, Mr. Speaker. I see he is making a note already. It’s an idea. I suppose he can pay out many more prizes and, as the money comes in each year, he’ll keep rolling them out.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it’s called the yak formula.

Mr. Ruston: The yak formula. Mr. Speaker, I didn’t know if I should get up and speak on this bill.

Mr. Turner: The member made a mistake; I’ll tell him that.

Mr. Ruston: The minister on one occasion was very annoyed at an interjection I made a year or two ago. I didn’t know if he would speak to me or not, or whether he would answer anything I might ask here today. But I think he’s a fine gentleman.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in town when the leadership convention was on for the Conservative Party in Ontario.

An hon. member: Who did the member vote for?

Mr. Ruston: I went over to Maple Leaf Gardens with a friend of mine who was my campaign manager, and we looked around. It so happened that the minister’s opposition, the present Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), was organizing his group on the main floor.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): How about the principle of the bill?

Mr. Ruston: The mayor of Tilbury asked me if I would go along with them to support the Treasurer, but I thought I should be impartial. So I went up to the top seats in the greys in Maple Leaf Gardens and listened to the great speech of the Minister for Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I think we’ve strayed from the principle of the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the bill. I just want to say that the main concerns I have with the bill are keeping the tickets within reason that people can buy, and that the money be used for things that we wouldn’t necessarily want to tax people for. I think that’s probably a good position to take.

The other thing I noticed was that some of the people on our left in the New Democratic Party have some reservations. I was just looking through my wallet. I’ve been carrying around a ticket for a year or two of the Sandwich-Riverside NDP Association. They’ve been raffling off tickets on something, but I couldn’t find it. I mislaid it some place, I guess. I didn’t necessarily buy it; one of my boys did where he works. Apparently they were raffling off and running a lottery for the association. I don’t think that’s quite cricket, but that’s up to them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’ll bet it wasn’t licensed.

Mr. Ruston: I have no objection to what they want to do.

Mr. Roy: What was the prize?

Mr. Ruston: I think it was $50. Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection to this bill. It has been mentioned but I would certainly hope the minister does not use it in any political way. We have some reservations, but we will take hope and I am sure that it will be used for the benefit of all the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to take part in this debate? The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I have considerable reservations about this bill --

Mr. Turner: Oh, no.

An hon. member: Oh, just say no.

Mr. Taylor: -- and especially the principle of running, or assisting to run, any government programme by any money raised through gambling or lotteries --

Mr. Turner: Down with gambling.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- but after hearing the compelling arguments of the hon. member for Essex-Kent I am completely convinced.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The Chair cannot hear the hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- of the merits of this bill. I am --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- overwhelmed --

Mr. Turner: And converted.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and converted, indeed. Anyone who has the good fortune that he has had I think is inspiring to all of us and can lead only to the conclusion that this type of bill should be supported. Not only that, but I may say that it wasn’t long ago that I was attending a county fair and my ticket was drawn and I won a quilt.

An hon. member: A racehorse.

An hon. member: A quilt?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, and for a moment I thought they were trying to put a good Tory to sleep.

Mr. Deans: They probably thought he was already asleep.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Because of all the good sound reasons that have been advanced, notwithstanding the ambiguity and ambivalence of the NDP --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I must in good conscience support the bill and do trust that the money raised will advance the recreational activities and the athletic prowess of the people of this good province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not to raise the salary of the cabinet.

Mr. Turner: And the cultural activities too.

An hon. member: Don’t forget the cultural activities.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have listened all day to the contributions of many hon. members to the debate on second reading of this particular bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this being Bill 191, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp., if my records are correct I am the 20th member of the House to take part in this debate on second reading, and I think that is significant.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Here I thought he was taking notes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it is of some significance that so many members have felt compelled to take part in the debate and to share some of their concern with respect to this matter.

May I say at the outset that I have been greatly impressed by the sincerity of a number of what I would refer to as highly motivated members, who have emphasized the importance of ensuring that a lottery in this province does not in any way -- and I underline this, because it is a very important matter that really does speak to the principle of the bill -- that it doesn’t in any way contribute to a breakdown in moral standards in this province. Indeed, I might say as the minister who carries the responsibility of this legislation tonight --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The custodian of our morals.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- that both through conversation and through correspondence, as the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) pointed out earlier in the afternoon, a number of well-meaning people have pointed out the necessity to strictly control certain aspects of the lottery operation --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A lot of those people didn’t want one at all.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- to maintain the basic honesty and the integrity of our society. I would like to assure those who have expressed these particular concerns that I accept their words of advice very seriously and that it is the intention of the government to instruct the proposed lottery corporation to give the fullest consideration to the concerns that have been expressed, and the suggestions that have been set out, in setting up the specific details of the lottery operation.

Mr. Cassidy: And not to sell tickets in an immoral way.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I say this to my colleague from Ottawa Centre, I think there are people who have very serious reservations about this type of activity and I respect that particular point of view.

Mr. Cassidy: But either the minister is selling a lottery or he is not selling a lottery.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Every effort has been made to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions -- and there’s been very extensive study done on this -- to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions in minimizing and, indeed, avoiding any negative side effects. Indeed, I have every confidence that the lottery will be operated in a manner which will satisfy the majority of the residents of this province.

We’ve had a tremendous amount of discussion and I think it can be summarized in this way: No. 1, those who express, as I’ve already indicated, legitimate concerns with respect to this type of activity in raising money.

