Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I should like to introduce to you and to the members of this Legislature some students from Glenview Senior Public School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Pritchard, and also by two parents, Mrs. Bradshaw and Mrs. Leemy.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce to the Legislature a group of students from Woodland Senior Public School in Thornhill and hope they will be welcomed to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that all hon. members will join me in welcoming in the Speaker’s gallery the 1974-1975 parliamentary interns from the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec. These interns are in Toronto for the balance of this week and will be meeting with a number of members to discuss parliamentary affairs in Ontario. I wish to thank those members who have agreed to meet with them and know that all hon. members will join me in welcoming them here this afternoon.

Statements by the ministry.

ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could seek the indulgence of the House in case there are any questions related to a certain meeting in Winnipeg yesterday? If we could agree now, we will revert to ministerial statements at 5 o’clock, when I expect to be able to make a statement to the members of the House. If any members have questions about those meetings yesterday, I just can’t answer any prior to that hour.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, could we ask if there would then be the opportunity perhaps to have some interchange of questions at that point should they become necessary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if you in your wisdom decide to cut short the question period at this time by five minutes, I wouldn’t object strenuously to five minutes of questions afterwards.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): We could even add five minutes on.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think there should be either a significant reduction in the question period, because we’re not going to let the Premier off with five minutes, or a significant extension when the time comes. But we need, I think, sir, a guarantee that we can have a serious exchange about this.

Mr. Speaker: Can we agree on maybe 30 minutes at this time and 15 minutes at that time?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, no.

Mr. Speaker: We might even agree to extending it, if that’s not enough.

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we proceed with the question period in the normal form at this point and that the House, because of this most important problem, allow whatever time is necessary at that point to deal with this?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am sure unanimous consent would be forthcoming.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That’s what we call a quid pro quo.

Mr. Lewis: I think that’s a fair give and take myself.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be agreement that we can revert to statements and, if necessary, questions at that time. Do I understand that it’s a normal period at this time then?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health.

DOCTORS’ FEE SCHEDULE

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed that the Ontario Medical Association council, in reflecting the wishes of its members, announced last night that it will honour the agreement entered into last year --

Mr. Lewis: Not all its members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- providing a four per cent increase in the fee schedule, effective May 1, 1975. I am grateful for and encouraged by the responsible attitude displayed by the medical profession in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: There was, the minister will notice, no voluntary cut.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Order please; the hon. Leader of the Opposition, an oral question.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), if he has had any communication with the government in Canada over a request for the view of this government on immigration policy? Is the Premier aware that in his absence yesterday on important provincial business, a green paper on immigration policy was made public in Ottawa with the request that the provinces express their views? In this connection, can the Premier indicate that there would either be a debate on this matter in the House, or perhaps through some other facility, so that the community interested in it can express their views to a committee of this House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t discussed this with the minister. I think I am right in this, that there was a communication from the Prime Minister of Canada talking about some form of study related to the demographics of Canada, which I assume means the question of location of growth and what have you, that I think might have been related -- and I can only say this -- to whatever paper was tabled yesterday. I just looked at this very early this morning and we’re in the process of replying to it.

I think the federal government is asking for provincial representation as it relates to this kind of study. There were, I believe, two or three suggestions in the telegram. I will explore this further, discuss it with the minister and have a more detailed reply for the member on Thursday. I think probably the two are related, but I can’t say this without further checking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since this province is affected probably more than any other area of Canada by federal policy -- and evidently four basic alternatives have been put forward for discussion -- and since apparently the government of Canada has requested the formal views of the government of Ontario, I’m simply asking that there be an opportunity to discuss it in this House, or even better, an opportunity through a committee of this House to seek the views of our community.

An hon. member: Human resources.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I say, I received this fairly lengthy Telex from the Prime Minister. I can’t say that the two are definitely related. I haven’t seen the report from yesterday. I’ll certainly discuss it with the minister and see what in fact the federal government is suggesting and whether it is asking for our views. The Telex I saw really was referring to the involvement of the provinces in some continuing study of two or three matters. They may or may not be related, but I’ll find out.

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

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Has the Premier planned on a major submission from the Ontario government, knowing that the paper on immigration was coming down, a submission which could form the basis of a debate here or follow a debate here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe we were planning on any formal submission in that sense of the word -- certainly not until the study bad been completed. Certainly, from our standpoint, perhaps a discussion here in the House might be worthwhile; I just don’t know when it would usefully take place, but I don’t reject the idea.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition?

TAX REDUCTIONS FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.

Has the Treasurer examined the recommendations from the president of the Northeastern Ontario Municipalities Action Group? Actually, the gentleman’s name is Rene Piche. He is the mayor of Kapuskasing, and I think he has other responsibilities in the north as well. His recommendations call on the province to bring down in the budget for the next fiscal year, some relief for citizens living in the North by way of an income tax credit, a reduction in the sales tax from seven to five per cent north of the French River; and the possibility of a reduction in gasoline tax as well.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, I haven’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister able to say to the House that it is getting consideration from his colleagues, the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Revenue, and his other colleagues, so that the people of the north might expect this relief by way of equalizing the cost of living?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly able to say that this matter is being given every consideration.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): We can’t hear the minister.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is so subdued he is inaudible. Let’s at least hear from the new Treasurer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sounds like the old Treasurer at a lower level.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): They can’t hear that in Kapuskasing.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

CLOSING OF BURWASH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want to ask of the Minister of Government Services if he has any further statement to make to the House on the utilization of the facilities at Burwash, as discussed some weeks ago and which were an item of considerable interest in the news reports just a day or two ago?

Further, can he give some comment to this House and the interested citizens in the north on the report that the economic impact on the community was not discussed in any way by cabinet before the decision was made to close it up and turn over the facilities to the gentle treatment of the hon. minister?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Well, the short answer to both questions, I think, Mr. Speaker, is no.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: What about this stuff about renting the land out to local farmers, if any? What about the prospects of a northern tourist development? What about the prospect of a golf course? That was one of the proposals. It sounded sort of like a revised Maple Mountain. We thought perhaps the minister was cranking that back into the machine.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, obviously we have got to get into longer answers.

We are, Mr. Speaker, giving serious consideration to all the proposals that have been made to the government regarding the Burwash facilities. Certainly, one of the areas that is receiving very serious consideration is the agricultural possibilities for the land and also the tourist possibilities, and the many other suggestions that have been made.

These are all being considered, but my short answer of “no,” in the first place, meant that I was not able to report any firm decisions on those at this time. My second short answer of “no” meant that I would not comment as to the discussions at cabinet, as that would not be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary of the same minister.

Is there any basis for the comment made by one individual that when the government left Burwash it left all the potatoes out in the field -- potatoes to feed 1,000 people? And, if this is so, what was the hurry to get out of there? Does the minister not think that was a bit irresponsible in light of the cost of food and vegetables in this province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that there were any potatoes in the field. To my knowledge the general farming operation ceased at Burwash a few years ago. There certainly has been no cattle operation there; whether the institution carried on a garden, I can’t say. But Burwash was closed as of the end of December, and my ministry accepted responsibility for it about 30 days ago. I am sure if there were any potatoes there when we took it over, they are well frozen by now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury has a supplementary?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, does the minister not have a meeting scheduled with the Ministry of Health regarding the utilization of this facility?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No meeting is scheduled that I’m aware of, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Mr. Snow: I should say I have several meetings scheduled regarding the facility, but none with the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition? The member for Scarborough West then.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE PLANT

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Health, if I could ask one. Has the occupational health branch of his ministry brought to the minister’s attention the recent testing they did for asbestos particles at the Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough? Perhaps that’s where I should start. Has it been brought to his attention?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall specific tests of a specific plant being brought to my attention. Several months ago, we were discussing cancer of the lung through asbestos, and certain principles were brought to my attention but not details in specific plants.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, if testing was done by the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health and it showed that levels were significantly above the threshold limits both recommended by his ministry and established by the Ministry of Labour, would that not normally find its way to the minister, since the lives of the workers are involved?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, with that lead-in I almost feel that the member for Scarborough West knows something that I don’t.

Mr. Lewis: I do, but I’m not telling the minister.

Mr. Roy: That is not unusual.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is not in the member for Scarborough West’s case but it is in the case of the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t swath myself in velvet garb.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Why is the member blushing?

Mr. Roy: I won’t give the member the name of my tailor.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t want the name of the member for Ottawa East’s tailor.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I admit to the fact that I think I am generally aware of such things in my ministry; I like to think the staff would inform we when there’s a problem. If I haven’t been brought up-to-date, I would like to know about it.

Mr. Lewis: I will tell the minister later today.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, has the industrial safety branch of his ministry informed him of the accelerating asbestos problems at the Canadian Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough and, if so, what is being done?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, earlier the member referred to recent reports. Now, I can’t think of any recent report that I have seen or that has been brought to my attention. There were some, some months ago, in connection with it. The member is speaking of within the last few months, is he?

Mr. Lewis: I am speaking of within the last six to eight weeks.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I don’t recall anything as recently as that, Mr. Speaker. The procedure would be if they were beyond the standards that we provide for, some follow-up would be given to it. I’ll make an inquiry into it.

But I don’t know whether we would report back to the Minister of Health in regard to it. We take on the responsibility of enforcing those standards; I think it’s up to us to make sure that they are carried out. So I’ll make some inquiries. Maybe we should report back to the Minister of Health, who sets the standards. I’ll speak to my colleague in regard to that as well, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Not on that subject, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary; the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Does the ministry inform Workmen’s Compensation Board of these studies relating to asbestos?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I don’t think we have any direct procedure for informing them. I think the Compensation Board has all the information we get. But the member asks, do we have a direct procedure that everything that goes through our office goes on to the board? I don’t think it does, sir. But certainly there’s nothing that we have that the board could not get. I know that there is a continuing liaison between us, but whether we have any procedure for automatically sending all our reports on to the board, I would doubt it.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: In view of the fact that the board has been turning down compensation cases from Johns-Manville with cancer of the lung -- who have asbestos bodies found in their lungs -- and the board apparently believes that there is no relation between asbestos bodies in the lung and cancer, will the minister inform it of his recent findings so that we can get these archaic people brought up to date?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there is anything archaic about the medical people in the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Shulman: No? The director.

Mr. Lewis: We’ll see, at the board hearings this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: They are at present before the standing committee of the House, and there are doctors there who are prepared to answer. If there is any information that we have that will be of assistance to the members, certainly we will be glad to provide it, but I reject the suggestion that the medical officers on the staff of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, or the independent people who they refer to, are in any way archaic or not up to date.

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

Mr. Lewis: I’ll ask this as a separate question, Mr. Speaker, since you wouldn’t allow me a supplementary.

Do I take it then that the minister himself is not at this time involved in anything serious around occupational health safety at Johns-Manville, either by reference from his ministry’s industrial safety branch or from the Workmen’s Compensation Board? At the moment he is not personally seized with that as minister. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Personally seized? No, I’m not aware of anything personally at the present time, but there is much work that goes on in my ministry every day, that doesn’t necessarily involve me personally. I certainly don’t know of every check that they make on various industrial plants across this province.

CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, again a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister knows that the conciliation in the dispute between the workers at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society and the society in Metropolitan Toronto broke down last Thursday. Can he make a report to the House now, considering the way in which service is suffering at the society?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we are in touch with the matter. As my colleague suggested, it did break down last Thursday. We understood there was only the matter of union security separating them, but when they returned to the bargaining table we found there were one or two other things as well and they were not able to come to any agreement. We are in touch and hope to arrange meetings again shortly, although there isn’t one scheduled at the present time, to my knowledge.

DENTAL CARE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health.

Is it the minister’s intention to respond in any formal way to the proposal for dental care provided to him by the Ontario Dental Association, particularly in relation to the cost factors and the initiation of the plan for those under six years of age? How does he view the cost factors in their proposal, by the way?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the first part first.

At my request, back in March the Ontario Dental Association and ministry representatives started working out the mechanics of any potential dental health plan. The material presented by the ODA a week or so ago was pretty well the kind of plan that they worked out on the assumption that there might be a governmental dental plan some day.

They started that work knowing full well that this might not be a fact for some period of time, but so that at least we would have some understanding as to the manpower available, the most important groups to be worked upon, the methods of payment and so on. About three months ago we agreed that the work had gone as far as it should go, until such time as the government in its wisdom decided that the plan was necessary.

Mr. Roy: Like before the election in 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: We don’t have to depend upon such ploys --

Mr. Roy: That is what they are doing. Admit it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister is answering the question of the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Lewis: Such cynicism!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, cynicism.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How can anybody get cynical around here?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- or even hospitals in Atikokan.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Right before the election -- the very day before.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We used to believe in the big blue machine and now we know that is just a façade. We can’t believe in anything.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have totally lost track of what I was trying to say.

Mr. Roy: The minister should sit down while he is ahead.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The fact is we have looked at certain cost implications in terms of taking the three-year-old to six-year-old age group, which seemed to be the most profitable group to work on first, and extending the coverage as they grew up. It seems to me that the figures I saw months ago were relatively modest in that range. They were in the $20 million-a-year range, which is modest for a plan, by my ministry’s standards.

Mr. Roy: It’s very modest compared with the health plan.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The figures were in that order, but the total cost of a plan for all people escalated very quickly to at least $250 million and perhaps to $500 million. Those implications were in it.

Mr. Lewis: The government will find that much for Syncrude to bail out Imperial Oil. God forbid, they should find it for a dental plan.

Hon. Mr. Miller: There are lots of other things. There are dental programmes going on, as the member knows, through the health units. We have fluoridation programmes in many cities; and just within the last week I heard dentists saying what a dramatic difference that by itself has made in the total demand of the young group for dental care. No one item, I say with great respect to the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr), no one other item seems to have as much impact upon the state of dental health as fluoridation does at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As with seatbelts, the government is not going to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: We’re doing a lot about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River with a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the minister, related to dental care, if he is aware of the survey that was taken by the northwestern health unit? It indicated that children in the younger ages in that area have more cavities and more problems with teeth than anyone else in the province, due mainly to the lack of dentists in that area. In light of this, is the government considering any programme to expand dental care in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that specific study. I am aware that the percentage of young people with dental caries is very high, even in the city of Toronto. I think some 32 per cent of the children, or some factor like that, have untreated cavities. I can quite appreciate that in fact the problems in the northern areas will be great because of the many instances of the lack of natural fluorides in the water in those areas.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A lot of natural mercury up there though.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can’t answer the last part of the member’s question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister’s statement: Has he changed his position today to what it was in August or September when he made a statement, at the meeting of the ministers of health, in which he said that dental care in Ontario was not a high priority item? How does that coincide with the proposal from the ODA, which has set its target date for 1975?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, those words were used by me in a context and therefore --

Mr. Roy: The minister didn’t mean them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t imply I was misquoted or anything else. I have to set priorities and until such time as there is a dental plan one has to assume it hasn’t reached the top of the list, that’s all.

Mr. Roy: I will bet the election changes the minister’s priorities.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well it may even change the membership in this House, including that of the hon. member.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Cochrane South.

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Mr. Ferrier: My question is of the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister make himself aware of the brief submitted to the Ham commission by the United Steelworkers of America local of the Reeves mine of Canadian Johns-Manville, which raised major complaints about serious dust problems in their dust control system; to the effect that trucks are windowless, and those that do have doors are wired shut; that loaders are without brakes; and that ramps in the open pit -- there are two now -- are without proper guardrails?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member opposite that we have some senior members of our ministry at every one of these hearing of the Ham commission. Certainly that particular report, along with other reports that have been tabled with that commission, will be checked into very carefully.

Mr. Ferrier: Well as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, what has the ministry’s mine inspection branch been doing to allow these deplorable conditions to exist? Will the minister order a full inspection of the mines to make sure that corrective measures are taken when there are obvious violations of the Mining Act and worker safety is greatly imperilled, such as in that situation right now?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): It is the same story all across northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am certainly not prepared to make any particular comments until I have a chance to look at the report and to compare it, of course, with the conditions the member has pointed out.

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

TORONTO AIRPORT FACILITIES

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Premier: In view of the growing concern of the people of this province, and I hope of this government, about the consequences, the serious consequences, of the major growth emphasis adjacent to Metro Toronto, will the Premier urge the federal government to reject any expansion of facilities at Malton and to choose a location for the new airport well away from the Metropolitan Toronto region?

Mr. Lewis: We don’t need a new airport.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite obviously the member for York Centre has come to the conclusion there is a need for a second international airport. I am delighted --

Mr. Lewis: Now that’s interesting.

Ms. Deacon: I accept it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to hear the member is officially in support of it.

Mr. Roy: What’s the Premier’s position?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say that as it relates to the first part of the question, my position --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): What about Spadina?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I do confess here some degree of responsibility, as the member for Peel North -- is that I have never been enthusiastic about a major expansion at Malton. While this has not been discussed since the commission report has come in, I can only say that it remains my point of view.

Mr. Deacon: The Premier should answer the question about growth against Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Deacon: The Premier hasn’t answered the question: What is his view about emphasis on growth around Toronto, such as the Pickering airport? Will the Premier urge a location right away from the city?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this bill has made it very clear that we are concerned about growth in and around Metropolitan Toronto. We are doing something about it with respect to the TCR and other studies.

Mr. Roy: That isn’t obvious.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The people opposite aren’t at all committed. They are not interested and are totally contradictory in everything where it has something to do with respect to Toronto area development.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes they are.

An hon. member: We are not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes they are, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

An hon. member: What is the Premier doing about it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: I have no idea what he said, but he is right!

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Sandwich-Riverside had the floor a moment ago. Is he deferring to the member for Thunder Bay? Fine.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The biggest sewer pipe in the world, and he is proud of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are awaiting a question from the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I have a question of the provincial Treasurer.

PROVINCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND LAND USE STRATEGY

Mr. Stokes: When can the people in the Province of Ontario expect the unveiling of an overall industrial strategy for the Province of Ontario, so that the people in northwestern Ontario can compete with the kind of development that is anticipated in North Pickering and Haldimand-Norfolk? And when are we going to get the unveiling of the overall strategic land-use plan for the Province of Ontario that was promised last fall by the minister’s predecessor?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in response to the second part of the question, I would simply say in the fullness of time.

Mr. Roy: Before the election in 1975.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In response to the first part of the question, I would simply say that a plan setting out a design for development of northwestern Ontario, has been in place for some three or four years. It sets certain targets and certain goals and objectives for that part of Ontario. My understanding is that those goals and objectives are not only being met, they are being exceeded. In fact, our record in northwestern Ontario is a darn good record -- and the member knows that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is just not communicating.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a question for --

Mr. Speaker: This is a supplementary?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Thunder Bay with his supplementary first.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The member for Thunder Bay has egg on his face.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the progress that has been made in northern Ontario with regard to the design for development; as a matter of fact, I defended it during the past week.

What I want to know is: With the kind of determinations being made in northwestern Ontario with regard to the implementation of a design for development and the implementation of a strategic land-use plan, to what extent are we going to be able to go forward with those plans in the absence of an overall industrial strategy that mitigates against the kind of development we want in the north and the kind of strategic land-use plan that we are developing in the north? How is that going to blend with the aspirations of the rest of the province if we don’t have an industrial strategy or an overall land-use plan?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am very tempted, Mr. Speaker, to ask my friend to put that question on the order paper. But I would think that in the absence of an overall provincial plan, which will be here in the fullness of time, in a conceptual stage only --

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t think so. It is his own overall plan.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Conceptual only? The former Treasurer (Mr. White) promised us a full plan.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would simply say this, that as long as we have in the government of Ontario, in the cabinet of Ontario, members such as the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), my friend from Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) and others --

Mr. Stokes: What else?

Mr. Lewis: There are not many Tories up there now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- who continually tell us about what northwestern Ontario needs and wants --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That’s better. That is more the minister’s style.

Mr. Stokes: They want us to blend in oil.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that is the greatest checkmark that we can have. We propose to improve on those checkmarks and make sure the northwestern Ontario gets more than its fair share --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is real communication.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- as it has been getting now, and will continue to get.

Mr. Lewis: Let’s have a little red apoplexy.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sounds like the Shouldice wing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member was nearly identified.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Nipissing with a supplementary, I understand.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is the usual reaction of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The interjection was out of order. The minister is out of order too. The member for Nipissing has the floor for a supplementary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary: Would the minister inform me when the same plan for northeastern Ontario is to be brought forward, since it has been promised since the minister was previously Treasurer some 2½ years ago?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question. I was to have had a meeting at 8:30 this morning to update myself on that particular point. Since we arrived back a little bit later than we had anticipated last night, that meeting was cancelled.

I am somewhat perplexed about that. When I left my present portfolio some 2½ years ago, that plan was nearly ready. The problem is, and I say this to the leader --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, things went very badly in those years.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Just cut it out.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The former Treasurer is crying.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I say to my friend, the leader of the New Democratic Party, that some of this provincial planning has been held up for the last couple of years because my successor was so much farther to the right than I am.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is really being very gracious.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary: Is the minister indicating that the former Treasurer completely ignored northeastern Ontario for 2½ years?

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, that is what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question asked previously.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t believe it. That was a pretty impressive plan.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): In response to the question asked by the hon. member --

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister remember the observation, drowning increases near bodies of water?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

AIR POLLUTION IN SUDBURY

Hon. W. Newman: In response to the question asked by the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) last Thursday concerning the ministerial order on the International Nickel Co. I wish to advise the hon. member that my ministry at the present time has not received any request or granted any extension to amending control order issued on Jan. 2, 1973, to be finalized in 1978. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the company is meeting the interim requirements of the ministerial order.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East with a question.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Attorney General and deals with the correspondence exchange by Mr. Shouldice with Mr. Kelly and other people within the government: Was the minister rightly quoted when he said that there is no basis on which to lay criminal charges? And if he was correctly quoted, could he tell us the background of his coming to that particular decision?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, when anything such as the Shouldice matter is brought to the attention of my officials, they look at it and see if there has in fact been any breach of any statute. This was no exception. They scrutinized section 110 of the Criminal Code which really is framed in the basis of conspiracy. It indicates -- and I am paraphrasing it, probably incorrectly -- it’s something to the effect that if an inducement or an enticement or something of this nature is held out --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like $30,000.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- to procure the election of an individual or a party, then that is an indictable offence. Because it is couched in a conspiracy-setting, philosophically, there has to be more than one person involved. And there’s absolutely no evidence -- in fact, a complete denial by the person to whom that epistle was apparently addressed that he received it. And therefore there is no indication that any offence has been committed.

A second matter pertaining to the same thing which was also drawn to my attention is that the letter was dated some time in November, 1971, and therefore it could not affect the outcome of the general election of October, the preceding month. Those are the two matters that were brought to my attention.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So what was he raising money for at that time?

Mr. Roy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: One supplementary to the minister in his response: Is the minister saying that section 110, subsection 2 only applies during an election campaign? Secondly, Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that in his opinion there was no attempt here to commit an offence? If you look at the attempt, an offence doesn’t have to be committed. Surely the letter of Nov. 23, 1971, totally indicates attempt.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We were just conveying to the members of this House the opinion of my law officers. They say there’s no evidence with which to proceed under section 110, arising out of that letter the member refers to.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll allow one supplementary from the hon. member for Sarnia because he indicated his intention.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Would the minister make available to members of the House the opinion received from the law officers?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have that opinion, in the form of an oral opinion conveyed to me by the deputy minister, If the member wishes it reduced into writing, I think probably it might be of some advantage to him, I have no hesitation in bringing it forth.

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

URANIUM COMPOUNDS IN DENTURES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, regarding the use of uranium compounds in dentures. Is the minister aware of a recent report from the National Radiological Protection Board in the United Kingdom that three out of four British dentists are now using a porcelain that contains uranium, when they prescribe or when they make up artificial dentures or crowns, and that the board considers there is a risk of overexposure to radioactivity?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was unaware of those facts.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Oh, shame!

Mr. Burr: Could the minister inquire whether this kind of compound is in use in Ontario? Thank you.

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

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I could get his attention. In view of the publicity attendant on the CBC programme in regard to mercury in the English River system and the programme last fall and of ministry officials coming down, can he report to the House any progress in regard to any programmes he has come up with to assist the native people so affected? Can he give us an up-to-date account of how the mercury is affecting their health in that area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can point out to the hon. member that we did extract from the major timber licensee in that particular area substantial timber limits for the Whitedog and the Grassy Narrows reserves. I believe they were allowed to cut up to 3,000 cords of timber per year, and I believe they’ve cut up to about 600. We have also made realignments with regard to our trapline possibilities and have made more traplines available to them in both areas. Here again, I understand they didn’t use the total quota that was allocated to them.

In addition to this, as I’ve mentioned on previous occasions in this House we embarked on some extensive regeneration programmes where employment was made available to the members of the Whitedog and the Grassy Narrows Indian reserves. In fact, we’ve made contact with Chief Roy McDonald of Whitedog and Mr. Andrew Keewatin, who is the chief of Grassy Narrows. They are coming to Toronto in the next short period to discuss further steps that may be taken by this government. I may say on this point that just last Thursday I had the occasion to meet with Judd Buchanan and discuss a number of issues. This is one issue which we touched on briefly. He is most anxious to co-operate in any way he can, but it is a very complex and a very difficult situation.

With regard to the health of the Indian people per se, it’s my understanding that health tests are continuing with the adults, the senior citizens and with the newborn children in the immediate area. To date I know of no direct effect that can be related to mercury contamination in any of the individuals who have been tested.

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

HAMILTON HARBOUR INVESTIGATION

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that it has been determined to charge a very prominent individual who has not yet been charged in the Hamilton Harbour scandal? If that decision has been made in the minister’s department, why has there been a delay in laying the charges?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the member means by a “very prominent citizen.”

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): He said “individual,” not “citizen.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: As the hon. member knows, there were certain matters, which I think went to preliminary hearing in Hamilton about two months ago. I further believe that the matter is coming on for trial this week. That is the only comment that I am prepared to make at this time. As the matter unfolds, then I think the hon. member will be able to satisfy himself as to whether any additional party or parties are about to be charged.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary: Can I get a straight yes or no? Is the minister going to charge additional people this week?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not prepared to advise this House what we are prepared to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education.

I noted a suggestion today that the root causes of the problem at Castle Frank High School in Toronto are the result of provincial ceilings, and I wonder if the minister would have any comment on that suggestion.

Mr. Lewis: Ah ha! So the ceilings cause violence now!

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I noticed that quotation in the front page of the Toronto Sun this morning; it was attributed to one of the members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, Toronto chapter. She was reported as saying that provincial spending ceilings were responsible for growing violence in Toronto schools and that classes over the past four years have grown to sizes larger than anyone could consider ideal.

In answer to the member’s question, Mr. Speaker, the best thing I can do is to tell him that in September, 1972, there were 58 staff members at Castle Frank with an enrolment of 832 and a pupil-teacher ratio of 14.3.

Mr. Havrot: How about that!

Hon. Mr. Wells: On Sept. 30, 1974, there were 66 members of the staff, a decreased enrolment of 821 and a pupil-teacher ratio of 12.4. Therefore, I think the statement concerning class sizes is inaccurate. I think the problems that are underlined by the occasion of this incident at Castle Frank bear careful scrutiny by all of us. The answer to this kind of situation, the eruption of violence from time to time in our classrooms, is not one that can be answered easily and it is not one than can be answered by suggesting more use of corporal punishment in the schools.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

DEVELOPMENT OF FORMER AIR BASE

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Could the minister explain the reason that his ministry officials have placed a freeze on further development of Varnastra, which is a phased-out air base just outside Clinton, in Huron county, particularly when the government initially encouraged development of the base and particularly when lots had been purchased for building purposes and the purchasers now find that they can’t build houses on those lots?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about that specific case, but I would assume that it is because the facilities in the area are taxed to capacity or committed at this point in time. I would be glad to look into it and get further information, but I assume that the facilities would be committed to their full capacity now, either by present plans or by plans in the works.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

MOBILE DENTAL CAR

Mr. Stokes: A question of the Minister of Health.

Will the Minister of Health undertake to see that the mobile dental car which is currently at Moosonee is dispatched to the unorganized community of Upsala in northwestern Ontario, which hasn’t seen a dentist in five years?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

OVERTAXING OF AUTOMOBILES

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Revenue.

Is the minister aware of the overtaxing of automobiles resulting from the rebate instigated by the big four auto companies, and is he considering the refund of the seven per cent sales tax on the amount of the rebate to the consumer?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the problem which the hon. member raises. If he would like to give me some particulars, I would be glad to look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

When is the minister going to produce his wonderful new liquor bill, which his predecessor promised that he was introducing in March, 1973, and October, 1973; he promised it for introduction in March, 1974, and October, 1974; and which in his last speech he said would be introduced in the second week of December, 1974? When will the minister give his first prognostication?

Mr. Stokes: Next week.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I refuse to be drawn into making prognostications. All I can say is that we are studying a revision of liquor legislation regulations, and in the fullness of time we will be presenting them to this House.

Mr. Cassidy: It will be well distilled. Is that it?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

CUT IN MINISTERS’ SALARIES

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. In connection with that significant anti-inflationary thrust of the government in giving money back to the Treasury, could he advise whether a gift to the Crown is a taxable exemption and whether, therefore, the ministers will get the benefit of at least 50 per cent of the donation to the Treasury with respect to their federal income tax?

Mr. Roy: That’s a tough one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should ask his leader. He would know the answer.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think I would rather not try to answer that at the moment, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it the full amount would be deductible for purposes of income tax as a gift to the Crown, but I think it would be appropriate for me to get a more complete answer for the hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Why?

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of a supplementary, I am right then in assuming that when the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) characterized it as an anti-inflationary thrust he was only half right?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t think that’s correct at all, Mr. Speaker. I think he is 100 per cent right.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t understand this. If it’s tax deductible, I might want to change my mind.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ESSEX COUNTY BUILDING

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General with regard to the provincial jail in Windsor. Has the minister explored the advantage of acquiring the soon-to-be-vacated Essex county administrative offices and council chambers with a view to considering some expansion, alteration and renovation of the provincial jail in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the jail system does not come under this ministry. I did receive an oral report from one of my officials a week or so ago but I forget what reference was made to the Windsor administration building that I think the member refers to along with three or four others in the province. Perhaps I can take his question as notice and get back to him, because I don’t recall in detail what the gist of that discussion was.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A question of privilege.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will agree with me that the rights and privileges of this House have been violated by members of the fourth estate by virtue of their using ineligible players today who did humble the members of this House 11 to 6 in a game of hockey. I hope that you won’t mind if we say out loud and publicly that we sorely missed the presence and the talent of the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Apps).

Mr. Speaker: I noticed that the member used the word “sorely.”

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That comes later.

Mr. Speaker: We welcome the gladiators back from the arena.

Petitions.

Clerk of the House: The following petition has been received:

Of Mr. Stokes, the member for Thunder Bay, and signed by more than 500 petitioners, praying that a realignment be made of the corrective programme with respect to the highway from Schreiber to two miles east of Schreiber on Highway 17.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that Mr. Turner and Mr. Ewen be added to the administration of justice committee and that Hon. Mr. MacBeth be removed therefrom.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a fair balance.

Mr. Roy: It takes two guys to replace the hon. Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

House in committee on Bill 177, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Chairman: When we finished last night we were debating the minister’s amendment to section 31. The hon. member for Lakeshore.

On section 31:

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Yes, we were given an amendment to this section which, confessedly, did go some distance to removing an objection which I had prepared to the section. It does make somewhat better sense than it did previously, but not all that much more sense in removing one type of ministerial discretion. What’s happening, Mr. Chairman, is that the bylaw would be passed by the municipality regulating a whole host of things, including prohibiting or regulating the operation of motor vehicles, and would go into effect; except it wouldn’t go into effect if it were inconsistent with or in contravention of the Highway Traffic Act.

In this case ministerial approval is necessary for that particular bylaw. But the minister interposed himself to an even greater extent, and I suppose the reason behind it was that if by some inadvertence or oversight the bylaw got through the ministry and then subsequently it was discovered to be inconsistent with the Highway Traffic Act generally applicable in the province, so that we would have a peculiar law in a very specific municipality, the minister could come along afterwards.

Does this really obviate the difficulty, though? So far as the local municipality is concerned it’s the law; the bylaw is as much a law as any other statute of the Queen and has the full impact. Suppose they initiate a prosecution under that bylaw as it stands? Albeit it has your approval, but it has gone into effect nevertheless. Is it up to some bright-eyed lawyer to appear to point out to the court that there is an inconsistency between the statute as it stands and the bylaw as it is being sought to be enforced in that courtroom? Doesn’t that difficulty still remain? What are the minister’s thoughts on this?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns that I had when I looked at this particular section was the fact that while we were saying at the outset that we wished to put the responsibility, and properly so, in the hands of the municipal councils for the passing of bylaws, the Act as it was prior to amendment seemed still to have the authority remaining with the minister to determine in fact whether or not the bylaw should remain in effect.

The reason I feel we have to continue to say the bylaw would be considered invalid if it were inconsistent with the Act is in order to prevent municipalities from being able to pass bylaws that were totally opposed to the rules of the road as they are considered throughout this whole province.

Under the Municipal Act, municipalities have the right to pass bylaws of various kinds. Our concern would be that -- and I will use what I agree are very hypothetical possibilities -- for example, without this sort of condition in the Act, a municipality could conceivably decide that within its community you are required to drive on the left-hand side of the road, or that you are permitted to travel through an intersection on a red light and stop on green. This is the sort of thing; as I say, it’s completely hypothetical.

Being a little more realistic, you will note that in the Act we are saying that the municipalities may pass speed bylaws, but they cannot be less than 25 mph or more than 60 without the approval of the minister. The reason, of course, for wanting this particular section as is, is to prevent a municipality from passing a bylaw without permission, saying that the speed limit is 10 mph, and having someone convicted for exceeding the speed limit and conceivably losing points for that conviction when it comes back through the process down here.

So really, in its simplest terms it is to make sure that we have some way of noting them. By submitting the bylaws to us for perusal -- not that we would necessarily change them -- we simply want to be sure that the bylaws are consistent with the Act and that they are not going to cause a problem for the citizens not only of that community but from other parts of the province who may be visiting within that community.

Mr. Lawlor: I quite agree with what you are trying to do and I think it is very sensible. In other words, there’s a range of bylaws of such importance that you feel that the ministry ought to approve of them before they become enforceable in law. That’s fine. There is another range of bylaws passed by municipalities which fall into these designations here which have effect, which are valid law from the time that they pass them, though not necessarily with your approval. If previously this type of bylaw required the approval of the ministry, then if that sort of bylaw is inconsistent with the Act it’s no longer valid.

My problem is, who is to test that? Where is that to be found? I don’t want to reduce the argument to absurdity, as the minister did, but suppose they said you had to stop 3 ft back from a stop sign or something like that, or set up some distances with respect to red lights or something of that kind, and then they went ahead and laid charges against an individual for failure to do so, wouldn’t they probably go zip right through the court, the judge, the conviction elicited, the whole thing and the man fined; and subsequently probably, find out that they had no power or right to do that as it was inconsistent with the clear terms of the legislation itself, that is the Act?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think that was in our mind as well. What we had originally tried to do prior to the amendment was that we were requiring the municipalities to forward their bylaws to us, as in section 1(a) --

Mr. Lawlor: Right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and we in turn were then going to notify the clerk within 21 days -- I’m sorry, they had to file it with us and we were then going to notify the clerks if there was anything invalid about the bylaw.