I would hope that we could take as reread the statement which I made on the introduction of the bill itself, in which I shared with the House the reasons which, in fact, prompted the government to bring forward this legislation for the consideration of the Legislature. Politics being what it is, arriving at some type of consensus with respect to those things which are, indeed, in the public interest, one must take into account the amendment to the Criminal Code itself by the House of Commons which, in fact, created the opportunity for the provinces to enter into this particular type of activity, and the period which the province itself took by way of research to look into the activities in other jurisdictions with respect to this activity, to share, as I’ve already indicated, in the experience of those jurisdictions.

I think it should not go unnoticed by the members of this House that a very significant aspect of this whole development is section 9. I have been very interested in listening very carefully to the concerns that have been expressed with respect to the use to which the funds will be placed. it is my understanding that there will be some consideration given to this being referred to standing committee, and I hope that we would go to the committee of the whole House and have an opportunity to express, in our exchange, in some detail, by way of answers to specific questions, why the legislation is written in the way it is.

I want to say as the minister that I don’t think we should consider this particular legislation without keeping in mind the contents of Bill 180, which was the Act which established the new ministry in the first place, particularly section 6 of that Act, which is very specific with respect to the aims and the objectives of the new ministry and why the ministry was brought into being.

As one takes into account that particular section, one must also reread the statement of the Premier (Mr. Davis) when he, in fact, indicated that he would be introducing such legislation, and indeed, the statement of my policy minister, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), on second reading, when she went on to describe some of the functions of the new ministry; that we would be bringing into focus these particular activities presently being carried on in other ministries, but bringing them into sharp focus in the new ministry, to give some emphasis to the importance which is attached to these programmes which add so much to the qualitative aspect of life in the province.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that, having established the new ministry, having been very specific with respect to its mandate and the responsibilities to be assumed by the minister there, that ministry would, in fact, be charged with the responsibility of establishing the corporation, to give further emphasis, indeed, to section 9 of the bill which is before us, to illustrate in a very meaningful way that the government is very serious with respect to the use to which the proceeds of the lottery would be put; that the Minister of Culture and Recreation., charged with the responsibility of administering that ministry created by Bill 180, would now be asked to set up the corporation to assume responsibility to the Legislature for that corporation, the net proceeds from the activity of which were to be devoted to programmes which fall within the responsibility of that ministry. So there could be no misunderstanding with respect to the utilization of those funds, which I can understand is of such concern to the members of the House.

Let me go to section 9, because that’s a very integral part of the principle of this legislation. There could have been ways to tighten up section 9 but, as far as I was concerned, this had to be subjected to the usual estimate process. It was incumbent upon this minister, the Minister of Culture and Recreation, to present his estimates to this House so that the programmes of this ministry were subject to the same scrutiny as the programmes of all ministries are subjected to at estimate time. If we had a separate fund, sort of beyond the estimate process in the Legislature, then the concern that the members opposite have been expressing about the fund all afternoon really would have been quite understandable.

What will happen here, under the circumstances -- and I want to come back to the estimates for just a moment -- is that in the development of the estimates of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, in keeping with the spirit and the wording of section 9 of the Act, we will now be able to estimate, in addition to those resources which would normally come to this ministry for these programmes, additional revenues from the corporation and be able to see them represented in the book in that particular way so that the members will be able to review, as they are entitled as a legislature to review the decisions that have been made, the priority decisions taken by the ministry.

When concerns are expressed in this House with respect to regional emphasis and with respect to a fair and equitable distribution of those funds as between sports, culture and recreation, we will have to assume the responsibility. We will have to subject ourselves to the whole principle of accountability in the same way that, for years, estimates with respect to these programmes have been brought before the House, and the decisions of whatever minister had the responsibility at the time were subjected to the same scrutiny and questioning dealing with priorities, programme delivery and the like.

What will happen, in a very practical way, is very simple. The corporation -- and, incidentally, I never heard anyone raise this question today; 19 speakers have preceded me, but no one has questioned the model. We would at arm’s length establish a Crown corporation and charge that corporation, within the framework of the terms of reference of the legislation, with the responsibility of organizing and developing the game. The proceeds from that particular activity, called a lottery, will then be available to the consolidated revenue fund, earmarked as they are by the terms of section 9 for these programmes.

We, of course, as we proceed with this particular matter in connection with the programmes within the policy field, will now develop our programmes, look for programme enrichments in those areas where I’ve heard members express their concern today, and think in terms of new initiatives within the framework of the terms of reference of the ministry.

All of this will be subject to the scrutiny of the House, and when those things are presented to the House, it will be obvious exactly whet decisions have been taken within the ministry itself with respect to the programme.

Mr. Deans: How will we question --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Apart from this, I find it difficult to understand how the members opposite can see a minister going around and doing all sorts of things beyond this particular process.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Part of it is tied to this ministry.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister is only there for a year. What about the next guy?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: All I’m saying is that the members should be encouraged by the fact that we now have a ministry, by Bill 180, with special responsibilities in this field. We have a bill establishing a Crown corporation as the vehicle by which the lottery will be organized and the proceeds will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Those estimates will reflect themselves in the programmes, as members will be able to see.

Mr. Good: It is tied to his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Welch: May I draw the attention of the members of the House to the expenditure estimates for 1974-1975 of the social development policy field, being volume 4 of the estimates. I would point out that on pages S20 and S36 one could get some appreciation of what this government from tax revenue is already expending in many of these fields.

Mr. Deans: And that is appropriate.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The statement of the Premier and the statement of the Minister of Culture and Recreation have been quite clear, that revenues from the Ontario Lottery Corp. will be in addition to what the government is already expending in these particular fields. I think that it’s very important that we appreciate that.

Let’s take a look for just a moment at page S20 of those estimates. If I read these estimates clearly, and the House has already passed them in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, we see what is called the cultural and general education programme. We see the House has already voted $51,492,000 for these programmes. We talk about the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts, $7 million, and building conservation, $1 million. We haven’t discovered those things just by the introduction of this particular bill.

What we are saying is that the people of this province, through systems of taxation, are already making substantial contributions in this field. We think perhaps we can do even more on the basis of this particular activity, which seems to be a popular activity on the part of so many people.

Mr. Good: Why tie it to this ministry, then?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It comes to $51,492,000. Look at page S36 and see the community services division of the present Ministry of Community and Social Services. What we see there that members have already approved is $10,088,000, being the total for community services, subsidies and grants to community groups and agencies.

Mr. Deans: A pittance.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The substantial part of that programme and the one that I just made reference to earlier are coming into the new ministry.

Mr. Roy: The minister is being political with that system.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We are not talking about developing something new. I can appreciate the fact that there may be some legitimate concern on the part of many members of this House that maybe they don’t think that’s enough, but that’s all part of the exercise at estimate time. Members had the opportunity to question these ministers at the time they submitted their estimates as to whether they were, in fact, spending enough on these particular programmes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What is the point that I make? The point that I am making now, in answer to the member for Nipissing and so many others, is that there is already an established pattern with respect to where moneys in the culture, recreation, physical fitness and --

Mr. Roy: The minister is being political with that pattern.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- sports fields are being spent. It should be of no particular surprise that when the Minister of Culture and Recreation submits his estimates we will be talking about the same programmes, but we will be talking about that much more money for them because we will be estimating revenues from another source which, by virtue of section 9 of the Act incorporating the Ontario Lottery Corp., will belong to those programmes. That’s the point I am making.

Mr. Deans: What happens if the ministry doesn’t raise the money?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The point that I am making is that these revenues, whatever they may be --

Mr. Deans: What it means is that the minister is going to cut off any future expansion from the public purse.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, whatever they may be will come under the scrutiny of estimates. The hon. member for Wentworth will understand that we will have to make that particular estimate at the time.

Mr. Deans: It means that from now on any additional moneys will be raised by way of lottery.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. members have all had a chance to make their contribution.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am satisfied and I will stand by this. I say to my colleague from Waterloo North I stand by this, that I think one of the principal points that makes the lottery acceptable to large numbers of people in this province is the fact that it will be spent for these purposes.

Mr. Deans: It is the chance that they might win.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister is fooling those people.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I say to my hon. friend that that is the whole point, that if in fact there is some reason for the province to take advantage of the permission granted by the Criminal Code of Canada, if in fact they are impressed by the reasons which prompt us to bring in this legislation, then we think there is some real obligation on our part to make sure that as much of the proceeds of the game as possible goes back to the people of the province who in fact are supporting the game. Let’s take a look at that on estimates.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: The minister doesn’t say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, the member’s son won a car; I have never won a car from a church draw, to tell you the truth -- a blanket of some kind. The same as the member for Prince Edward-Lennox. Mary-Jayne won it.

Anyway, the point of the matter is that on the basis of estimates that I have -- I say this to my hon. friend from Waterloo North, who I am sure is waiting on every word I say in this particular debate -- out of every dollar, 80 cents is going to go back to the people immediately, 40 cents of it in prizes to those who played the game, another 40 cents in the transfer of payments that come with respect to the enrichment of these programmes. A substantial amount of the other 20 cents is going to go back to non-profit and charitable organizations in commissions for the sale of tickets. So a very substantial amount of the money is going back to the people anyway. And they have had the pleasure of playing the game.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Now we know. Now we know.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sounds like a shell game to me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would hope, notwithstanding the hour, that members who have taken part in this debate have realized that the concerns have all been taken into account. I would underline the fact that I have been very impressed by the nature of this debate and I can assure the House that as the minister who will be responsible to this House for the activities of this corporation, that the concerns that have been expressed tonight will be passed on to that corporation. I would ask the members of this House now to give this bill approval in second reading.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Some hon. members: No, committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could just elicit some information from the minister concerning his direction of the bill to committee of the whole House. Perhaps the minister can advise us just when he intends to have this lottery in place and beginning its sales.

The presumption is that if it is going to be after the Olympic lottery, then there is plenty of time for it to go through a standing committee stage, even if it meant that this bill would be dealt with substantially in the next session. However, if we are going to be here for several more weeks, as is likely the case, surely the bill could be dealt with in a standing committee stage so that we could have the input -- which the correspondence already referred to in the debate has suggested would be available -- by those citizens of our province who might wish to comment.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would say in reply to the House leader for Her Majesty’s loyal opposition that the point with respect to the Olympic lottery was covered in the statement of the minister at the time of the introduction of the bill for first reading, and I am quite satisfied that the activities of the provincial lottery corporation will in no way be a concern for the Olympic lottery.

My instructions to the corporation, once it is formed, would be to establish the terms of reference for a lottery, and that they would have their first lottery as soon as practicable. So I would like the bill now to go to committee of the whole House.

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

Mr. Speaker: The order has been called for committee of the whole House.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Yes, the point of order --

Mr. Edighoffer: Earlier during the debate, I read a statement out of a letter of the Premier’s stating that this bill would go to standing committee and I wonder if the minister will acknowledge the --

Mr. Speaker: It’s the minister who directs the destiny of the bill after second reading --

Mr. Cassidy: But the Premier’s promise is pretty important.