We removed that condition that they must file it with us within this specific time by registered mail. We still would like them to send the bylaw to us so that we can peruse it. If it is inconsistent, then we will be able to go back to the municipality. Now I agree with you that charges could be laid.

Mr. Lawlor: In the meantime.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s exactly correct.

Mr. Lawlor: That is what I am after.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are exactly right. We agree with you that that could happen. However, there have been arguments put forth to me by municipalities in responding to the contents of this Act after first reading. They said: “Why don’t you just remove all of these conditions completely, even sections 1(a) and 1(b), and we’ll determine whether or not our bylaws are invalid or not and they will be tested duly in the courts.”

I agree with you that there are many people who will be charged under various bylaws who never even questioned the validity of them. If the sign is up or the bylaw is there, they go in, pay their fine and that’s the end of it. That problem is there. We are hoping that we can overcome it in some way by not taking too much of the big brother attitude on how they pass their bylaws, by getting away from that but still requesting them to file them with us so that our people will have an opportunity to look at them and then advise the municipality. I suggest most of them would like to have their bylaws valid and enforceable.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Minister, in order lust to forfend as much as you can in a different situation here, in which I quite agree with you, couldn’t that time be pulled back just a little bit? An awful lot of charges can be laid in a 30-day period from the time that a bylaw goes into effect and begins to be enforced by the police of a municipality.

Wouldn’t it be possible to say that within 15 days they must file the bylaw to give you an opportunity to get on to it? By the time it gets to the ministry, is filed and is perused, possibly a month and a half or even two months might go by before it’s recognized.

Your staff is not wholly preoccupied with reading the fine print in bylaws, comparing them with the Act itself, and trying to sift out differences between the two. I would think that a municipality passing bylaws of this type, having been given that area of responsibility, wouldn’t find it at all onerous through the clerk of the municipality to get the stuff in to you immediately: I call “immediately,” within 15 days. Would you consider that possibility as not leaving all kinds of citizens open to infringements which may be point-losing and may involve their licences again, rather than to move in a direction that will do as much as you can, at least in your power, to forfend against that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t suppose it really matters whether it’s 30 days or 15 days. I think the points being made by the hon. member are probably very valid.

I have some question in my mind about the reliability of Her Majesty’s post office to do anything within 15 days, especially if some poor soul happens to be mailing this from Kenora or somewhere in the riding of the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes). We can’t count on the reliability of the mail, but perhaps 15 days will be adequate. I would hope that we don’t jeopardize someone’s licence by the fact that the rain and the hail and the sleet held up the mail for some reason. I won’t object to a change of 15 days.

Mr. Lawlor: I think you would jeopardize their licence a good sight more by leaving it as you do.

Mr. Lawlor moves that the words “30 days” in the second last line of (1) be altered to “15.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I would accept the amendment the hon. member is making.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question on (1b).

Mr. Chairman: I am waiting for a copy of the amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, what are you so occupied with?

Mr. Chairman: Unfortunately, I don’t take shorthand.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, I see.

The question has to do with (1b). If I may, I’ll give you the amendment in a moment, since the minister has accepted it. May I do that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, that will be fine.

Mr. Lawlor: This has reference to “highways designated as connecting links only.” Why do you require prior approval in that? What’s the kind of situation there?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, it is our opinion that that particular portion of the highway is still considered to be a provincial highway and that we want to retain some control over the consistency of the type of signing, the type of traffic light control that there would be on the connecting link as it relates to being a part of the provincial highway system within the municipalities; otherwise, we feel that should be entirely in their hands to pass any bylaws as relate to that.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 31 --

Mr. Lawlor: As amended.

Mr. Chairman: -- yes, as amended -- form part of the bill?

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 32 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone have any comments on any other sections of the bill?

Mr. Lawlor: Just one question on section 35.

On section 35:

Mr. Lawlor: I have a case at the present moment, which I don’t know the answer to, and I am going to seek free legal advice.

Suppose, as the law presently stands, an individual has been up on one of these multiple charges under the Criminal Code and he has been judged guilty, convicted and fined, but nothing is said by the bench whatsoever with respect to his licence. He walks out of the courtroom, climbs into his car and drives off, but is apprehended along the way by a police constable. Is he liable to be charged with driving while his licence is under suspension?

In other words, as things presently stand, most people going into court don’t know that this will flow from the fact of the conviction.

Most people believe that until they get a notice in the mail or delivered by the police that they believe they are still free to drive a motor vehicle. At the time it arrives at their home, either one way or the other -- by registered mail or by police delivery -- then, of course, they stop.

Very often their licence is picked up by the police officer, or they are told that they must send it in to the department.

But in that interim stretch of time, is it permissible for the police, as you understand it, to lay charges against people?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, in the bill we have now brought back what used to be within the legislation, and that is the requirement of the provincial judge or the presiding judge to --

Mr. Lawlor: Take the licence.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, to give the warning; the warning that upon conviction the licence will be suspended. There is also a requirement that he take the licence from the convicted person at the time. If the licence is not there, quite frankly the situation the member has described is correct. Where the driver of the automobile comes to court without his licence -- and this has been a ploy in the past; it is hard to believe, but sonic have been advised by lawyers to leave their licences at home --

Mr. Lawlor: Oh no!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Then when they leave the courts, of course, the licence is never sent in or turned in until such time as it is picked up by the police officer if possible. So the situation the member has described is correct: If a person leaves the courtroom after conviction, then he will be considered to be driving while suspended. That is correct.

Section 35 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments on any other section?

Sections 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, just one comment. I recognize that the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) is not present, but I would like to have this on the record. Last evening he indicated some concern about section 9, which deals with the mini-buses. To set his mind at ease -- and mine, quite frankly -- mini-buses, station wagons and all other forms of vehicles that are used, other than those we define as a bus, must be properly lighted and have signs on them. This is all provided for in the regulations of the Act. They must be properly signed when being used for this purpose.

Bill 177, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that the committee of the whole rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves second reading of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, basically we are prepared to support this bill. The amendment which will exempt trucks hauling milk from the previous load limit restriction is something we think is worthwhile.

One question was asked earlier concerning any proposals the minister may have with respect to the hauling of logs and other timber products. Perhaps he could advise us if that is being considered at the present time. The member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) asked me to raise the point since he is down in the committee dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I have no other comments with respect to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, try as I may, and I have tried very hard overnight, I cannot find grounds for philosophic dissertation upon either the hauling of milk, the hauling of fuel or the hauling of livestock feed; and regrettably I find that we will accede to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their complete accord on this bill. I recognize that the member for Lakeshore has spent considerable time looking for some way to contest the validity of it, and I appreciate his confidence.

Regarding the question of the logging trucks, in its simplest terms, no, we are not considering changing the Act as it relates to logging trucks. We think there are entirely different circumstances involved in moving logs and pulp in the northwestern and northeastern parts of the province, and we are not planning any changes there.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Does the minister contemplate any great damage to the road surface?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is the member referring to these two particular types of vehicles?

Mr. Young: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, we don’t think so. There may be some damage in certain areas, but we feel that because of the offsetting requirements of these two very important delivery services the effect of the damage will be minimal. There aren’t that many of them and in many cases very short distances are involved.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): No. If I may, I would like to make some comment prior to third reading. I will be very brief.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the order is to place this bill for third reading; however, we will hear from the hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I’m sorry. I was just out of the House when this went through, but I had been waiting to speak on it.

I understand our House leader did question the minister in regard to the fact that some of us over on this side of the House feel that those trucks that are carrying logs in northern Ontario should have the same type of exemption as the milk carriers. I’m sure the minister understands this as well as I do, insofar as he represents an area in which, in those two months, this is very critical to the logging industry. The bringing in of the half-load season during that period is often the difference between whether operations continue or whether they close down.

In my area alone there are perhaps three mills, and particularly this year, when there is such a slump in the sale of lumber, there’s no question that those logging operations and the mills which produce the lumber will be forced to close down because of the change in the regulations on the time of the year which provides for half loads.

I would ask if the minister could comment on this, because I am sure he’s aware of the problems that face these operators in his area in the very same way they are affected in mine. I’m not opposed to those people who collect milk from the farmer being granted the provisions of this bill as they are, but I do feel some look should be taken at logging operations, which in that two-month period are so dependent on the provision of logs, which are virtually cut off by the half-load season.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the loads we refer to in this particular bill, as I know the hon. member is aware, were for special vehicles, these milk tank trucks and the fuel tank trucks in particular, which we have found in some cases were overloaded without having any load on them at all. Logging trucks, as the hon. member knows, are capable of reducing their loads to what the requirements may be.

If he is looking, as I know he is, at the requirement of the supply of logs to various mills for operations -- and I recall the problem we had last spring in his area -- it is our opinion that those involved in logging operations, the operators of the mills, the operators in the cutting areas, the operators of the trucks, are aware, and have been for many years, of the half-loading restrictions that come into our part of the province on those particular roads.

There’s no reason in the world why adequate hauling cannot take place prior to the two months, or whatever it may be of restriction to half-loads, and these logs can be hauled into the mills and stockpiled. So the shutting down of the mill, although these has been a tendency to blame that on the half-load restrictions, many times, in my personal opinion, the blame lies in mismanagement of the operation itself by the people running the mill for not having sufficient stock on hand.

The other portion, of course, is that these are much longer hauls. These are hauls upon many back roads that are, for all intents and purposes, primarily logging roads in some cases, and the logging trucks make up the majority of the traffic.

We have to be very, very careful regarding the excessive loads and the very heavy loads that can be carried by these logging trucks, because of the very considerable damage they do to the road. We do make concessions to the logging trucks as to the size of loads they can carry during half-load seasons. If I remember correctly, I think 110 per cent of their licence is permitted during the full-load season.

Mr. R. S. Smith: During freeze-ups; right now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As well, the logging trucks are allowed to run, even right now in the late part of the evening. If the weather stays cold we allow them to run with a normal load even though the half-load restrictions are on.

Mr. R. S. Smith: No; oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I really believe in the case of the logging trucks, if there is a freeze-up in the area, in the evenings they are allowed to carry heavier loads. At least that’s the information I received when I inquired into that particular matter.

But frankly, at this stage we are not prepared to reduce the half-load restrictions totally across the province for logging operations.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I would like to make a short comment, if I could, Mr. Speaker. It is the point that the minister makes that the logging operators, if they are operating properly, could have the logs at the site of their mill prior to the times pointed out in this bill.

I should say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the operations are still taking place in the bush and there is no way they could get the logs out until they have cut them, if the minister can get them out before they are cut, well he has some powers they don’t have.

THIRD READINGS

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 195, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves third reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, may I make a few comments on Bill 177? Possibly the minister, with your approval Mr. Speaker and that of the members of the House, might answer one question for me. Is it the intention of the ministry, through this legislation, following conviction on one of the offences as set out in section 5 of the bill covering section 203, 204 and 219 of the Criminal Code or other offences -- impaired driving and so on -- is it the intention of the ministry, once a conviction has been registered, to ask the provincial judge, or the justice of the peace, whoever is presiding in court, to immediately take this individual’s driver’s licence?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, it is a statutory offence.

Mr. Roy: I notice the minister has nodded agreement, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to make a few comments about that.

I am extremely disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This is third reading of the bill; these points should have been discussed during the other two readings. Now we gave the member for Nipissing special permission because, unavoidably, he was not here for second reading.

Mr. Roy: Surely, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The principle of the bill was fully discussed, and then it went to committee of the whole House for clause by clause consideration, so the comments on third reading are just substantiating whether you are supporting or not supporting it. While we do not want too great an elaboration, if you wish to ask the minister a quick question, we will allow that in view of what has gone before.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was not here on second reading or committee consideration of the bill. It is very difficult to know exactly when these bills are going to be called.

Mr. Speaker: That’s a chance the member takes.

Mr. Roy: Oh yes, that is a chance, but I think there should be more discretion --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t want to prolong the discussion --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. If there is a matter of clarification, we will allow that.

Mr. Lawlor: We will have some special rules for the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: No, I don’t want any special rules; but the way the House operates here is not exactly logical or cohesive.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member shouldn’t blame us for his absence.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes it is difficult; but this is a third reading on this bill and these remarks are out of order. We have been through the two processes; both the principle and the clause-by-clause discussion have already gone through the House. If it is a point of clarification we will allow that, but not a prolonged discussion on any point or principle of the bill.

Mr. H. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one thing plain. First of all, I was allowed to speak on third reading when I had allowed the bill to go past second reading and committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I understand.

Mr. R. S. Smith: And that’s why I was allowed to speak; it wasn’t a special privilege.

But I would also like to make the point that as far as I am concerned, and under the orders of the House, on third reading a member can say what he likes about the bill. He is not really curtailed to a short comment or something like that, because there are many bills on which we have had full discussion during third reading.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member knows what I was saying. The principle has been decided and that is closed, the point-by-point discussion has taken place; so you really should summarize why you are for or against the bill on third reading. This has been the principle, I think, throughout my 10 years in the House.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my only intention was to express certain concern that I have about the bill. I thought that was certainly permitted on third reading. But I want to make one thing clear to you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: May I answer that? On the basis of those remarks, what you wish to say appears to be in order.

Mr. Roy: I do want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that when I made a comment about the operation of this House I was not attacking the Chair at all or you personally. What I was saying is that the way the business is called on the other side by the government sometimes makes it difficult for us in the opposition to know exactly when legislation is going to be called. In no way did I want to be offensive to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: All right. We’ll accept that. Would the member just continue with his remarks.

Mr. Roy: The concern I want to express, and I want to say this very sincerely to the minister --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That was all said yesterday.

Mr. Roy: -- is that through the succession of Ministers of Transportation and Communications the government has had, it has failed to come to agreement with the federal government about an anomaly that exists, a clear anomaly between certain provisions of the Criminal Code in relation to impaired driving and the approach that is taken by this ministry in relation to the suspension of the licence. That anomaly, Mr. Speaker, is that under the Criminal Code a provincial judge, or a judge who is presiding in our criminal courts, has a certain discretion toward the suspension of a licence or the prohibition of driving. The minister is familiar with this. There can be given what are called intermittent terms for driving.

The purpose of that provision in the Criminal Code, which is in clear conflict with sections under this Act, was not to treat everyone the same. In other words, if I, a taxi driver or a truck driver, end up before the courts on a charge of impaired driving or 0.08 or some of the other sections of the code that I referred to, in section 5 here, the loss of my licence means sometimes the loss of my job or livelihood for my family; whereas for an individual, like for instance the minister who has a chauffeured limousine, the loss of his licence is not something that is going to be any great loss because he has the limousine at the door and he doesn’t have to drive anyway. In fact I think he can take the limousine down to his riding if he likes.

In any event, we are attempting, Mr. Speaker, through legislation, whether it is this type of legislation or legislation emanating from the federal government, to try to be equitable in our sentences. We are not doing so.

I know this is difficult and the press has consistently failed to understand that point. This minister’s predecessor, the member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton), when he mentioned that he might look at this clear conflict between the two areas of legislation, was severely criticized in editorials by the press saying we were getting soft in light of the fact that there are apparently a greater percentage of drivers who are driving under the influence of alcohol; that we shouldn’t get soft, we should get tougher.

I fail to see why at some time the minister could not get together with his federal counterpart, the Minister of Justice, and somehow come to an agreement so that we don’t have one piece of legislation saying one thing and another piece of legislation saying another. What the minister is doing now, with this legislation, is precluding --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are you going to allow the debate to reopen again? We went through all of these points yesterday, twice.

Mr. Speaker: I was just hoping this would conclude, because we covered those very points last evening in the House.

Mr. Roy: I want it on the record.

Mr. Speaker: There are other members who wish to speak.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, it’s on the record.

Mr. Roy: What about the bill?

Mr. Speaker: That’s all right. This was fully debated and replied to by the minister last evening.

Mr. Roy: It might have been done, but surely it’s open on third reading for a member to again reiterate what his concern is about the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The reasons for supporting it or not may be stated, but the debate on principle has been completed and those are points which are not new to this House, if you will check Hansard.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want very briefly to state something to the minister. I know it bothers him when we reiterate a point that is of some value. I notice the minister is getting very touchy.

Mr. Lawlor: I agree with the member completely.

Mr. Roy: The point I am trying to make very simply is that the minister is now precluding provincial fudges who have jurisdiction under the Criminal Code from exercising that discretion. He is saying to them: “Seize the driver’s licence right now.”

Does he know what he is going to do? He is going to force those courts and those judges to start giving more and more what we call conditional discharges where there will be no conviction registered and in that case there won’t be any suspension. I’m saying that is not the proper approach.

The fact is that this minister is at loggerheads with the federal government. They should get together on this, because after all the people who are going to be suffering because of inconsistent legislation are going to be the public. They don’t understand this. I can’t see why the minister doesn’t get together with his federal counterpart on this situation.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Maybe the member could act as an intermediary.

Mr. Roy: Maybe I could.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker I want to respond just as briefly as the hon. member presented his remarks.

Let’s understand it very clearly, Mr. Speaker, and I’m sure the hon. member does as well, that every jurisdiction in this country has attempted to bring this particular matter to the attention of the federal Minister of Justice, to absolutely no avail.

The federal minister is completely aware of the frustrations being faced in every provincial jurisdiction in attempting to have some sort of control over the number of impaired and intoxicated drivers who are on our highways; he knows full well that we’ve attempted to do that.