Mr. Speaker: -- and he has so directed it to the committee of the whole House and that order has been called.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not the commitment at all of the Premier, I say to the member for Perth, that it would go to a standing committee.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t the minister think it is a good idea anyway? That’s where it should go.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We prepared that letter and there is no reference to a standing committee. That’s the point that the member for Perth is trying to make. Let’s be fair. We talked about substantial input.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP. ACT

House in committee on Bill 191, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to Bill 191? The hon. member for Kitchener, what section?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Section 1.

On section 1:

Mr. Breithaupt: We will talk about the definitions and this whole idea of the lottery scheme. Presumably, we were to have a substantial input as we developed this idea of a lottery scheme. It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that we had rather an unfortunate difference of opinion as to the approach that should be followed.

As the minister will confirm, this bill was introduced on Jan. 30, which happened to be last Thursday. The bill now is to go not only through the second reading debate five days later but also in committee. Presumably it will receive third reading almost immediately and it will be all attended to.

I don’t think that that can be equated with substantial input. I would think that the minister perhaps could give us some idea as to whether this input has occurred outside of the chamber or whether he is satisfied that those groups who would be interested have had an opportunity to deal with this matter.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what reference this has to section 1 but I think that perhaps we should clarify it here. The member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) -- and I am sorry he is not here because I had intended to make some reference to this -- did make some reference to an undertaking sent out in a letter from the Premier (Mr. Davis). I think it was unfortunate that there were those who interpreted that as meaning going to standing committee because that’s not what the letter says.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): How else is the public going to have input?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Wait a minute. This government can get its advice in a number of ways. There have been all kinds of speculation about whether or not we would proceed by way of lottery. In fact, it was the speculation which prompted the letter to which the reply was given in the first place. There are many ways in which this can be interpreted.

I find it difficult and I don’t want to be misunderstood. We had general approval of the principle of a lottery corporation just a few minutes ago. This Legislature is a representative system of government and we are all accountable for how we have voted on this particular matter now. The House has accepted the principle of a lottery.

Having accepted the principle of a lottery, there may be some concern with respect to some of the details of the lottery. I would think that there would be ample opportunity for those who have written to express their concerns. If these people who have written have some concern with respect to some of the details with respect to its operation, they would be encouraged to share that with the corporation from which we would expect decisions with respect to these details.

I invite members to consider that the House, the democratically elected Legislature, has approved that there would be a lottery in principle. What remains are some of the details with respect to the operation which we by virtue of the legislation have now turned over to a corporation.

I met yesterday with the chairman of the committee which the member for Perth meant and heard his particular concerns. His concerns were with respect to the principle, as to whether there should be a lottery at all. The members who have been elected by the people of this province have already decided by vote that there will be a lottery in this way. So the principle has been settled by the elected representatives. What remains is some of the details.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We don’t need a lecture in politics or the democratic process.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I must say to members as a matter of fact, that in representative government I am prepared to accept some responsibilities for this. I now invite the Chairman of the House to proceed to consider this bill clause by clause in committee of the Whole.

Mr. Deans: You don’t have to direct the Chairman how to do his business.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on section 1 of the bill?

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister how a group in my riding which has some objections to some of the mechanics of the bill -- where the money should go or should not go -- is going to make representation in the House here.

Hon. Mr. Welch: They could come and see the minister.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Yes, after he has passed the legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I can’t let a statement like that pass. This member has just asked me with respect to anybody in his riding who wants to make representation as to where the proceeds go. How does that differ from the way this government has been acting for years when people come in and see ministers day after day, making representations with respect to their particular projects? That will always be available to them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 carry?

Any comments on section 1 of the bill?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Following the comments that the minister has made, I would at least remind the minister that we’ve had, within the last several weeks, one of these Thursday and Tuesday debating sessions, whereby a certain bill was passed with respect to travel agents.

The fact that it went through very quickly without any input -- even though the House approved of it in principle -- but without any input from the persons particularly involved in that circumstance, brought a great deal of difficulty down on the heads of the government.

The point, therefore, that we have made, solely, is that while the House agrees in principle with this matter, we would think that it would be by far the best balanced way to look at this to allow the matter to stand for a few days in order that those who may be concerned could attend to it.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Let them make their mistakes.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, it would appear, as the hon. member for Lakeshore says, that the government is determined to make its own mistakes, so let us therefore proceed with it.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair fails to see where this discussion applies to section 1 of the bill.

Shall section 1 carry?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, criticisms or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, section 3.

Mr. Chairman: Section 3, the hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: On subsection 1, the particular point which I had raised in my remarks earlier was that dealing with the numbers of members of the corporation and the backgrounds of those persons who might be involved.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that’s where I wanted to comment, under section 2.

Mr. Roy: So did I. I wanted to comment on section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. member for Kitchener will defer. We’ll deal with section 2; the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

On section 2:

Mr. Cassidy: That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to bring the minister a bit to task on this. I haven’t taken part in the debate, and I don’t intend to take part in it to any great length, but when the minister says that he will determine where the money is going --

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I didn’t say that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): He didn’t say that.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): The member is wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I didn’t say that. I said that as far as making decisions goes, it was no different than any other ministry bringing forward a programme for the consideration of the House at estimate time.

Mr. Deans: Well, can I ask a question?

Mr. Cassidy: No, the minister is making rather a different comment and implying that he will make the decisions in a kind of patronage fashion, which is what the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) was very upset about.

Mr. Lawlor: Of course. That’s what he intends. That’s what it’s all about.

Mr. Cassidy: And that would seem to be what he intends. There has been the creation of a number of agencies in order to handle certain grants in the culture and recreational field in order to insulate it from the kind of patronage of which the minister now speaks.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, that is what I said.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, come on. The minister is the Santa Claus of ice cream.

Hon. Mr. Welch: But I say in all fairness to the member for Ottawa Centre --

Mr. Lawlor: Come off it. He is carrying his big bag all year round.

Hon. Mr. Welch: With respect to the apportionment of those funds --

Mr. Lawlor: The giver of gifts. The benefactor of benefactors. The light of the western world.

Hon. Mr. Welch: But the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is quite legitimately interested in this, and I think he makes a very valid point. The cultural affairs division of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is coming to the new ministry. We’ll be accountable to this House at estimate time with respect to how we, in fact, recommend certain expenditures.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, it is what they have already done.

Hon. Mr. Welch: One of the agencies there is the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts, which in turn deals with other agencies. At the moment we’ve already voted $7 million to them for 1974-1975. If it was a priority-making decision, the ministry would recommend more, estimating some funds from the proceeds of the lottery. That would be right there in the estimates. All I’m saying is in the normal --

Mr. Deans: Yes, but --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Wait a minute now. It’s the point of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. All I’m saying is that --

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t give us that malarkey about estimates. Has the minister ever seen the estimates change by five cents, by a centum?

Hon. Mr. Welch: All ministries perform this way and are accountable to the House for the priority decisions which we make from the standpoint of the consideration of the estimates.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t put on an act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I ask a question following that wonderful answer, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Are we then to assume that in addition to those moneys which, perhaps, have been granted from time to time in the estimates of those areas that are coming into your ministry, in addition to those moneys there will be an allocation cut of the net proceeds of this lottery for perhaps even further programmes, so that the second will not replace the first, but will definitely be in addition to the first?

Hon. Mr. Welch: A very important point, and the answer is yes. That’s a very important point.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: What I want to understand is, you talk about $7 million for the Ontario Council for the Arts, and you decide that you are going to spend $10 million on the Council for the Arts; are we to assume that any upgrading of the amounts that will be made available in any year after this year will then be moneys raised out of the lottery? How are we going to be able to tell what moneys are being raised from what sources? How are we going to know how much of the lottery money is going into the Council for the Arts or how much of it is, in fact, tax revenue?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Very simply -- at a definite time you would ask.

Mr. Deans: Yes, we would ask, but let me point something out to you, in section 10 it says --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, but --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Deans: Yes. It says in section 10:

“The Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize the Treasurer of Ontario to make advances to the corporation in such amounts, at such times and on such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may deem expedient.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s the corporation; nothing to do with the ministry.

Mr. Deans: No, that’s true, but the corporation will in essence get all the money initially; all of the money raised will be going directly to the corporation. Anything in excess of the operating expenses, which will be significant -- not the excess, the expenses -- will then be returned to the consolidated revenue fund. Is it not then possible that the Lieutenant Governor can designate money into the corporation which will, in turn, be returned into the revenue fund?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That section only talks in terms of its organization.

Mr. Deans: It doesn’t talk in terms of its organization; it talks in terms of the Lieutenant Governor’s right to make advances in any such amounts and under whatever conditions the Lieutenant Governor in Council dictates; and we know who the Lieutenant Governor in Council is.

Hon. Mr. Welch: To answer your question, no.

Mr. Deans: No? So how do we know then? How are we able to tell? Are you going to be spending, in any given year, only the money that was raised in the previous year by the lottery?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

Mr. Deans: Are you going to be anticipating what the lottery may well raise?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Deans: You are going to be doing that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Deans: And you are going to be then handing the money out in advance of raising it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Deans: How then are you going to answer to us during those estimates how much of the money is, in fact, lottery money?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It would be quite possible to do.

Mr. Deans: It is impossible, because you don’t know how much you will raise. You are spending it before you have raised it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): I think, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: We are still on section 2?

Mr. Young: Yes. I think perhaps the question I had has been answered. I presume that what the minister has just said is that the estimates are there for the fiscal year, he is estimating the amount that will be raised, and then if that amount is not raised the rest will have to come out of consolidated revenue, or from loans, or something of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Right. Or in fact --

Mr. Deans: But you have already spent the money.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- it could come out of other revenues as well.

Mr. Chairman: Before the Chair recognizes the member for Ottawa East, may I point out that the section 2 we are debating is rather broad in terms of the whole administration, but I think that the details of the administration are covered in the subsequent sections, so let’s not prolong the discussion on section 2 in a broad sense. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: If we don’t get some answers we will have to prolong the discussion, Mr. Chairman.

The question I want to ask the minister is: In section 2 you say the minister is responsible for the administration of the Act, and in your subsection that defines minister you don’t say which minister it is; if it is your Ministry of Culture and Recreation, or whatever you call it, why wouldn’t you specify it in the Act?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 1 has been carried.

Mr. Roy: No, no, never mind the technicalities; just answer my question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is very important to have rules to follow in debates. Section 1 has been carried.

Mr. Roy: Why are you being so political and so edgy on this? Why don’t you just answer the question? It is going to go a lot easier.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): You broke every rule in the book in section 9.

Mr. Chairman: The Chairman would rule that we should deal with section 2. Section 1 has been carried.

Mr. Roy: Is that the approach? Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, when I look at section 2 I see “minister,” and then I have to go back to section 1 and ask myself who the minister is, and I can’t see it in any other subsection.

Surely I am entitled to ask this minister who the minister is. Why wouldn’t you specify in the Act who the minister is?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The minister is designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It is the intention of the government to designate the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Roy: But why wouldn’t you put it into the Act?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 2 is absolutely necessary. Surely to goodness you understand that section 2 is necessary to have some accountability to this House.