Recent meetings of the various provincial ministers have dealt with this very point, how impossible it was to get this message through.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is that why the minister switched?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As far as the inconsistency of the law is concerned the inconsistencies have been carried on from courtroom to courtroom around this province, and this eventually will do away with the inconsistencies.

Now when someone walks into any courtroom in a particular province, if he or she has been convicted for impaired driving or under the other sections that are shown under the code in this particular Act, he or she will know that licence suspension is automatic; and it is the same for everyone across this province.

Mr. Roy: They’ll get a conditional discharge.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As it now stands, because of the inequities in the law, in one courtroom one can be given an intermittent driving privilege; in another, depending upon the mood of the judge or the way he wishes to handle his court, there is no opportunity given.

Mr. Roy: Why doesn’t the minister do away with those judges then?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): There would be no appointments then.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There are still the opportunities for conditional discharge.

If it is to rest upon the head of the federal government, this provision to permit people who are known to be convicted of intoxication while driving their automobile on the highways, to permit them, through their legislation, to go back on the highways, let it rest on their shoulders and not on mine.

Mr. Roy: Well why doesn’t the minister do away with judges then?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the motion is for third reading of Bill 177.

The following bill was given third reading on motion.

Bill 177, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 191, An Act to Incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: I presume Mr. Speaker that after the minister’s introductory statement he has nothing further to add at this point.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just by way of reply.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate with respect to the development of what is now to become an Ontario Lottery Corp. As the bill advises, the principal activity of the corporation is to conduct lotteries to enable the promotion of physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities and facilities for those particular areas.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill had been brought before the Legislature 10 years ago, or even five years ago, there would have been great consternation in the hearts and minds of many members. Indeed we might well have had to have a free vote on a subject as controversial as presumably this might have been.

Thunder and lightning would no doubt have been part of the backdrop to any debate -- or at least the prognostication would be such -- and it’s rather interesting to see the lack of enraged morals that have greeted the introduction of this kind of bill, compared with what we might have expected.

I suppose it’s the Olympic lottery that has changed the views of the people of Ontario and helped make this proposal acceptable -- the same way that Oktoberfest in my home community has changed some of the views of liquor laws within the province. That is in the same pattern as this piece of legislation.

Ontario certainly hasn’t led the way here because other jurisdictions -- Quebec and Manitoba -- have proceeded with this kind of an approach to the raising of funds. I suppose a goodly number of our citizens feel the raising of moneys in this way is rather regrettable in that funds are raised in this manner even though they are to be spent for worthy projects.

We on this side of the House might well say that the spending priorities of the government are such that we would reorganize them to make necessary funds available from the general revenues of the province rather than go through this particular approach to fund-raising.

However, the ministry appears to have accepted at least four points in a rationale for the development of this kind of a situation. The first point, as I have mentioned, is that the Olympic Lottery has at least conditioned our citizens to accept this kind of a fund-raising spectacle and the presumption that any one of us, if we have the price of a ticket, can presumably earn or at least receive a bonanza by way of a tax-free prize from a lottery.

The second point is that, of course, there has been an apparent change within our society that has found the lack of any real outcry against this kind of an approach, other than the disappointment to which I have referred, so this whole idea is perhaps considered to be politically safe as well.

Third, no one will disagree that the proceeds can be useful, and perhaps are indeed needed, but in this case we apparently accept that the worthy objective and the worthy aims which we are seeking in the provision of these facilities are sufficient that we are prepared to accept this means, with the hope that the means will be forgotten, at least by some of our citizens.

I think the fourth point, Mr. Speaker, is that, of course, the money that is being presently spent on this kind of project by many of our citizens will at least stay at home. We have been spending these funds, perhaps some $40 million, in the Irish Sweepstakes and the other horseracing affairs, particularly in England as well as Ireland, and the moneys that have been sent rather furtively and secretly across the seas have not been matched with the kinds of penalties that the minister had been called upon, I am sure, to invoke when he was the Attorney General of the province.

I think it is quite clear that when the names of winners have been published in the press over these last several years there have no doubt been calls and letters directed not only to the government but most particularly to the Attorney General saying, “Well, why don’t you prosecute? How can these people live off the avails of something which you say is illegal -- namely, the selling of these tickets within the province?” The answer, I presume, is that there is no proof that the ticket was bought in Ontario and, therefore, we would rather not get involved with that kind of a prosecution.

So the government really has turned a blind eye to this whole sort of thing, and as a result we are now at the stage where Ontario is going to join in, at least to benefit from the expenditures which people are otherwise making. I suppose it may be too strong to call it living off the avails, but at least there is -- with some validity, I think -- a view within certain quarters of our society that it is, if not a completely immoral or evil thing to do, at least perhaps a regrettable thing to do.

We are presumably looking forward to receiving a figure somewhat equivalent to the $1 million per week that is raised in Michigan, and I would imagine, as the minister says, that we will be able to acquire some $40 million through this kind of a project, which will provide, of course, substantial funds for the furtherance of the various points that the explanatory note to the bill suggests the purposes of this legislation will be.

The major problem, of course, will be the division of the spoils. I would imagine that the minister will require the wisdom of Solomon to try to decide, among competing groups all with, at least in their view, very worthy projects, just how the money is going to be divided. The former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), was quoted somewhat at length last spring and summer as to his views with respect to this kind of a financing programme. He didn’t like lotteries then, but I presume he is now in line and we may indeed even see him buying the first ticket if things continue to go rapidly in the direction that the minister -- a veteran but at least newly appointed in this incarnation -- will have us develop.

I would like to ask a couple of questions at this stage rather than requiring that this bill go to committee, and perhaps the minister could refer to them when he replies.

First of all, I wonder how he intends to have the tickets sold. Are they going to be sold through the banks or through individuals, as we have seen in the case of the Olympic lottery --

Mr. Lawlor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as we are concerned, for this precise kind of reason, we would desire that the bill go to committee. I don’t know if that would foreshorten the debate on second reading.

Mr. Breithaupt: That certainly can foreshorten my remarks. I have just three or four brief points to comment upon. The matter of dealing with the tickets is one. The matter of the extension that Quebec may seek for its Olympic lottery financing is another matter that I would like to hear from the minister upon, so that we can get some idea as to how this is going to fit in with the overall plans that that project may require.

I suppose another point that concerns many of us is the possible interference with local fund-raising projects. In his introductory statement on Jan. 30, the minister was careful to review the local involvement in fund-raising that has seen lotteries an accepted part of fund-raising for what we would consider to be community projects. I suppose the local success of those projects has also helped to make this overall idea of a provincial lottery acceptable to the large majority of the people.

A further point I would raise with respect to the bill relates to my concern about the size of the board of the corporation. I think three to seven members may be rather a low figure in order to get the kind of balanced input and control that the minister seeks.

The final point that I would raise deals, of course, with section 9 and the earmarking of revenues. This is quite a change from the historic view the government has taken, in that any moneys put into the consolidated revenue fund do not necessarily go out in any proportion to the means by which they have come in.

Over the years, the ministry ordinarily has commented, particularly with respect to gasoline tax, that expenditures on roads and highways should bear no particular relationship to the resultant gasoline tax revenues that happen to come into the coffers of the province. The expending priorities had to be defined quite clearly, and the gasoline tax was to be looked upon solely as a source of revenue and as one that bears no relationship to spending programmes. In this instance, the government seems to be moving away for the first time from that general approach, which I think has been the historic one that this government and, indeed, most provincial governments have taken.

I had rather hoped that this bill could go to standing committee because I thought that perhaps there would be reason for some public input, perhaps from those groups that would wish the whole idea of a lottery to be reconsidered for reasons that they would wish to bring forward. I don’t know what the minister’s intentions are on this subject.

Presumably members have received some letters directed from individuals, but I must say -- and certainly this is my experience -- that the comments about the whole idea of an Ontario lottery have not brought any particular flood of mail from the persons either for or against. Accordingly, it seems to be generally accepted that this is a way of raising money and that the people of the province are prepared to accept this kind of an approach with the hope, as we may all follow through, that anyone can perhaps make a million, even though none of us, except one, might write a book on the subject.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that this really ends my remarks. We will support the bill. If it is to go into committee of the whole House, the minister might choose to answer the points I had raised. Otherwise perhaps he could reply to them when the debate is completed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the first opportunity that we have had since the appointment of the new minister and I congratulate him on his appointment. A more itinerant minister is hardly to be imagined. How many portfolios has he held over the past few years?

Mr. Stokes: Seven.

Mr. Breithaupt: Eight in eight years.

Mr. Lawlor: I think four in one year.

Mr. Martel: They can’t find a niche for him.

Mr. Lawlor: I thought the first signal act of his ministry in introducing things might very well have been opening a glittering new Las Vegas-type casino down in Prince Edward county or something of that kind to show what an addict of culture he really is, but it’s the lottery instead.

When the hon. minister introduced it, it certainly must have become palatable to the virgin instincts of the province. I really think that must be the case. On the other hand, of course we haven’t had the bill before us all that long either. The remarks by the minister were made in the Legislature on Jan. 30 and I wouldn’t think he had given adequate time for certain sentiments to roll. They certainly must be abroad in the province.

Not only that, but a second element was mentioned by my friend about some kind of feeling perhaps among the smaller lotteries and even among somewhat larger ones as being the reason why the government has been somewhat loathe. Part of the reason why it has been loathe to introduce an Ontario lottery has been that it may impinge upon and in some way disrupt the lottery situation as it developed under previous legislation elsewhere in the province. That is the reason the government has given, at least in the past, in this regard.

With respect to both groups of individuals, those who may be offended or who may be in some way impinged upon by the legislation, I would ask the minister to give good thought to taking this to the committee downstairs, to a more public forum, as a way of a feeling and giving some advertisement in advance. This House will be sitting for a couple of more weeks, I am sure. There’s no harm in giving an airing to a matter at this time, rather than introducing the legislation without adequate time for the general public to become completely aware of its existence.

I think the minister knows that after the event he could be very sorry indeed that that was not done, as we have of latter days been very sorry indeed with respect to certain rules made in a committee downstairs under the press of circumstances and the kind of work we are doing. In the white heat of that committee hearing a number of flaws were made with respect to a piece of legislation. People are claiming they didn’t get adequate representation and adequate opportunity to make presentations. We in this assembly don’t want to be accused of not giving the fullest possible amplitude for the public discussion of measures which affect the life of the province as deeply I think as this one is going to do.

I also want to say something to the minister which I never had an opportunity to say when the bill went through just immediately before Christmas in those sweltering days when we were all seeking to get out and do a little Christmas shopping. I remember the last afternoon well. This particular piece of legislation kind of floated through the House with very little comment. It had nothing close to what it deserved.

In any case, isn’t the minister right back to where he was when I first came into this House? He used to be called Provincial Secretary. Does he remember those days when he had the same role, and the same functions? He was in charge of translations from Sanskrit into Muscovite or something like that I remember that was his chief task in those days. He did it with a great deal of éclat, by the way.

I am sure this particular ministry is the kind of thing which can only have one highly beneficient effect with respect to his career since, generally speaking, he confers blessings and favours upon all around. He hardly could ever be the object of criticism in a ministry full of the cornucopia of good things that this has. There is no hard edge to the thing. It is all largesse. It is open-handed giving, I’m sure, to every cultural group in the province --

Mr. Martel: It’s a power base.

Mr. Breithaupt: It could be like Snoopy’s security blanket.

Mr. Lawlor: -- every sportsman, everybody who can do the 100 yards in seven seconds flat. Has the minister tried that recently, by the way?

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): What, 100 yards in seven seconds? He’s obviously never done 100 yards.

Mr. Lawlor: Can’t he do it in seven seconds flat?

Mr. Givens: No way.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, then, what is it -- 10 seconds?

Mr. Breithaupt: He couldn’t fall that fast.

Mr. Givens: The member couldn’t even bend his elbow in seven seconds.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m sure when I was in college I did it in seven seconds, flat, Mr. Speaker. That’s all I can say.

Mr. Breithaupt: That was elbow room.

Mr. Givens: He couldn’t even drink a beer in seven seconds.

Mr. Speaker: I’m afraid I can’t find that in this bill.

Mr. Givens: Bending an elbow in seven seconds flat?

Mr. Martel: What he’s trying to say is that the minister is building a power base for the next run.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, that’s kind of what I was saying. I didn’t want to say it in such a way.

Mr. Martel: I am too unkind.

Mr. Lawlor: My friend has more forthrightness than his colleague.

In any event, there we are, back to it. And arising out of the bill is the use of funds. On page 2 of that statement the minister discloses what he expects. I suppose it is on the basis of what New York State has done, and New Jersey up to a point, although theirs has been pretty grim. From the Quebec situation there is an estimate of $100 million coming in on the thing -- $40 million in terms of prizes of all kinds. And then there is a fairly substantial sum of money, $20 million by way of commissions. That gives the minister a lot of scope to reward friends he hasn’t spoken to for years. He might have to beat the bushes. The range of his acquaintances is going to be very vastly extended.

Mr. Givens: Shouldice might even come back from Florida.

Mr. Martel: Come back to haunt him.

Mr. Lawlor: I mean, imagine, $20 million to be handed out for people selling tickets on commission. It’s kind of an open invitation for groups to participate in the largesse, as it stands.

Mr. Martel: Will Ross Shouldice handle it?

Mr. Lawlor: I wonder, really, whether that kind of figure, in terms of administration and in terms of commissions, is really legitimate and well established.

I understand the minister has done a monumental report on this matter; to which, of course, we would be the last people in the world to be privy. Never would they dream of introducing us into the various researches made in other jurisdictions.

They did it with respect to the horse thing; but that was because we had to pay Allan Lawrence off for his trips to Australia and elsewhere. They finally got two volumes out on that one. We have absolutely nothing on this one.

Again, I feel there’s a certain high-handed Tory superciliousness connected with the whole thing in feeding us the necessary information on which to estimate as to whether 20 per cent is a legitimate figure or not. There are no figures as to the actual administrative costs. They say they are going to keep them low. Well, thank heaven for that.

I was over in Ireland last fall where the Irish Sweepstakes got this kind of thing underway in the world, and it has been around a long time. To this extent I congratulate the Ontario government for taking the matter under its own wing and supervision and keeping a tight control over it through its tribunal or through the commission.

Because in that country I understand free enterprise has gone mad. It’s all owned by a single individual. As I understand it, owning the Irish Sweepstakes, he basically owns, along with it, most of the rest of the country, and so on. I suppose he’s little Rocky O’Rorahan, who has done rather well, coming out of the bogs with peat kind of glowing all over him, and has become with his racehorses the greatest thing in the world.

But he’s looked up to. There’s no resentment in Ireland; there’s no bitterness and there’s no socialism. Between the two, Larry O’Rorahan, or whatever the blazes his name happens to be, sits on top of the pile, even if it’s a dung heap, and surveys the world like a prince -- Balboa looking at the Pacific, or something like that.

Anyway, so we get down to wishing to have figures; some kind of clear picture as to how the thing is going to be run as to costs and as to how the minister arrives at the amounts that are set forth on the second page of his statement. Then the money is all coming into a central fund. He gives a kind of impression in his statement that somehow it’s earmarked for a particular activity -- cultural, recreational and what not -- but a very narrow segment of the total life of the province. It is not going to be used for welfare, and it is not going to be used as the Irish Sweepstakes supposedly was -- and they get about five cents on every dollar that goes over there for Irish hospitals; that is just not where it goes.

We are not going to do that, but on the other hand it will go to the consolidated revenue fund. There doesn’t seem to be within the perimeters of this legislation any way in which it is sifted out in any determinate manner to particular areas. We would like to know a little more of the minister’s plans in this regard.

What about swimming pools? The junior minister over there had a good deal to say about that prior to his anointment, when he made a speech on Dec. 16 in private members’ hour about this matter --

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is not putting up the money for Sussex Dr. surely?

Mr. Lawlor: -- that we could put in 1,000 swimming pools in the various areas of Ontario. What would be the minister’s intention in that regard? Further, is it his intention that this must cover a vast range of matters which are already under the umbrella of different ministries and ministers, particularly the athletic director for Ontario? Is that job to be merged into this ministry and moneys to be dispersed through that? Is it to be retained just as it is? Let’s take social and family services; the Community Centres Act. Is that to be brought into this ministry now?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: When are we setting about all this --

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) mentioned all this on second reading of the Act to establish the new ministry. She said what was coining into the new ministry.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, is the basis of it at all to be an Ontario version of a LIP programme? Is that at all operating in the minister’s mind as a way of getting into that field with this so-called $40 million that is supposed to be available in that regard? I wasn’t either the victim of or the beneficiary to whatever was said in that particular debate, Would the Ontario Arts Council be absorbed from Colleges and Universities into this ministry?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: It shows the minister has done a little thinking about what his ministry is going to achieve. Has he seen the recent proliferation of theatre groups in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: There are 25 or 26 of them presently operating, putting on plays.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Very impressive.

Mr. Lawlor: To what extent does the minister intend to subsidize and aid these groups out of this money? Has he any allocation in mind at all, or how is that to be handled? Has he any clear demarcation? Is there a point system? Is it done intuitively?

When the minister was provincial secretary he was in charge of the boonswaggle. He was even the minister of the boonswaggle; he had the swag under his desk and all those various institutions, groups, etc., throughout the community -- from year to year they changed a little bit, shifted a little bit -- but they all kind of fell within his particular providence, and like God Almighty he put his finger in the pie and they were all rewarded, and if he didn’t, if he frowned, they disappeared from the scene, what power!