Mr. Roy: Right. But why wouldn’t you put it into the Act that when you are referring to the minister, you’re referring to you as the Minister of Culture and Recreation?

Mr. Deans: That business about accountability to the House is nonsense.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Put in an amendment.

Mr. Roy: Why wouldn’t you put it right in the Act?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Have you picked a deputy yet?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Malcolm Rowan.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2 carry?

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments on section 3(1)?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman a few moments ago I started my remarks with respect to this matter simply to ask about the background that is expected of the persons to be named to this corporation and the reasons for setting the numbers between three and seven.

I realize that we’re not looking at the kind of a board of directors that perhaps the Ontario Heritage Corp. or something else even more broadly based would require. I’m wondering how the minister sees the board being established and why that variety of possible numbers was picked.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I’m not particularly wedded to the numbers. I think we were looking at some precedents with respect to minimum and maximum.

Mr. Stokes: He hasn’t got into the numbers game yet.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have been impressed by some points raised in the course of the debate on second reading with respect to the representation on this particular board, especially the concern that some expressed about regional representation and that sort of mailer.

As you know, there’s no obligation to appoint seven, and the fact is that there should be at least three. In fact, if anyone has any concern about this, or would like to make it a smaller board, you’re not going to have any objections as far as I’m concerned. I think there might be some advantage in leaving it this way to make sure that perhaps we do have the type of representation on the board to which I’ve heard some comments addressed this evening. That’s all. I’m quite open to any suggestions on the matter.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s difficult, of course, to get much of a regional balance if you have only three members. On the other hand, if you’re looking at a board of, seven persons, shall we say, it might be better to strike a balance of five to nine, say, if that is what is wanted. I guess it really depends on the size of board you expect to want, if you think that’s large enough.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On the basis of what I’ve heard tonight, and knowing that there are very legitimate differences of opinion on different matters, I’d like to have a fairly representative board. I must say that I can’t add anything more to the comments I made before. If you’ll leave that with me and, knowing that we have this particular latitude, we will get busy to establish our board as quickly as we can.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the minister accept an amendment to change the word “seven” to “nine”?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Sure.

Mr. Deans: And the word “three” to “five”?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think there are some reasons to leave the minimum at three, but I would be glad to accept the amendment suggested by the member for Kitchener.

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. member move the amendment?

Mr. Breithaupt moves that the word “seven” at the end of the fourth line in section 3(1) be changed to “nine”.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deans: Now you can appoint five as you always meant to do.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview. Do you want to speak on section 3(1)?

Mr. Young: No, I am speaking on another aspect of the same section.

I would like to ask the minister how he envisages this board in terms of full-time and part-time people. Does he think there will be enough work for full-time people? What about the chairman? Will he be full-time?

Hon. Mr. Welch: My opinion at the moment is that the chairman and the members of the board would be part-time. They would be the policy determining body; they would address themselves quickly to such questions as the price of tickets, frequency of draws, prizes and the like. The full-time individual would be the general manager or executive director, whatever he is to be called -- I think it’s general manager -- and a minimal staff would be necessary to deal with distribution agencies and that sort of thing. To answer the question of the hon. member quite specifically. I see this board as a part-time board making this type of policy determination.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): In view of the minister’s answer, could he tell me how this would compare with existing boards in Quebec and New York state in the administration of their lotteries?

Hon. Mr. Welch: You mean as far as size is concerned?

Mr. Samis: Size, part-time vs. full-time employees.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I must admit that I would think what we propose here is somewhat consistent with the results of the experience we’ve had from other jurisdictions.

Mr. Samis: Would it be identical?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I think in view of the amendment that perhaps the boards in some other jurisdictions are smaller.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3(1) carry?

Carried.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, criticisms or amendments? The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the minister what sort of remuneration he has in mind for these directors of the corporation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I haven’t got it with me, Mr. Chairman, but I think there’s a Management Board scale on a per diem rate that you pay these boards and commissions.

Mr. Roy: Per diem?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, it is simply on a per diem basis.

Mr. Roy: Including your chairman?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That would certainly be the case for part-time people, that’s my understanding. I haven’t the Management Board directive before me, but I think it is on a per diem basis.

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

Mr. Cassidy: How many women do you propose to have on this board?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I certainly hope there would be women on this board.

Mr. Cassidy: What proportion?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We don’t approach these things on a quota basis.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure you have a quota system; very few, tokenism all the way.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): It is strictly on talent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: You’ve agreed to expand the size of the board, would you now give serious consideration to the suggestion I made this afternoon vis-à-vis eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no question about that. I think it is important, just to reiterate that point and to underline that point.

Mr. Good: Fern Guindon is going to be chairman.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There would be a very honest attempt to make sure there would be representation from all parts of the province on the board.

Mr. Good: Ready made for Fern Guindon as chairman.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister anticipate the board will give any advice to the minister or to the government as to the disposition of the proceeds from the lottery after prizes and expenses?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, criticisms or amendments on any other section? The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a comment on section 8, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments prior to section 8?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on section 4.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

On section 4:

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

Mr. Roy: Ottawa East.

Mr. Chairman: Ottawa East, I’m sorry.

Mr. Cassidy: East, yes; they tried to put us together.

Mr. Roy: I wouldn’t stand for it.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to my earlier comment about the payment of directors, the minister stated it was on a per diem. Now the chairman himself, I take it will not be on a per diem, he will be on a flat --

Hon. Mr. Welch: He will be part-time, he will get the same.

Mr. Roy: Oh, he may well be part-time?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I responded to the member for Yorkview on that question, that it is our plan at the moment to have all members of the board, including the chairman, part-time.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: To what end?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We want to cut down expenses, that’s all.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: I would like to ask a question with regard to the composition of the employees of the board. Is it the minister’s plan that we should have all the work done by direct employees of the board or does he think in terms of contracting out a good deal of the management work and the work in connection with administering the whole lottery?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I really envisage a very small staff. There is some section, I just can’t put my finger on it now with respect to public service -- yes, section 6 talks about the staff, and I think it will be a very small staff. They would more than likely, as any corporation does, contract out on the special services required for whatever type of promotional activities are undertaken.

The staff would be very minimal. I mean I would want, in establishing a Crown corporation, to leave that particular management decision to them; but certainly from the standpoint of secretaries, any support staff the general manager might need would be very small. They would be, I would assume, permanent employees, and the corporation would in fact contract out activities such as distribution of tickets, promotion and that sort of thing.

Mr. Young: Then I presume, Mr. Chairman, that the minister envisages certain companies bidding for this kind of work, and then the person whose offer is most advantageous to the lottery would get the contract?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as these other activities are concerned, yes.

Mr. Young: The minister is convinced this is the most efficient way to run the lottery?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Would it be the intention --

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a question on that section.

Mr. Deans: On the same point, I just wanted to ask --

Hon. Mr. Welch: If it’s all right with the Chairman, section 5 really doesn’t deal with that particular point; section 6 deals with staff. If there are any questions on section 5, I would be glad to handle them.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 carry?

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Young: Bylaws governing the operation would be the point to speak to here.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I perhaps haven’t been clear, section 6 goes on to talk about job classification and personnel and the application of the Public Service Superannuation Act for the few employees there would be as far as the corporation was concerned. What I was trying to explain as a matter of clarification was that there may be other activities, promotion and sales distribution for example, which of course wouldn’t be done by employees of the corporation but would be covered hiring this type of service on this type of activity. That’s why I was commenting on the point the member made a little earlier.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Shall 7 carry?

Mr. Roy: I just wanted to ask the minister to make a comment on this. I’m not sure you answered some of the questions that were asked earlier about whatever arrangement you have with the Province of Quebec and when you plan to have this thing start. Possibly I wasn’t here, as I had to leave for a while. Section 7 talks about the object of the corporation being to develop, undertake, organize, conduct and manage lottery schemes. What I am wondering is where are you planning to have these people start this? I don’t know if you answered that in your general comments at the end of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would hope, if it is the will of the Legislature that there be such a corporation established, that once it is established they would be encouraged by me to proceed with their job and to have the first game as soon as possible.

Mr. Roy: As soon as possible? You don’t have any arrangements with the Province of Quebec or the federal government as to the Olympic lottery; that you will not set any thing up in competition in the meantime?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I could draw your attention to the statement I made on the introduction of this bill, we’ve already cleared that point with the Olympic lottery people, who have encouraged us to get into the field right away. There is no concern on our part with respect to our lottery competing with the Olympic lottery. This is no problem as far as they are concerned or as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Roy: What you are saying is that in all likelihood these people will start raising money this year and you will be using some of that money next year for some schemes for physical fitness, sports and all of this. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Cassidy: He’s got to have someone to finance his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will try to keep Drapeau from having an abortion.

Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes Mr. Chairman, I have some comments to make, particularly in regard to subsection a, which is the method by which the distribution of the tickets will take place across the province. I think this is the part that has been referred to previously, but actually it does come under subsection a of section 8.

As I indicated earlier in my remarks on second reading, I believe the distribution of the tickets should be closely held by the government. I don’t think it should be put out to tender for distribution. I believe there are certain places in the province that are set up now where people are used to buying lottery tickets to start with as a result of the Olympic lottery, and secondly where the provincial government already has people who could sell the lottery tickets very easily.

Mr. Breithaupt: At no cost.

Mr. R. S. Smith: At no cost at all to the province. I noticed that the minister has indicated again tonight, as he did in his statement the other day on the introduction of the bill, that 20 per cent of the moneys he feels will be generated by the lottery will be expended in expenses on the sale of the tickets, as well as administration of the corporation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s an estimate.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s an estimate, and I would say that’s a very high and generous estimate. I should hope that perhaps it could be kept down to around 12 or 13 per cent; which would perhaps be more realistic, particularly when one looks at the experiences of some of the other lotteries, such as in Manitoba where I understand the expenses are running around 12 per cent.

Mr. Stokes: They are very efficient.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Very efficient. They are also the one province that doesn’t give you the cash money, they just give you the interest on the money. They are very efficient in that respect, too.

Mr. R. S. Smith moves that section 8, subsection (a), be amended by striking out all the words after “corporation” in line two and substituting the words “in retail outlets operated by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and in chartered banks and in all Province of Ontario Savings Offices and prescribing the fees, commissions and discounts in such sales.”

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, in effect the amendment restricts the sale of the tickets to liquor stores now operated by the Liquor Control Board, chartered banks in the province and the Ontario savings branches that operate across the province.

I feel in this way that we do away with the whole question of whether or not this matter of distribution would become one of political patronage. Secondly, I think in this way the costs could be curbed, because two of the institutions that I have named in the amendment are now presently stalled by provincial government employees. They could easily carry out these functions without additional staff. Thirdly, the chartered banks have carried out the process --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): How come he left out drugstores?

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, we don’t want anybody outside of those who will keep the costs down.

The chartered banks have already become the place where people go to buy their lottery tickets for the Olympic lottery; so that is the other natural place that people go.

The intention of my amendment, therefore, is to cut the costs of administration and to curtail the whole question of whether or not it may or may not become a political question as to who sells or who doesn’t sell lottery tickets. I think that’s important, because right now under the lottery distribution system that has been established by the Olympic lottery organization, there has been some question of patronage.