No majesty, but an awful lot of power in the situation, and we used to question that particular piece of large-handedness at considerable length. It was one of the things that Sopha did particularly well in the old days; he took the minister to task on that. well, here we are back into it again. But this is the big-time operation; the minister is not going to fool around any more.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: Not only have they given him a department, but he has $40 million he didn’t know he was going to have previously. well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if Mrs. Welch’s little boy wants to be the Premier of this province he certainly has got the inside track at the moment. He is going to have friends and acquaintances he wouldn’t believe --

An hon. member: Not if he stays with the Tories, though.

Mr. Lawlor: -- and he wouldn’t find at all palatable in some cases either, but there we are.

We want to know whether there is any theory of earmarking involved in the funds at all. If these $40 million are to be used for a particular range of purposes, how is the minister going to do that? As the money goes into the Treasury and is mingled with the general revenues of this province, is it the minister’s intention to go before Management Board with particular allocations of funds based upon the amounts of money coming in and say: “These funds are really funds for these particular purposes.” If he does that, it certainly will be the first time in the history of the province that that has been dreamed about.

Never have we considered that the segregation of funds was a permissible thing, nor that there was any particular legitimate levy against general funds -- or particular funds for that matter. It’s a kind of principle that has never been offered previously. That’s the kind of principle that the minister has enunciated in this legislation, and I’m questioning it -- we’re not taking objection to it -- because we want to understand what it’s all about. what is going on and how is it to be managed? It seems to us a bit of a puzzle, and we’re not quite convinced that the government has figured it out itself yet as to what it is really about.

Mr. Martel: Will Conservative members deliver the cheques, as in the past?

Mr. Lawlor: That’s a good one.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am a great believer in tradition.

Mr. Martel: Oh, is he? Then they’ll deliver the cheques. what the minister is saying is that they’ll deliver the cheques.

Mr. Lawlor: I thought that was an amendment to the bill that the minister was introducing, that only Conservative members will deliver cheques.

Mr. Young: He will have one friend and 1,000 enemies in that case.

Mr. Lawlor: On the last page of the minister’s statement, he says:

“The establishment of the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation reflects the high priority this government assigns to the promotion of physical fitness, sports, recreation and cultural activities of all kinds. The lottery revenues will be used to further stimulate these programmes above and beyond the considerable expenditure that the government is already making in these areas.”

That was the basis of my puzzlement with respect to the general use of public funds and this peculiar new use of public funds that the minister is setting up in this legislation.

Those are basically our thoughts -- reservations, if you will -- and objections. The questions will flow from them. Again, before I sit down, I would seek to prevail upon the minister to give this a public airing. He’s the boss in that particular regard, but in any event we will have questions in committee.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill 191. First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister on his new ministry.

I guess I’ve spoken on provincial lotteries on two previous occasions in the 1974-1975 session, particularly in the private members’ hour, and I’ve agreed that a provincial lottery should be conducted. At that time I stated that it was most important that costs be kept down and community benefits kept as high as possible. The other purpose was to try to restrict the flow of cash out of the province. The other item was that we could consider this a form of gambling, but it is a fact of life that many people want to participate. This, of course, is not mandatory legislation; people do not have to participate if they don’t want to.

Mr. Speaker, in studying this bill, along with the statement which was made by the minister not too many days ago, I found it somewhat confusing. I thought at first glance that the government had changed its policy, particularly when I read the second paragraph of the minister’s statement, where he said:

“The net proceeds from the lottery will be used by the government to support programmes for physical fitness, sports, recreation and culture in Ontario. The corporation will determine the price of tickets, sales arrangements, size of the prizes and frequency of the draws.”

Then, of course, when we finally got the printed bill I looked very carefully at section 9, and in reading section 9, I’m just wondering if the minister responsible for this legislation is doing what I believe the Premier (Mr. Davis) has said that this party has done on many occasions -- had both feet planted firmly in mid-air. As I read section 9, it says:

“The net profits of the corporation, after provision for prizes and payment of expenses of operations, shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund at such times and in such manner as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct ... ”

Then it goes on, “ ... to be available for the promotion and development of physical fitness etc.” It looks to me as if that is exactly what the Premier has referred to in the past as other parties having both feet in mid-air. I just hope that when this goes to committee the minister will be able to explain that more clearly.

Also in the minister’s statement on page 2, he stated that about 40 per cent of the income will be used in prizes, and operational expenses and sales commission of about 20 per cent. I think 60 per cent is fairly high and I hope this isn’t what he expects the corporation to aim for. I hope that in the future that would be able to be reduced considerably.

The other question that arose in my mind and which has been touched on --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sorry, I missed that point about 60 per cent. I don’t know how you get 60 per cent out of my figures at all.

Mr. Edighoffer: I am sorry, the minister said he hoped that sales would reach $100 million, and 40 per cent and 20 per cent would be spent in prizes and operation, which is 60 per cent. Sorry, I probably didn’t explain that clearly; I’m glad the minister asked me to clarify that.

Mr. Speaker, after realizing that this ministry was coming into existence, and this being the first piece of legislation that this minister, as Minister of Culture and Recreation, has brought before the Legislature, I really wonder why this type of legislation isn’t controlled by Consumer and Commercial Relations, left in the lottery branch. To me this is an unbelievable start for the new ministry, especially in the promotion of culture.

I don’t really feel the minister can be particularly proud of this legislation, because section 9 and section 10 allow the cabinet to allow the money to stay in the corporation until they desire it to be placed in the consolidated revenue fund. The cabinet has the right to give as much money as it wishes to the corporation at any time.

The last comment I would make on the minister’s statement -- and I think this is pretty typical of this first piece of legislation for the ministry -- is that on page 4, the top paragraph states:

“Additional revenue from this provincial lottery will be used to enhance even further the new impetus this government intends to give to a whole range of activities which will benefit all the residents of Ontario.”

That really doesn’t explain too much to me. I just hope that the minister can explain that a little more clearly.

The last comment I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I, as one member, have not received many comments from constituents or residents of Ontario against provincial lotteries. I have, however, received one request from one group of people and I think the minister is aware of this group.

I happen to have a father-in-law who is a Baptist minister and there is a group called the social concerns committee of the Baptist convention and I believe -- and I want to draw this matter to the attention of the minister -- that on Oct. 30 the Premier of this province wrote a letter to this group. I would just like to quote one sentence from that letter -- and this is from the Premier of the province -- and it is in reference to provincial lotteries:

“May I assure you that there will be ample opportunity for input and comment from interested individuals and groups, if and when a decision should be taken to establish a provincial lottery.”

I hope that this minister, seeing that he now sits right beside the Premier, would accept that decision about which the Premier wrote and he would see that this bill goes to standing committee.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): May I interrupt, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me? I want to join this debate, but would you permit me to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: For clarification purposes?

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the minister to be designated as the minister responsible for this statute?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s my understanding, yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thanks very much.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I think all of us take for granted that the bill is going to pass, as we took it for granted last December when the private member’s bill was introduced by the member for London North (Mr. Walker) and we had a debate on it at that time.

As far as this group on this side is concerned, we are not going to divide the House. However, I do want to express some concern here that I expressed in December about the whole matter of the provincial lottery.

I don’t know whether the hon. minister has been looking over his shoulder and seeing the ghosts of Calvin, and Wesley, John Knox and the other people who went before him who talked to us in terms of hard work and reward for sweat and hard, bold labour. We also had a very comforting philosophy, for the wealthy particularly, that if you worked hard, your reward would be prosperity and riches. Calvin, you know, had a pretty hard and fast rule about this. He said to everybody -- this was part of his religion -- “You get down there and work your head off and eventually you’ll get rich.”

Of course all the Presbyterians didn’t get rich, I understand. But some of them did. And, of course, John Wesley, riding his horse around England at a later date, preached to the poor of the country that they had to get back into the sweat-shops and do an honest day’s work and they would get an honest day’s pay and perhaps out of their labour and out of their devotion, out of their religion, would come -- what was it? -- a quickening of the conscience on the part of the rich and the employing groups and they would see to it that a better kind of society would emerge.

So I just bring to the minister’s attention, and to the attention of this House, this philosophy which, as I pointed out in December, has all but been forgotten in our society. Because this dream of getting rich -- the way it was, you see, through the Calvinistic approach, was hard work and devotion, long hard hours of back-breaking labour; that was the path.

But then there were smart people who saw a way of short-circuiting this. And it was short-circuited in a variety of ways -- I’m not going to name them all. Of course, the exploitation of labour was one. The people who took real risks, who went to the Indies and brought back these shiploads of spices and gold and silver and all these things, they had a quick way to fortune but, believe me, for everyone who made a fortune a lot of them foundered on the way in the heavy seas and so on.

The oil barons, of course, have found a way in recent days to short-circuit that business of hard work toward riches. Of course, now the minister, instead of saying “Bear ye one another’s burden,” the way Calvin and Wesley said, says, “Just take a chance and have the rest of society bear your burdens.” It’s a reversal, you see, of that kind of good, old Calvinistic philosophy.

So we are all going to take a chance. We buy the tickets and we hope that the rest of our days will be spent in luxury and ease at the expense of others.

Well, we have accepted that kind of philosophy in our society. I am not going to point out much more about it today, because I think all of us understand it.

So, I suppose out of this will come wealth for us -- saunas in the House, maybe -- who knows? Maybe the member for York-Forest Hill will find his way to luxury. He already now knows it, of course.

Mr. Givens: I have already found it.

Mr. Young: You see, there; he has found it -- and perhaps some other member will get it too.

Mr. Martel: He should spread it around a little, then. Spread it around a little.

Mr. Young: But I am wondering whether or not, as --

Mr. Givens: You have to work for it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Young: -- this thing gets under way, whether or not some advertising agency in Ontario might also find its way to some short-circuiting of the hard labour and find prosperity, if not riches, out of this.

The minister hasn’t told us whether the board members are going to be paid or whether it’s a labour of love. I presume they are going to be paid. We don’t know whether it’s a full-time job or a part-time job. I presume the chairman would have to be full-time. But I presume, also, there would be a reward for somebody -- and I doubt that it’ll be a New Democrat who will get that appointment, or even a Liberal. Perhaps the minister is going to show this broadmindedness and appoint someone who is a known member of another party to head up this board; I don’t know. But certainly we will be watching carefully to see what kind of advertising is going to be done; who does it; who are the members of the board; and what is going to happen here.

One of the things which concerned me in December and still concerns me -- and has already been expressed today by two previous speakers -- is just how recreation, arts, culture is going to be linked in with the lottery. I feel that if we are going to have recreational programmes, if we are going to have cultural programmes -- as we have and we hope to see them expanded -- then these should be done on the basis of whether or not they should be supported by society, by this government, by this province, by whatever voluntary agencies want to support them. This is the fundamental thing I think we have to come to. And part of the consolidated revenue of this province should go to this kind of activity.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It does now.

Mr. Young: All right, it does now. But then in the propaganda in connection with this lottery and putting over the ideas of the province, we are being told that the income from the lottery is going to expand this kind of activity.

Does that mean that we are going to expand this kind of activity in this province in proportion to the success of the lottery, rather than in proportion to the needs of the people of Ontario for this kind of activity? There is a difference here, and I hope the minister understands it.

I am concerned that the community of Sarnia, for instance, will come to the minister at some future date and say: “We need to have our little theatre group underwritten. We are getting a very good group here; we need more facilities; we need more equipment. Now we need a matter of $25,000 to $30,000 to expand the activities of this group.”

Now, does the minister respond: “Yes, that is a worthy project, and I will speak to the Treasury board and see if we can’t pry the $25,000 to $30,000 loose from the consolidated revenue without mentioning the lottery”? Or is he going to say to the member for Sarnia: “We are sorry, this year the lottery hasn’t come up to our expectations, and so you can’t have this $25,000 for this good purpose”?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): No, he’s going to give them a big package with lottery tickets in it and say, “There you are.”

An hon. member: Sell!

Mr. Deans: “Sell your lottery tickets.”

Mr. Young: This is the other matter which I think concerns all of us. In order to promote culture, in order to get a new recreation facility in our community, the minister will say to the athletic association of that community: “All right, here’s $100,000 worth of tickets. You sell them.” I suspect that the Conservative association in the riding will also have lottery tickets as a means of raising funds.

Mr. Bullbrook: That will be an exercise of some discretion there.

Mr. Young: An exercise of some discretion.

Mr. Bullbrook: My colleague from Lambton (Mr. Henderson) will have some input.

Mr. Young: That’s right, but the member for Sarnia may not have; that’s his point, is it?

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.

Mr. Martel: Probably correct.

Mr. Young: When the time comes when the spoils are to be distributed, we hope those spoils are going directly into the consolidated revenue of the province, and no place else and that the support of the recreation facility in Sarnia or in Kitchener or in Forest Hill, wherever it may be, will not depend upon the success or failure of the raffle at that point.

I can see in the future where people may get a little bit tired of buying all these raffle tickets and that this may not be as successful as the minister thinks. He builds up a programme of recreation with this in the back of his mind, even if the consolidated revenue pays for it. Then, suddenly, instead of $40 million, we get down to $30 million in this particular year. Does the minister at that point say: “Now we have to cut back on recreation programmes; we have to cut back on culture, because these were the purposes for which this money was being raised”? Rather than the importance of the activity, the success of the lottery will determine whether or not these things are to be funded adequately in Ontario.

This is a reservation which I have and I hope that the minister will explain to us exactly what relationship there is between the lottery and cultural activities. I hope he doesn’t go out to sell this through the advertising agency that he may appoint on the basis that it is going to be for these fundamental purposes and say: “If you people out there in Ontario want these things, then by gosh, by inference, you had better get behind it and sell the tickets and buy the tickets and make it successful.”

The other thing that does concern me is this matter of diverting the attention of the people of Ontario from their very great problems today to certain activities of the government. A little while ago we heard about a five per cent reduction in the salaries of cabinet ministers. Is that the answer to inflation, a five per cent reduction in the salaries of cabinet ministers? And now we have a second answer. A five per cent reduction and a lottery is the answer which this government is giving to the people of Ontario to solve their very great problems of increased cost of living, inflation, trouble, unemployment and all the rest of it. Are these the solutions that we are being given at a time when the people of Ontario are looking for leadership in all these desperate problems they are facing?

Are we going back to the days of Rome when the government gave them enough bread and circuses to divert their attention from their problems? I don’t know. I sometimes wonder if that’s what we are doing, so that we can get the people all heated up about a raffle, getting out selling tickets and getting excited about making that $100,000 or whatever the prize is going to be -- $1 million in the case of the one in Quebec for the Olympics. Get them excited about these things and somehow or other with that hope of riches dangling before them they are going to forget the problems of the every-day world and their day-by-day living. I hope we are not trying to do that but it does smack something of that kind of activity which the ancient Roman rulers did indulge in, particularly in those days when they were facing extinction, as this government seems to be facing right now.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to face this lottery with some degree of trepidation and some degree of the seriousness of the course upon which we are embarking -- the denial of the fundamental tenets upon which the minister was brought up on -- and that we realize that we must not divert our attention from the fundamental problems of our society by focusing on this particular activity. Somehow or other we have to do more than make a five per cent reduction and hold a raffle in Ontario to meet the needs of our people.

We have great resources in our timber, our metal --

Mr. Martel: They gave them away.

Mr. Young: -- in oil and all the other tremendous resources we have in this country. Instead of giving these resources away, instead of refusing to tax these resources and raise funds from the logical places where they seem to be, as my confrère has said, not only are we giving them away, but we’re allowing the profits from them to be siphoned off into another country. These are the places we ought to be looking to for revenue.

Instead we look at this little bit of revenue which will be raised in terms of the need of the province -- and it’s going to be raised largely from the poor of this province, too -- it’s generally the people of moderate and low incomes who buy the tickets. Those who are more wealthy will go into the stock market, I suppose, and do their gambling there and other places. Land speculation, I understand, is a place where a great many people --

Mr. Givens: They are taxing that now, too.

Mr. Young: Yes, they’re taxing that a bit now, too. But there are a lot of exemptions from that tax --

Mr. Givens: Only if you’re an American.

Mr. Young: There are a lot of exemptions there, as I say, but that still lets the profits from that land flow across the border.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have shot my bolt this afternoon. I have raised these concerns and I hope the minister is seriously looking at that ghost of John Calvin up in the seat behind him there.

Mr. Deans: That’s who that is, the ghost of John Calvin.

Mr. Young: That chap got a little bit off the track from Calvinism. But this subliminal ghostly form that watches the minister is a bit disappointed at his holding out this little bit of a hope for people to become millionaires without the hard work and the backbreaking experience that such go with it, according to the Calvinist philosophy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that I was here to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Yorkview, which I can only describe as a beautiful vignette on the subject in terms of its moderation, its candour and its clarity. I think he ought to be congratulated. I’ve heard him speak quite often in the Legislature, but never so eloquently, so quietly and so circumspectly as he did just now. I really enjoyed it.

Mr. Speaker, my precursors in religion were not Messrs. Calvin and Wesley, so I am not religiously bound by anything that they had to say about hard work.

Mr. Young: They based their philosophy on the Old Testament.

Mr. Givens: Well, I always thought I was a follower of the Judaeo-Presbyterian ethic when it comes to hard work. I always follow those precepts in my daily life. That’s why I have become the great success that I am, being a member of this Legislature and driving a Ford.

Mr. Deans: What kind of Ford?

Mr. Givens: A 350-hp Ford.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, it’s named after a president of the United States. Want to guess? It’s not Eisenhower.

Mr. Young: It isn’t a Model T, understand.

Mr. Givens: No, the man who came through the Civil War.

An hon. member: Durant?

Mr. Deans: It isn’t an Edsel, is it?

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): It’s related.

Mr. Givens: In the Old Testament, Mr. Speaker, there are instances where lots were taken and lots were held, so I have no religious forebodings with respect to the holding of lotteries. Neither I nor the members of my party will vote against the bill on the basis of principle or on the basis of religion. But, to be perfectly frank with you, I don’t like the bill. And I don’t like the whole concept of the province entering the field of lotteries.

I find, in the countries that I have been throughout the world, that the holding of lotteries generally is the mark of a weak society. With all due respect to the countries I visited, I found that it’s the more degenerate -- I shouldn’t say degenerate, that’s a terrible word: the weaker states, the ones with the less healthy economies --

Mr. Samis: France. France is the best country in the world.

Mr. Givens: -- the less healthy societies, the less vigorous societies. France? What is so wonderful about France? The member has been saying France has such wonderful things.

Mr. Samis: No, no, the member is talking about France -- less health, less vigour.

Mr. Givens: Does the hon. member consider France such a great society from the standpoint of moral ethics --

Mr. Samis: We weren’t talking about moral ethnics.

Mr. Givens: -- with the greatest alcoholism rate in the world? Well let’s not get into that debate.

It is not the mark of a great vigorous, healthy society to have to base its monetary requirements on a lottery --

Mr. Deans: Shows the government how insignificant it is.

Mr. Givens: Let me give you an example of the differences between this government now and this government led by another administrator, John Robarts. This may well be this government’s epitaph, so I will give you the example of what I mean, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry that this minister should have to be the minister who is saddled with this bill. It is rather an inauspicious thrust to see him given to Culture and Recreation with a bill on lotteries. I would have thought a man of his intelligence, his background, and his perspicacity would have made his inroads into culture and recreation on a more lofty plane, than to bring in a lottery gambling bill as his first mark in the field of culture.

Let me give you an example of what a former Premier of this province did, Mr. Speaker. When I was mayor of the city of Toronto a question of embellishment for the new city hall came up -- this will just give you an example of how this government treated the matter of culture previously. It was a matter of buying a piece of sculpture by Henry Moore, who was considered to be the greatest sculptor of the century, maybe one of the great sculptors of all time. The members probably all know the story -- at one time or another it appeared in all the newspapers of the country, of North America, and probably in all the newspapers of the English-speaking world.

The council refused the money for reasons which I won’t go into; it is a very romantic story. I have been vindicated in my lifetime; I am happy about the story. The council refused the dough, although they had it. I went out on a private campaign and raised the money, and I bought the sculpture. As a result of this sculpture being purchased and brought to Toronto, Henry Moore came to Toronto. As a result of his coming to Toronto -- where he first learned where Toronto was as distinct from Kakabeka Falls or Albuquerque -- he was convinced that Toronto was a wonderful place. And as a result of this, this government under the leadership of John Robarts was persuaded to contribute $12.5 million to the Art Gallery of Ontario -- the name was changed from the Art Gallery of Toronto -- to build a wing to house the gift of Henry Moore.

The capital city of Ontario is now the largest centre of Henry Moore sculptures and works of art anywhere in the world. This is what John Robarts did. He didn’t go out and run a lottery, or run a horse race for the purpose of raising the money. He realized it was a worthwhile project, so he said to the guys at the Art Gallery, “All right, I will give you $12.5 million; you go out and raise $5 million.” Moore was willing to co-operate on the basis that this wing was going to be built in his honour, and he was willing to make this contribution of what is considered to be about $15 million worth of his works.

This is what resulted from what this government -- on the basis of realistically realizing what was good and what was in the best interest of the people of the Province of Ontario -- did in a realistic way out of taxpayers’ money. And this is the way to face up to the situation. Not to arouse the fantasies and expectations of people that they are going to get something for nothing, that they are going to buy a ticket for $10 and they are going to win a million. That’s a bunch of baloney.

Mr. Speaker, this is the difference to me between the government of the previous Premier, Robarts, and the administration now run by this Premier. As I say, this will probably be its epitaph.

This is why I don’t like this business of this lottery. I say it is the mark of a regressive state, notwithstanding the fact that France has a lottery. There are a lot of things about France that are backward, including the former Devil’s Island that France ran and a lot of other things that France has done which are bad, but I don’t want to get into that discussion now.

There are two specific things I would like the minister to address himself to, to get to specifics, so that we just don’t ramble generally. The minister is determined to put this thing through. I’ve learned from bitter experience, after being around here for 3½ years, that he is going to get his way. The first thing is this, the city of Montreal or the Province of Quebec -- I don’t know under whose jurisdiction the Olympic lottery is run -- apparently had to get approval by the federal government and the provincial governments of this country to run the Olympic lottery. They must have had provincial approval as well because there are some provinces which do not permit the sale of Olympic lottery tickets. It has been indicated by the Prime Minister of Canada over and over again that he’s not going to help in any special way with respect to funding the deficit, if any, of the Olympics, and there sure as hell is going to be a deficit there.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): They said the same thing about the last one in Montreal.

Mr. Givens: Yes, I know, but the fact is that we’re going to have the Olympics. We’re wondering whether we should help Syncrude, but they’re prepared to blow $250 million defending the honour of the Olympics. Let’s not get into that. That point I’m trying to make is this. The Prime Minister has indicated that he’s going to look into the feasibility, the practicability and the desirability of permitting the Olympic setup or the corporation or whatever jurisdiction they function under to continue to sell Olympic lottery tickets for an indefinite period of time after the Olympic event.

I remember when I was mayor of Toronto I had a promise from Mayor Drapeau that Man and His World and Expo would stop functioning and that it would never interfere with the Canadian National Exhibition. I knew he was conning me at the time because I didn’t believe that he was going to dismantle it. Of course, he continued after Expo, after 1967. They intend to continue to sell Olympic lottery tickets because, after all, it isn’t going to cost the Prime Minister anything to give his permission. What is our position going to be?

The fact of the matter is that this has become highly publicized. They have a highly sophisticated public relations programme. People have got into the habit of buying Olympic lottery tickets. They’re being sol in all the banks and all the financial institutions and all over the place. A lot of people here have bought these tickets from time to time. What is the minister going to do about that particular situation? Is he going to refuse the sale of Olympic tickets in Ontario? Is he going to be in a position to refuse it? Is he going to take the position of refusing them permission to continue after the Olympics? Does he intend to do anything about it or is he simply going to let them continue to compete with his lottery tickets which he intends to sell as of the passing of this bill?

I think that if the minister is serious about this, which I’m sure he is as otherwise he wouldn’t be going through with this hassle, then he has got to adopt a strong posture and take the position that in this province, as in New York or anywhere else, the government is going to have the exclusive run. What have we got now -- a population of eight million people in Ontario roughly thereabouts? If they siphon off his market, because they’re selling them year-round, then he is going to be left with nothing.

I’d like to know what his views are with respect to what I call exclusivity. Does he expect to run them out or does he not expect to run them out? By running them out he knows what I mean. Is he going to take over or is he going to keep the field to himself? That’s No. 1.

No. 2. I’m really concerned that government is going to develop this into one big -- excuse the expression -- pork barrel, where it is going to take the $40 million that it is going to get or whatever it is projecting for the future -- and the minister doesn’t know better than anybody else how much he is going to get out of this -- and distribute this largesse, particularly around election time, like nuts in May, something for this, something for that and something for somebody else. I think this is wrong. think it is amoral, I think it’s wrong politically, I think it’s wrong socially and it’s wrong in every other way.

I think what my learned friend from Yorkview has pointed out is absolutely correct, namely that when the government starts backing a programme of importance and then finds its income has decreased by five or 10 per cent and has to cut that programme by five or 10 per cent because it will not be able to sustain the level of sales, then that would be tragic. If the government relies on that sort of helter-skelter kind of funding, I think that’s wrong.

The minister is going to find in this particular field that a sort of a Parkinson’s law will develop, where the causes which he will fund will expand in order to meet the funds that are available for the gifts that he hands out, if he knows what I mean. Let me give him an example I remember when the Metropolitan Toronto corporation was set up. We had the question of how much Metro was going to be able to give away for objects of culture in the community. We were talking about 240 square miles. At the time, there were 1.5 million people and now there are about 2.25 million people. I think there was an upper limit set of about $50,000. This goes back some 15 years.

If the minister was interested enough to pay attention, only about six weeks ago, just before Christmas, he will recall that there was an amendment that went through to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, which took the limit off completely on the business on how much money can be handed out to organizations of culture, philanthropy -- I forget what the wording was, but he knows what I mean -- things of this nature, recreation, culture and so on. The upper limit was completely taken off. The reason that was done was that the number of causes escalated and increased to such an extent and their requirements increased to such an extent that it was just impossible to batten them down. There was no use going to somebody and saying: “Look, if you show me a deficit, well give you money,” because the least efficient ones were the ones that showed a deficit, and those that really should be helped were unable to be helped. There was no point in saying to somebody like the Toronto Symphony when they needed $150,000, that one was going to give them $5,000. One might as well give them nothing.

This is what I think the minister’s going to find. So my second point on the exclusive business of having the field to oneself is this; I think the minister should do something in committee when we are discussing this about tying this down to a specific field of activity. If he wants to confine it to sports, confine it to sports. If he wants to confine it to hospitals, confine it to hospitals. But confine it to a certain field of activity so that there will not be all these myriad number of diverse and multitudinous claims which are going to beset him or some subsequent minister in years to come, because he is going to have them and he is going to be overwhelmed by it.

Mr. Young: Put it in the consolidated revenue.

Mr. Givens: Or put it all in the consolidated revenue, because in the final analysis it comes out of the same pot anyway. But for the minister to put himself into a position where he is going to have this pork barrel into which the money is going to flow and out of which he is going to give out this largesse, puts him in a position of handing out favours from a public trough of a lottery, which I don’t think is desirable at all.

I tell the minister that as far as I’m concerned -- and I hope I’m wrong and hope it brings in zillions of dollars, but I don’t think that it is going to -- what is happening now is that too many people are getting in the act. There are many states and too many provinces. Everybody is looking to the lottery as the way out. Does the minister know how many states there are in the United States now into lotteries?

Mr. Samis: About a dozen.

Mr. Givens: About a dozen. And we’ve got Quebec and we are going to have Ontario and somebody else is going to come along. They are going to cancel each other out because there just aren’t enough people to finance these things. Then we’ve got the Irish Sweepstakes and la belle France.

Mr. Samis: La belle province.

Mr. Givens: Then we’ve got South American countries. I don’t know whether the tickets come up here or not, with permission or without permission, and so on. And so they cancel themselves out.

However, you are determined to have lotteries so those are the two points that I would like to see answered: what you are going to do about maintaining the exclusiveness of the field, because I think that is important; secondly, what about getting away from the pork barrel aspect of it to have it devoted to a specific cause such as hospitals or directly related to culture? I don’t mean horticulture or agriculture or physical culture or some weird esoteric or widely defined aspect of culture, but something that can be readily understood by everybody or have it paid into the general consolidated revenue fund so that everybody knows where the money is going.

Mr. Speaker: I guess the hon. member for Stormont is next.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks fairly brief. I guess my perspective on this bill is quite different from my colleague’s from York-Forest Hill. Coming from a border riding, surrounded on the south by New York State, within access of la belle province de Quebec -- the scions of the people of France of whom I am so proud compose 40 per cent of my riding.

I spoke on this bill in December in a private members’ hour and supported it then, and I am glad to say that I support it now. I congratulate the minister for bringing in this bill. Coming from a part of the province where the name John Calvin is not especially famous, where his influence is rather minimal, I am pleased to see that the minister has been able to throw off the shackles of Calvin and all his followers, since this province has been shackled for too long by the puritan ethic of the Calvinist philosophy.

Mr. Lawlor: This is the closest the member is going to get to Geneva, right here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Samis: There was an interesting article in our local newspaper in the city of Cornwall on Saturday that said approximately $121,000 already had been spent on the recent issue of the Olympic lottery from Montreal, which is revenue that doesn’t stay in Ontario. If the city of Cornwall decides to spend $121,000 in a lottery like that, it is high time that money stayed in Ontario and was used for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Frankly, I wonder why the Province of Ontario waited so long to bring in a lottery. The Province of Quebec has had a prosperous lottery that has been going on for approximately five years. New York State and other states had them five, seven, eight years ago. The Province of Manitoba has had a lottery. It has been used in the western provinces as well. It’s a common feature in European society. And as I said, I certainly don’t share the feelings of my colleague from York-Forest Hill about the country of France.

It seems to be Ontario has always had its head in the sand regarding lotteries and things of this sort. I am glad to see we are getting our head of the sand, opening our ears, opening our eyes, and facing the fact that lotteries are a part of life in North America. They may not be the best way of raising revenue. They are certainly not a substitute for a fair and just tax system, but they are a legitimate way of raising revenue.

I noticed in reading up on lotteries that in 1873 the city of Montreal had a lottery. In 1934 the Senate of Canada officially approved a national lottery. In 1934 the Legislature of Quebec passed a lottery bill. So in Canada the idea of lotteries is nothing new. Ontario is only catching up; we are not moving ahead. We are catching up with other provinces. I hope in later discussion in committee, the minister would outline how much study has been put into this, the other models that he has studied -- for example, in Quebec the United States, New Zealand, Europe. I would be interested to know how much study his department has gone into to find out what system he wants to adopt here in Ontario.

When he appoints this board, I would hope he would consider the Franco-Ontarian people of Ontario who are a legitimate part of this province and who have been ignored for a long time. I would hope he would see fit to appoint a Franco-Ontarian to that board.

When the minister gets this consolidated revenue, I certainly share the concern that has been expressed already that we don’t create another pork barrel whereby the minister becomes a travelling, 12-month Santa Claus dispensing the political goodies of the Tory party in Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: He is beginning to grow a beard already.

Mr. Samis: If he decides not to use the consolidated revenue approach, for goodness’ sake let him consider the needs of eastern Ontario. For too long Toronto has been getting all the goodies; everything has been centred on the southern part of this province. If there is one part of Ontario that needs help, and the government is getting extra revenue, then we would ask the minister seriously to consider the needs of eastern Ontario in the field of culture and recreation.

Our average income is lower. We don’t have the facilities to create things that the people here in Toronto have. We don’t have the multi-splendoured facilities that people here in Toronto can use. We need more help. So if the government is going to use this for culture and recreation, please consider the needs of eastern Ontario when it dispenses this largesse.

In closing, I support the bill, but on the premise that this is not a substitute for a fair and just taxation system. It’s only a way for Ontario to catch up with the other provinces; we are in no way moving ahead. Again, I congratulate the minister for introducing the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of joining in the debate. We don’t have that much time. The Premier is going to make an announcement on Syncrude, I guess at 5 o’clock.

With the shackles of Calvinism, it seems there is a degree of Syncrude about this. But may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I am not against all lotteries -- by any stretch of the imagination.

One lottery I never did like was that one in the United States where they picked names and sent them to Vietnam. That was a terrible type of lottery.

But there is nothing essentially wrong with a lottery. I have been known to accept and take a wager. I see nothing essentially reprehensible in the raising of funds for public good.

But having been here for eight years, and on my way out, I have developed an awfully suspicions nature. This probably is a bill so replete with invitations to suspicion that I have got to catalogue some of them. The first one is: Why doesn’t the government name the responsible ministry? That is the first question I’d like to ask. There is a purpose in not naming it. There is an ulterior motive, Mr. Speaker, in this government in not naming this ministry. Because it can name the minister very easily, if it is to be the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

I say to you that there must be a reason, Mr. Speaker, for not naming the minister. I say, secondly, that the very principle of not naming the minister responsible to the House is wrong. The total equation that goes on here is one of ministerial responsibility to the legislative process, and under this bill we don’t know who it is. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as a first matter of principle we are entitled to know who that is.

When you couple the function of the Minister of Culture and Recreation as established in the statute that we passed, Bill 180, with the fact that he is going to be the chief lottery officer of the Crown, one wonders whether the government is not doing something in an insidious way -- or whether I might say they lust don’t know what they are doing.

Listen to the objects of this ministry and the responsibilities and duties given to the minister under his own statute. They are: preserving and maintaining the cultural heritage of residents of Ontario, with full recognition of their diverse traditions and backgrounds; promoting access to the benefits of citizenship and of active involvement in the cultural and recreational life in the province; and stimulating the development of new forms of cultural expression and promoting the concept of individual and community excellence.

Those are the stated ambits of the minister’s responsibility. There is an additional section that says he can do whatever they give him to do. That’s what it says. It says:

“In addition to the functions of the ministry mentioned in subsection 1, the minister shall perform such functions and duties as are assigned to him from time to time by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Now, I am told in response to a question that the Minister of Culture and Recreation is going to be responsible for the operation of the lottery. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, that is wrong; it’s entirely wrong. The minister has nothing to do with the operation of a lottery, if the principle of acquiring funds for the purpose of public good is a valid principle, and I wish to accept it. But I say to the minister that I cannot accept that he, with the duties assigned to him, the explicit duties that we are told by the statute that he was to perform in the culture and recreation field, is entirely divorced from the raising of moneys by lottery, because what they are going to have the minister doing next is supervising off-track betting. That is coming; that’s the next thing to come. We might just as well recognize that now.

If this government has made a decision as a matter of policy that it is prepared to raise funds for public good, for public need, through the policy of accepting gambling as a legitimate method of raising state funds --

Mr. Lawlor: They are going to run the crown and anchor game down at the Canadian National Exhibition.

Mr. Bullbrook: That might be next. Off-track betting will be next and then it logically falls upon the Minister of Culture and Recreation. You see, Mr. Speaker, the minister’s responsibilities are so mutually exclusive. The operation of the lottery, if we are going to have it, should be and should continue to be with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Relations --

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, that really isn’t that important, is it? Consumer and Commercial Relations -- whatever his name is, it should be with him. He is the one who is responsible for it. My friends on this side of the House are absolutely correct. The obvious fact is that this minister should have nothing to do with it. Under his statute he is supposed to go out and promote recreation, cultural activity, physical fitness, the arts. That’s his responsibility. He is not to go out and promote the selling of lottery tickets.