There is the situation of people who have got sections of this country tied up and they are the only ones through which the lottery tickets are funnelled. For example, there is a person in Sudbury who has northern Ontario tied up. During the seven lotteries that are being run for the Olympics, he stands to realize a profit in excess of $200,000. That’s one single person appointed some way or other, I understand, through the Olympic lottery commission.

Beyond that person there are distributors below him who are paid so much a ticket for distribution. Their incomes on the seven lotteries in my city alone are going to be in the area of $20,000 to $25,000. So it becomes a very lucrative business. Each one of these people to whom I refer is operating it as a sideline.

That is why many people in this province question whether or not we should get into lotteries, because it becomes a question of morality. In some cases it may well become a question of political morality. I don’t believe it should even be given an opportunity to become that kind of question.

That’s why I put forward this amendment, so that people would know how the lottery tickets are to be sold and where they could buy them. They would know that the institutions through which they are being sold are all above board, there is no middleman, nobody is making a large profit, and the expenses can be kept to a minimum.

I would ask the minister to comment on this and to accept this amendment as the most reasonable one in light of the experiences in other jurisdictions, and in light of the experience of the Olympic lottery.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well Mr. Chairman, the amendment is quite unacceptable, and I want to share my reasoning with the member.

No. 1: I don’t think we want lottery tickets associated with liquor sales in the Province of Ontario. I say to you, with the greatest respect that that would mean that the province itself would be making commissions on the sale of its own tickets. I think that in view of some of the concerns I have expressed, I would like to separate the sale of alcoholic beverages, from the sale of lottery tickets in Ontario. I say that quite sincerely.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Why?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t think the province should in fact benefit, through commission income, on the sale of the tickets, that’s why.

Mr. Cassidy: You make more profit on the tickets than on the booze, that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Plus the fact I think there should be some distinction made between the two products that are being sold; that’s number one.

Mr. Stokes: You are saying that there is nothing wrong with each of them singly, but you couple them together and it is a sin.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am not saying there is anything wrong with they both being together. I am simply saying they are government liquor stores, and I really invite you to consider the fact that commission income is now coming to the liquor board in the sale of some commodity which they were not brought into being --

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t pay it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Don’t pay a commission; that is what I am suggesting to you.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Now the other thing is this, that the distribution system --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Are you listening, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well I listened to you; and I am awfully glad to see you back in form. I think as a matter of courtesy you might now listen to me.

Mr. Roy: Yes but you are not answering his question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I didn’t interrupt you. I don’t recall having interrupted you for one second when you discussed your amendment.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I was talking to the point and you are not.

Hon. Mr. Welch: When I am finished you can stand up, because I don’t think there are any restrictions in committee for you to comment on what I am saying.

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. minister continue?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Get this minister mad and you are in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No. 2: The distribution system is the key to the success of this whole game. I said at the time that --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Just like every other Tory.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I said at the time of the introduction of this bill and on second reading, if the member for Nipissing would like to listen, that we found the most successful distribution system is that employed by the Olympic lottery people. I also mentioned at the time that --

Mr. R. S. Smith: There are political considerations?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, that I don’t know. I am not aware of that, if there are, and your judgment of that matter is an important consideration. I don’t know of any political considerations that were given in that regard.

No. 2: There was great concern expressed and part of our research was with respect to charitable and non-profit organizations, many of whom might like to be ticket agents and sell tickets instead of having their local draws. This is precluded by your amendment.

There is no way in which we can force the chartered banks to accept our commodity for sale, and I tell you that you will put such limitations on this that in fact it will impair the success of the game. The amendment of the hon. member is not acceptable. I would rather leave to the corporation the development of a distribution system which it feels would result in a successful draw that would involve far more people -- the little merchants of the province, the mom-and-pop stores throughout this province, thinking in terms of the small businessmen who might benefit.

Mr. Roy: Force them to collect.

Hon. Mr. Welch: And all of these things are precluded. I would rather rely on the good judgment of the corporation to make sure of the widest distribution and so therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few points insofar as what the minister has said. First of all, he said he didn’t want them sold in liquor stores because he didn’t think they should be put together -- for no reason other than the fact that liquor and lotteries might coerce people to some other kind of sinful procedure. I really don’t understand that, but that seems to be what he is saying. I am suggesting to him that if he put them in the liquor stores, the corporation would not have to pay the liquor stores a commission, and that’s one of the reasons for putting them there.

The second point I would like to make is, in regard to the fact that he talks about the mom-and-pop operations. The fact of the matter is that that’s where he is going to get into the politics of the distribution of these tickets -- just as they have the politics of the distribution of fishing licences in this province.

In mom-and-pop operations, if you are a Tory you get the licence to sell; if you are not, too bad. If a defeated candidate will let you sell these tickets, you are all right; and if he won’t, you don’t get the right to sell them. What you have is a storekeeper on this corner selling them because he’s a Tory, and the storekeeper on the other corner not selling them because he’s not a Tory. That’s exactly what you want to do.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: That doesn’t happen in your ridings?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s what we have to look forward to if you fellows get into power, eh?

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s exactly what you do in the area of fishing licences.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I would draw to the hon. member’s attention that it is now 10:30 of the clock.

Mr. Breithaupt: Do you want your parents to sell these tickets?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish they could.

Hon. Mr. Welch 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 progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I have been asked by the House leader to indicate that when we reconvene on Thursday we will continue the consideration of the lottery corporation bill in committee, followed by Bill 182 and Bill 111.

Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.