But do you know the reason for it, Mr. Speaker? The reason for it is that the creation of his ministry was the creation of a government-subsidized arm of the Progressive Conservative Party, because that’s all the minister is going to do.

The present minister has too much talent to be vested with the responsibility for this ministry. Look at his history. He aspired to become the Prime Minister of this province. He became the Provincial Secretary for Justice. He became the Attorney General of this province. He was Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Now no one for one moment can tell me that it requires a talent such as this to man a ministry called Culture and Recreation.

I have seen him in action. I have seen him in action in Sarnia -- a charming, able person who will be able to walk in with the proceeds of the sale of these lottery tickets and say: “Is there something you need? We will let you have it. Now, I am going to have to take this up with the incumbent member somewhere around. If it’s in Sarnia, I am not sure I will deal with Bullbrook. I think we might discuss whether we should dispense some of this largesse with his colleague from Lambton.”

That’s what’s going to happen. That’s what’s going to happen in connection with these funds. There is no doubt about it in the world and that is the reason why the Premier of the province decides that a man of this stature should be responsible for Culture and Recreation, because his responsibility in essence is going to be the distribution of these moneys.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The member has to be kidding. He has to be kidding.

Mr. Bullbrook: The first principle that’s wrong, as I said before --

Hon. Mr. Davis: He makes sense some days but this time he is all wrong. He is all wrong.

Mr. Bullbrook: The first principle that I said that was wrong --

An hon. member: The truth hurts, eh?

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Premier interrupts me and he is in no position to interrupt me having regard to the Pontius Pilate approach he has taken over the last couple of weeks in connection with party funding.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s a lot of bull -- brook.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member never interrupts anybody, does he?

Mr. Bullbrook: So don’t interrupt me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: I will talk about the principle of this bill as I see it. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the first principle that’s wrong is that a minister must be assigned responsibility in connection with legislation. We must know who the minister is who is responsible to us in this House, and that statute is deficient in that respect.

The second principle that’s wrong is that the Minister of Culture and Recreation, having regard to his manifest duties, should not be the minister responsible for the carrying on of a lottery.

The third thing that’s wrong is that there should not be a specific designation for the utilization of those funds after they come into consolidated revenue. I bring this to the attention of the Premier and his minister: When the government in effect earmarks these funds for culture and recreation, it stultifies itself. It establishes a position of priority with respect to these funds that it should not do. Having regard to the obligation of the people of Ontario; having regard to the fact that we presently have about $1 billion worth of deficit; having regard to the provision of health and medical services, I ask the Premier to consider this exaggeration -- that a small community in northern Ontario doesn’t have a hospital because there isn’t enough money in the consolidated revenue fund to build it a hospital, but there’s money available to build it some type of community centre. That’s the type of thing, by exaggeration I admit, that could happen as a result of earmarking these funds.

On these funds, if they’re to be accepted -- and I’m prepared to vote to accept the concept of a lottery for the purpose of public need and public good -- I say there should be, however, a positive response in connection with the three principles that I say are wrong with respect to the bill. We want to support the bill, but we want to make it a proper objective; we want the bill amended and we’re going to do all we can.

In closing, I hope we receive the assurance from the minister involved that this bill will be sent to standing committee and that those people who wish to make public input will have that opportunity.

Mr. Deans moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the agreement which was reached earlier today, the House will now revert to the matter of ministerial statements, and I will hear from the hon. Premier.

ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as members of this Legislature no doubt are aware, I and my colleagues, the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough) and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), met yesterday in Winnipeg with representatives of the government of Canada, the government of Alberta and certain private petroleum companies involved in the development of the reserves of the Athabasca oil sands, located to the northeast of Edmonton.

The matter under discussion was whether or not the public interest and the interests of Ontario would be served by the early completion of the Syncrude project, a project designed to extract synthetic oil from the Mildred Lake site of the Athabasca sands at a daily rate of 125,000 barrels.

As hon. members are aware, the original participants were Canada-Cities Service Ltd., Imperial Oil Ltd. and Atlantic Richfield, each with a 30 per cent interest; and Gulf Oil Canada Ltd. with a 10 per cent interest. The escalation of costs and the resulting withdrawal of Atlantic Richfield Canada Ltd. resulted in the remaining partners concluding that they could not expand their commitment and continue with the project.

On Dec. 18, the government of Alberta issued an open invitation to the government of Canada and the governments of provinces to participate in the Syncrude project through taking up the interest of Atlantic Richfield Canada Ltd. The remaining partners in the project also approached the government of Ontario and the governments of Alberta and Canada in an effort to find additional capital.

Prior to our meeting of yesterday, the three governments examined in detail the causes of the escalation and the reliability of the cost figures advanced by the participating companies, and we have assured ourselves that the data upon which decisions were being based were reliable.

The three governments involved were in unanimous agreement that the project should be completed. Concurrent with my statement to the House here this afternoon, statements are being made in the House of Commons in Ottawa and in the Alberta legislative assembly in Edmonton to the effect that agreement in principle has been reached on a method of financing the Syncrude project and that the project will proceed without delay.

Essentially, the agreement deals with the intent of the three private companies involved to continue to bear 70 per cent of the cost of the project, and the three governments to take up the remaining 30 per cent. As the projected cost is $2 billion, this means that private enterprise will invest a total of $1.4 billion. The remaining 30 per cent -- $600 million -- will be shared by the governments of Ontario, Alberta and Canada, with our province investing $100 million, Alberta investing $200 million and Canada investing $300 million.

The governments of Ontario, Alberta and Canada will, respectively, hold five per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent and the companies involved will have 70 per cent.

Alberta, as I noted, is investing directly the sum of $200 million. But, in addition, Alberta will bear 100 per cent of the costs of a pipeline to transport the product to market and will bear 100 per cent of the costs of providing the needed electrical plant plus other infrastructure costs for an estimated total of $600 million. In addition to these two commitments, Alberta has also agreed to advance a further $200 million to private participants to facilitate the financing of their commitment.

I don’t believe that all hon. members will be surprised at this announcement. It is apparent that Ontario has been supporting this project and did not want it to collapse, or indeed to be unduly delayed. Security of supply is important. As the National Energy Board report of October, 1974, confirmed, crude oil supply will become a problem in the early 1980s. Today we are taking a constructive step toward dealing with the situation.

But we are doing more than agreeing to invest in a secure supply of oil from a Canadian source. The oil sands and heavy oil in Alberta contain immense quantities of oil; the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board recently estimated that the sands may ultimately yield recoverable reserves of 300 billion barrels. At present oil consumption levels, these reserves could supply Canada’s oil for centuries.

The Syncrude project is critically important to the ongoing development of the oil sands. Presently, three other plants are in the early planning stages. The National Energy Board supply forecast relied heavily upon oil from this source for Canadian supplies during the 1980s. The collapse or delay of this project, fundamental to the development of technology and the gaining of experience, would have serious implications to the development of this major resource.

Even if the need for energy is set to one side, there are great national benefits. This new public/private consortium is a major achievement in furthering the co-operation of the private and public sectors in the development of our energy resources.

The co-operative agreement between the governments of Alberta, Ontario and Canada creates a partnership that can serve to strengthen our bonds within Confederation. The energy situation is creating severe strain among governments, strain which we hope this co-operative initiative in energy might ameliorate.

It is understandable that Alberta should be concerned as to the depletion of its reserves of conventional oil. The people of that province have every right to expect that the people of Ontario, and more broadly Canada, will help to assure the development of resources with a long life and so ensure the future of subsequent generations of Albertans. This project, the precursor of more oil sands plants, will contribute immeasurably to the building of an industrial base in Alberta.

We in Ontario will also benefit. At the end of 1974 orders for the manufacture of major equipment by the factories of Ontario for the Syncrude project totalled $105 million, a larger sum than our proposed investment. The fact that the project will now continue means that Ontario’s share of equipment purchases for this one project over the period of construction will total almost a quarter of a billion dollars. Some 29 per cent of the equipment ordered for the project will bear a “made in Ontario” label.

In Ontario terms, it is historic in still another sense. It is relevant to the Ontario Energy Corp. This government established that corporation to make investments that serve the provincial and national interest and assure the people of the province had adequate and secure supplies of energy. That instrument is now at hand and available and taking its first positive and measurable opportunity to contribute to the welfare of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: There was an indication earlier today that there may be some people with questions to ask. We didn’t arrive at an agreement for limiting it or anything like that. Would we have just a few questions? We don’t want the thing to develop into a debate, because this is not that sort of order.

We got unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements, but we did not have that in connection with the question period. I would like some indication of how long the extension of the question period might be.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think the understanding was that questions, as may be necessary, could be put.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There may be some questions. The only thing is that this is a ministerial statement; it has been made at 5 o’clock rather than 2 o’clock. I am quite prepared, and my colleagues are, to answer questions to the extent we can. We are not really prepared to debate it.

ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier.

First of all, I want to commend the Premier and those who worked with the various parties to bring this partnership into effect, as we were all concerned about the situation.

What is the price per barrel that it is estimated the product from this Syncrude plant will be sold at and to what market? What is the estimated return on the investment that the government is proposing to make here, and when? Was Quebec invited to participate in this project? And why is it not a partner since it is one of those markets that I think would be given assurance of future supply as a result of the project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I can’t answer some aspects of the hon. member’s question. On the question of floor price or upper price, the understanding was -- and this was confirmed yesterday -- that there was not to be a floor price, as was suggested by some.

Regarding the question about the percentage that would come to the Province of Ontario, Ontario is obviously the major consumer in Canada. In terms of total consumption, this would not represent a large portion. It is not a major portion of the total consumed. I can’t say what percentage of 125,000 barrels per day, when it comes on stream, would actually flow into the Province of Ontario.

Obviously what we’re seeking is security of supply in the development of this potentially tremendous resource; quite obviously our interest is having this in terms of security. But as to whether there will be 40 per cent, 30 per cent or whatever, I don’t think we can determine that, certainly not at this stage.

About Quebec, I don’t want to speak for any other governments, but I think other governments were aware of the suggestion that other provinces should participate. I can’t comment as to why Quebec did or did not or whether they were officially invited to participate, although I do sense they were aware of it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for York Centre have another question?

Mr. Deacon: Yes, I would like to ask a supplementary on that. I wanted to find out -- and surely the Premier would know -- what is the estimate on which the return would be based and what the return is, the estimate of the price per barrel and the estimated return; and when?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Here, Mr. Speaker, we get into the very complex area of what the world price of oil may be, say in 1978 or 1979. I think it’s impossible to say that the price will be so much per barrel when it represents a percentage of the total consumption. It does relate, I think without any question, to what the world price may be when it comes on stream. I can’t really help the hon. member much beyond that at this point.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I have a supplementary question. I don’t know why we’re playing around with this. It is true, isn’t it, that the Premier has agreed to an oil price, using the exact words of Donald S. Macdonald, “internationally oriented in 1979,” which means a price per barrel -- you don’t have to be a prophet -- considerably in excess of $12 and a cost to the Ontario consumer of something in excess of $1.50 per gallon of gasoline?

Now why has the Premier entered into that arrangement without any protection for the consumer of Ontario, particularly given the extraordinary statement by the former Minister of Energy that he would not tolerate an increase in the price per barrel and therefore in the price to the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, of course, doesn’t quite understand it --

Mr. Lewis: The Premier will have his troubles on that.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Perhaps he understands it too well.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I understand it well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member for Scarborough West has great insight as to what the world price may be in 1978 or 1979 --

Mr. Renwick: We know what will be the world price.

Mr. Lewis: We know what will be the world price the Premier has signed to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think there is any question that the actual cost of production in this initial plant in the tar sands, in terms of cost related to the investment, will be in excess of what is the traditional production cost in the Province of Alberta. Even I can understand that. What also must be recognized -- and I’m sure the member does -- is that we are talking about a small percentage from this plant as it relates to the total consumption of the Province of Ontario. And to create the myth that somebody is going to be paying $1.25 for a gallon of gasoline as it relates to this --

Mr. Lewis: I said $1.50.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- when it may be five per cent of the total consumption, which would then be part of the total --

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, that’s right. Take 125,000 barrels a day and calculate how many barrels a day are used in the Province of Ontario at the price of gasoline, then the member will see, with great respect, that he is making a fiction.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is only a part.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He certainly is.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A supplementary: Can the Premier give his assurance that if the agreement that he has entered into is moving on the premise of accepting internationally-oriented prices for Syncrude, that it won’t go to all oil in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member, and I have made statements on this -- as have the former Minister of Energy, the now Treasurer, and the new Minister of Energy, we do not, and we have never accepted the principle here in Ontario of world price for existing --

Mr. MacDonald: But now he has sold out.

Mr. Lewis: But he is doing it. He is opening the door here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would only recognize that in terms of the plant itself it could be that the actual cost of production for this limited amount of production, could be higher than world price. I don’t know, because I haven’t the same mystic ball he has available to him to predict world price in 1979.

Mr. Lewis: That is very nice. It is nice of the Premier to commit Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The fact of the matter is the reason the people in the member’s party don’t like it is that this government has, with the private sector, embarked upon something that has significance for the future of this country, and he and his people don’t like it.

Mr. Lewis: To salvage the private sector, that is what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all.

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier has been taken.

Mr. Lewis: He has been taken to the cleaners by Imperial Oil again. That’s what has been done.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The NDP wants government to do it all.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, why couldn’t the government do it all? Why can’t the public sector do it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the member for Scarborough West have another question?

Mr. Lewis: I have another question. If I’m using a so-called crystal ball, how is the Premier persuaded of the $2 billion figures being turned out by the oil companies when even the Alberta study is not yet completed and when the study which Canada wanted is not yet completed? What legitimacy can he give to those $2 billion figures on which he is investing $100 million of Ontario’s money?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the member will find the Alberta study is completed and we’ve had access to it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary question --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for Sarnia has a question.

Mr. Bullbrook: All the Premier had to do was tell the leader of the New Democratic Party that the agreement wasn’t tied into world oil prices without getting into a shouting match.

Mr. Lewis: Well it is.

Mr. MacDonald: It is.

Mr. Bullbrook: He hasn’t told the member that yet. He never answered his question.

I want to ask the Premier a question in connection with his comment that Alberta will be responsible for the building of a pipeline to the markets. Where are the markets?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, obviously the markets are primarily, as they say out west, into some plants in Alberta and then here to central Canada. That’s the phraseology that presently is used.

Mr. Bullbrook: But we understand that they are to be Canadian markets.

Hon. Mr. Davis: By and large.

Mr. Bullbrook: Without equivocation please! Do we understand that the agreement is that the Alberta government is to bear the capital cost of the pipeline to the Canadian markets? Is that right?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is not right?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Well, will one of them tell us?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the pipeline which is contemplated by Alberta is from Mildred Lake to Edmonton, which presumably connects into the refineries at Edmonton or into the interprovincial pipeline in Edmonton.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is all.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is $100 million.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, is the Premier saying that his satisfaction in the last 24 hours on the reliability of the costs of this project is based upon the Alberta study? When was the Alberta study available and will it be made available in this House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether it will be made available in this House or not. If the member for Riverdale feels he can analyse this, and determine whether the $2 billion is totally accurate or not, I’m delighted to have this suggestion. I can’t give a commitment that that will be tabled here in the House.

Mr. Lewis: Oh thanks very much. It is only $100 million.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Imperial Oil gave the Premier a commitment for $2 million.

Mr. Renwick: Imperial Oil told the government what it was.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary on that particular point, Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier not think that while this report may indeed be very detailed and not perhaps understood by all the members of the House, it would be useful to have it available to other experts within our economy, since in fact the province is contributing a substantial amount of money to this project.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can give this undertaking, whatever is made available or tabled in Alberta that belongs to the Province of Alberta, we will certainly make sure it is available here. I can assure the hon. member that the federal government people looked at this as well.

I just want to make this point, Mr. Speaker, so that it is clearly understood. I’m not standing here today to say that in terms of total economic viability, in terms of saying to the members of this House that there aren’t going to be some difficulties, that there aren’t going to be some problems, as they relate to the development of the technology perhaps. I’m not going to guarantee perfection, I will admit this. I admit it and I enthuse about it. We are committing ourselves we are committing ourselves as a government representing the people of this province --

Mr. Lewis: Without any protection for the people of the province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- because we think we have available in Canada a tremendous potential in terms of oil sufficiency.

Mr. Lewis: Good. Develop it publicly.

Mr. Renwick: Who is debating and who is answering questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s time we got ahead with it as a national project. We are participating in it to see that it is done, because we think it’s important in the long-term interests of this country. The people opposite can disagree.

Mr. Lewis: Nuts, nuts. The fact is there are no protections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South with another question?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes. My question to the Premier is this: What scrutiny was there of the $2 billion figure? Since the 1972 figure was $500 million and the Bechtel study six months ago was $848 million, and it is now being escalated beyond $1 billion, how did we lump from $1 billion to $2 billion? How does the Premier get that as reliable data?

Mr. Lewis: Boy, are we being taken on this one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We accept -- and I confess this; acknowledge it -- the information was prepared by people who we do believe have as genuine an interest in the cost as we do, and these are the Province of Alberta and the government of Canada.

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier has been taken by Exxon for the last two years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say this --

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the government of Canada were to follow the route being suggested by the New Democratic Party of this province, and some of the other socialistically-oriented people, I can only make this prediction for you: If it were left totally to government -- totally in this sort of environment -- the cost would certainly substantially exceed --

Mr. Lewis: Not at all. Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the kind of cost figure we now have.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I think there have been several questions. It’s developed into a debate. We will allow each opposition party one more question. Who will it be?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes, I wonder if the Premier could tell us if efforts were made to interest or encourage any of the other provinces to participate other than Alberta and Ontario, and the extent to which they went and the kind of replies that were received?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Like BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t speak with knowledge in that I wasn’t there; but I understand there were.

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

Mr. Lewis: My question is a very simple one for the Premier to answer. Since this is $100 million of our money being invested outside the province without any guarantees, or, for that matter, specific information, could he please put it on the order paper and allow us a full-scale debate in the Legislature in the immediate future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that undertaking today. Certainly I know the leader of the New Democratic Party would like to debate this.

Mr. Lewis: Yes. It is fairly important. That is what we are here for.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly it is important. I just can’t give that sort of commitment today, but I am prepared to consider it. I am prepared to consider it.

Mr. Lewis: Why not, Mr. Speaker -- on a point of order to you, sir.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is riding his red horse again.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier’s silly blue contraption has collapsed.

Mr. Deans: What about Ontario Hydro?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: The private sector does it; let them do it. Why the hell should this government bail them out?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West has a question.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Premier: Why should he have any hesitation at all in allowing a debate in this Legislature on an investment of $100 million of Ontario’s money in another area of Canada, when there is no other opportunity to debate it? Surely it is a fit subject for the order paper. And there is no information from the Premier as well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, at some point in time there will be estimates for the Ontario Energy Corp. I’m sure that would provide an ample opportunity.

Mr. Lewis: Next year. Later on this year.

Mr. Deans: A bit late.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But, Mr. Speaker, I can only say this: This commitment is made. I am prepared to accept the NDP leader’s second-guessing and his judgement related to his point of view.

Mr. Lewis: I understand. Let’s debate it.

Mr. Deans: But we are entitled to debate it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s already been expressed. I know what it is.

Mr. Lewis: What is he afraid of?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not afraid.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We will get on with the orders of the day.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, I want to put to you, sir, that there is real disrespect for the legislative process in this. I’m serious about that.

Some hon. members: Oh no, no.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have --

Mr. Deans: There is nothing --

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am putting it to you that the Premier has just made a very major announcement. It involves an expenditure of $100 million after the debate on estimates for this year has closed.

Mr. Deans: And the estimates.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a matter of enormous public importance. We are surely entitled to debate it. I don’t understand the Premier’s resistance. That’s what we are all here for. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Premier to reconsider; it doesn’t make sense.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Is the member opposed to the project?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The Speaker doesn’t order the business of the House. I am sure much more information on this very interesting topic will come out in the next little while, and undoubtedly in questions before the orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 191, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP. ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth I think had the floor, did he not?

Mr. Deans: Maybe we are going to use the money to pay for the oil.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no.

Mr. Deans: No. Where is the Premier going to get the money to buy the oil? Out of which estimate?

Mr. Lewis: The Energy Corp.’s.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are in second reading of Bill 191.

Mr. Lewis: Imperial snaps its fingers and all of the Tories and Liberals jump. Every one of them jumps. Every one of them jumps like Pavlovian mutts.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Who’s Pavlovian?

Mr. Lewis: The minister is Pavlovian. I have never seen anything like it.

Mr. Speaker: We await the words of the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I am just waiting for things to die down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have come a long way in my view of lotteries. I used to be adamantly opposed to them. I have now moved to the position where I am not as adamantly opposed but I am still opposed to the use of lotteries for the raising of public funds for the undertaking of public projects.

Frankly I don’t think that any government can fund major undertakings on the basis of the chance that someone may or may not buy a lottery ticket. I am really quite concerned that the government has taken the position, first, that it is going to earmark the money; and, second, that it hasn’t sufficient confidence in its own capacity to manage the affairs of the province that it would fear it would be able to find the necessary funding within the normal funding processes --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There is a great deal of background noise in the chamber. It is almost impossible to hear the member who is entitled to speak.

Could we have a little less noise please? Thank you.

The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: They could tell me to speak up, I suppose.

I am really quite concerned when the government gets to the point where it doesn’t feel that it is capable of managing the financial affairs of the province through the normal funding processes.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We have asked that there be less conversation in the House.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I have thought a lot about lotteries. I have wondered whether or not the government’s move into lotteries wasn’t, as was mentioned by one of the other members, perhaps one of my colleagues, an attempt to divert the public away from the major problems that confront it.

I recognize that it would be very difficult for the government to go to the sales tax or to the income tax or to the corporate tax at this particular point in time and to try to raise money for the very worthwhile projects that I hoped would be undertaken --

Mr. Lawlor: Order!

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I think I will have to have the member for Lakeshore appointed Speaker. I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker: Who’s the whip in that party?

Mr. Givens: It’s all those backbenchers.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member for Wentworth continue with his debate?

Mr. Givens: He must like the member. He might have learned something.

Mr. Deans: I guess maybe he does, I don’t know. I doubt it. I listened carefully to what the member for York-Forest Hill said, by the way. He read that very nice letter and he read it very well.

Mr. Givens: Did the member learn anything?

Mr. Deans: No, but the lady who wrote the letter, though, was very learned.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Givens: It wasn’t a lady. That just shows the member wasn’t listening.

Mr. Deans: Or the gentleman who wrote was very learned, and the member read it very well.

Mr. Speaker: Could we return to the principle of the bill? Order please.

Mr. Deans: The point that worries me about this is that I can see that the government may not have the capacity to go to the normal taxing sources; maybe it doesn’t want to raise taxes elsewhere. But I think, in all fairness, that if the projects that the government intends to fund out of the lottery moneys are worthwhile at all, then they are projects that should be undertaken within the normal funding programmes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: That’s right. The government shouldn’t tie them in any way to the chance that perhaps it will be able to raise money through a lottery, because at this particular point in time there is the great likelihood that there will be less and less disposable income in the hands of the people of the Province of Ontario.

Given the housing market, given the rising cost of living, given the increases in taxation, there will be fewer and fewer dollars available to the majority of young people, at least, in the Province of Ontario, with which to buy tickets in a lottery, and the majority of people aren’t going to be able to embark on this frivolous get-rich-quick scheme of the government of Ontario, and by far 99.9 per cent of them will derive absolutely no benefit from it whatsoever.

I suggest to the minister that before he embarked on a lottery he should have done a complete reappraisal of government spending in every single ministry, that there should have been an attempt made by this government to rationalize its spending, that there should have been an attempt made by this government to ensure that the dollars that are currently being raised through the various taxes that are imposed were used as wisely as possible before he resorted to a game of chance, the purpose of which is to fund a number of programmes which are currently deficient in the Province of Ontario.

Quite frankly, I don’t agree with this system of government. I don’t think that this is what government was ever intended to do. I don’t think that when governments were first instituted, when people thought of the need to have government, that they ever considered that the government would embark on a get-rich-quick programme for people and sell lottery tickets, hoping somehow or other to raise an additional amount of money for the public use.

I think that given the number of service clubs and small municipal operations that currently involve themselves in a small way in the sale of lottery tickets for putting in children’s playgrounds, or for providing the wherewithal to put new sand in the ball diamond or to provide for the repainting of the local town hall, okay, that may well be a worthwhile undertaking for them. That gives them something to work at, some kind of a project and a way of raising money for their own particular use.

But in an overall basis in the Province of Ontario, run by the government, it’s not in keeping with the best government tradition. This is not the way to fund government programmes. If the programmes can’t be funded through a proper taxing system that will raise money on an ongoing basis, for which there will be some reasonable guarantee of a source of income to continue the programmes on beyond one year or two years, if we can’t do that then the introduction of a lottery isn’t going to make any substantial difference to the financial position of the province.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: I think the minister might have encouraged the various social agencies, the various social groups in the province who are undertaking fund-raising projects, to go ahead and use that system, if they wish, in a small way for one-shot proposals. Frankly, I don’t agree with the idea of a government embarking on government programmes, programmes on behalf of people that will carry on long beyond this government, and basing the financial backing for the programmes on the ability to sell a few tickets door to door on a lottery that may or may not turn out to be successful. I find that completely foreign and it alienates me from the whole process of government.

I don’t agree with it and frankly, I don’t think I can support that as a government programme. I think that the government is making a drastic mistake.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments I would like to make in regard to the bill, particularly in regard to the operation of the lottery. I disagree with the position taken by the last speaker and I feel that the society in which we live is prepared to accept government lotteries. In fact, this government has been involved in lotteries for the last four or five years through its issuing of licences to lotteries operated by other organizations, whether they be charitable or not. They have, in effect, been taking a percentage off the top and that has provided an income to both the province and the municipalities concerned.

As well, as I understand it, through the agreement with the lotteries that are being operated to support the Olympic Games, if I am not mistaken some percentage of that money has been kicked back to the Province of Ontario over the past year and a half. In effect, the Province of Ontario has been in the lottery business as a partner with Canada and with Quebec, so it’s not something new that we’re entering into. In fact, the only difference is that it will be operated directly by the province itself. There’s also the fact, according to the statement by the minister the other day, that apparently for the first time we will have the direction of incoming funds to make specific payments for specific programmes; that’s covered under section 9.

But as I read section 9, I think you could really drive a truck right through it; I don’t know whether there is a change of policy or not. As I read section 9, the government could decide next year that the moneys raised through this lottery weren’t going to be used for cultural and recreational purposes, but that they could be used for hospital purposes or any other purpose.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Not without amending the statute.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Section 9 does not say specifically that those moneys have to be used for that purpose.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It certainly does say it, as I read it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It may, the way the way the minister reads it, but that’s not what it says.

Section 9 does not say that these moneys have to specifically go for that purpose. I think that if section 9 were rewritten we might have a definitive statement insofar as specifically tying those moneys to those certain programmes. But the way section 9 is written in this bill, I think the minister’s statement the other day was rather misleading to the great number of people he had sitting up in the galleries, when he said that these moneys would be available for recreational and cultural purposes in perpetuity. I think the government can change it any day it wants, according to section 9.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Not without changing the statute.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, I disagree with the minister --

Mr. B. Newman: The clause says “may direct.”

Mr. R. S. Smith: The statute says “may direct.” It does not say it “shall direct” all the funds.

Mr. Roy: He can do what he wants.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The government can do what it wants with the funds, and the minister is simply pulling the wool over the eyes of people who were sitting up in the gallery and whom he took downstairs and told what a great thing he was doing for sports and recreation. I don’t agree that was proper. In fact, it was in effect using the question of where the money was going to placate some people who may well not have agreed with the imposition of a lottery at this time.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well I’ll have my opportunity later, but the word “may” isn’t used there with respect to the availability. The word “may” has to do with the --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. At this time we are debating the principle of the bill.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well I’ll read the section then.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That might not be a bad idea.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I will read the section to the minister, so he may understand. He likely shall not understand, but he may understand!

Mr. Speaker: We’re just debating the principle of the bill, I might point out.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, this is one of the principles of the bill. I’m talking to the principle of government which the minister says is being changed by this bill. The principle of government up to this time has been that no moneys that come into the coffers of the province are directed to any specific programmes. So section 9 is a very basic principle of the bill. I’ll read the section. It says:

“The net profits of the corporation after provision for prizes and the payment of expenses of operations shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund” -- and if we stopped there, we’d be within the present policy -- “at such times and in such manner as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct to be available for the promotion and development of physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities and facilities therefor.”

I read that to mean that the government can do what it likes with the money when it likes. And I think the minister had better get advice from legislative counsel before we proceed any further. If, in fact, it is the intention to direct the moneys without any undue change, perhaps the minister could have an amendment prepared for second reading.

That is the one complaint I have about the bill; that people are being misled by section 9.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not a fair comment.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, it is the way it is written.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not fair.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is badly drafted then.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, the member is not interpreting it correctly.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Debate the principle, whether you are in favour of it or not; that point can be ironed out in committee later.

Mr. R. S Smith: I don’t know what the principle is here.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the member should really take the advice of a lawyer on how to read that section.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well the way I read it, I get my legal advice --

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not fair.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. member continue with his debate of the principle?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): With all those interruptions from over there what can he do?

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister keeps interrupting me.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard several interruptions. Will the member continue with his remarks?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I will get my own legal advice. I won’t depend on the minister’s advice.

Mr. Roy: I can do just as good a job as the minister in drafting bills; I can tell him that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The problem is we all pay too much for legal advice, no matter where we get it. But that’s another question.

Mr. Breithaupt: Free advice is worth what one pays for it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I still maintain that section 9 allows the government to direct the income from the lotteries to wherever it may think it can be best used; and that it does not directly tie it to the areas of culture and recreation.

Another point I would like to make is: Who is going to do this? Who is going to sell these tickets? Who is going to be responsible for the distribution? I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the liquor stores of the province might be the best place to put it so that we can keep the patronage all in one place.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Keep what?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Keep all the patronage in one place. We won’t have to hire another army of Tory hacks in order to sell lottery tickets, the same way we had to hire them to sell liquor. We should put all our vices and all our Conservative friends in one spot and put them in the liquor stores.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is booze a vice?

Mr. R. S. Smith: It depends on how it’s used. It just depends on how many tickets one buys whether it is a vice or not. I am sure there are many of us here who can go in and buy one or two tickets and it won’t be a vice. But if we buy more than that, it may be a vice. Isn’t that what the Anglican church teaches? The Catholic church teaches me that.

Anyway, I should hope that in the establishment of the method of sale of these lottery tickets, that it does not become a political gimmick by which the distribution is under the sole control of people appointed on a political basis, shall we say.

We even had that with the fishing licences in this province. If one didn’t belong to the party on that side, he couldn’t sell fishing licences. Or if he was not approved by the defeated Tory candidate, he couldn’t sell hunting licences.

And now it is going to be that one can’t carry around a book of lottery tickets, perhaps, if he isn’t approved by the defeated Tory candidate. That is not an impossibility when you look at the way things have been done so far.

Those are the comments I would like to make, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind the people in the cultural and recreational fields that I hope the minister brings in an amendment to make it mandatory upon the government to pass the moneys on in that direction and that those moneys be expended in that way.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister, when he is responding, will quietly bare his soul as to what the attraction was in this ministry to go from Attorney General to Minister of Culture and Recreation. Most of us would be very interested in knowing that.

Mr. Breithaupt: A change is as good as a rest.

Mr. Ruston: Changes every year though?

Mr. Laughren: Without implying what the member for Sarnia did, I would be very interested in knowing that; knowing the interest that the minister has shown in the past, from his chequered career.

I might say though, Mr. Speaker, with a slight diversion from the principle of the bill, that the minister might like to know that he is one of two leadership candidates that Ross Shouldice did not support financially in 1971. I thought he’d like to know that it would make him breathe a little easier. I say that, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that he will not be tempted to give Mr. Shouldice an appointment on the board or even to allow him to dispense lottery tickets throughout the province. I think we need to have those assurances from ministers of this government. I think perhaps it should even be written into the bill.

The principle of lotteries, Mr. Speaker, rests quite easily with me as long as the funds are being used for the delivery of marginal services and not essential services in the province. That’s the responsibility of taxation. I would hope that the government doesn’t get into the position of using the lottery funds to bail it out of fiscal deficits and so forth or for essential services. That truly would be offensive.

I’m a little concerned about who buys lottery tickets and to whom the benefits go from the revenues. I have a feeling that the people who buy lottery tickets are, by and large, the working men and women of Ontario who will buy the majority of the tickets. If the profits that accrue from the sale of those tickets go to provide the kind of cultural amenities that traditionally those people have not received benefits from, then that too would bother me a great deal.

I think the government is going to have to watch very carefully who are buying the tickets and to whom the benefits are accruing from the profits on the sale of those tickets. I think also of the regional aspect of the disbursement of funds. If there is going to be a substantial number of dollars going into physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities, then I would hope that those funds could be used to help northern Ontario and, I suppose, eastern Ontario as well, as my colleague from Stormont mentioned, catch up with the rest of Ontario, particularly the “golden horseshoe.”

I won’t go into a listing of all the amenities that are here and are not up there, but I think the minister knows very well that there are many of them. To date, there has been very little attempt even to take those cultural amenities and the other recreational facilities in a portable sense or a mobile sense to the rest of Ontario. There has been a little bit of movement there, but not very much.

I hope that the ministry will see that there is a great need for that and will make a serious effort to provide some amenities in northern Ontario. I’m not talking about just the major metropolitan centres. On the contrary, there are all sorts of isolated communities in the north that have no facilities whatsoever for recreation. None at all. Those are the kinds of communities that could benefit most from it.

I’ve seen many small towns where there is a school and that is it. Very often in those small communities that school is closed to the public in the evenings. Despite all the talk from the Ministry of Education and select committee reports, those schools remain closed. There is a need for the government to provide some of the services in those small communities because the social cost in not having recreational facilities is evident in what happens to young people in those communities. I think it’s a serious problem and I hope that the minister will attempt to do something about it.

I’m worried about the management of the lotteries and the distribution of the funds, as I say, and I trust that something will be done about that as a watchdog on it. One way, of course, would be to ensure that on the membership of the corporation, of which I believe there are to be --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Up to seven.

Mr. Laughren: -- seven, there will be regional representation. There’s nothing in the bill that suggests that this will be the case. I will be concerned if the people on the board are all from southern Ontario.

When I say there should be representation from the north, for heaven’s sake, Art and Grace Grout don’t need another appointment. Think about dispensing some of the largesse and some of the appointments among other people in northern Ontario.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Uncle Wilf has never got a job yet.

Mr. Laughren: Let’s not get Uncle Wilf in on it, either.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am uneasy about the bill. I hope that the funds that accrue to the government are wisely dispersed. Thank you.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Roy: I had occasion to listen to the discussion between my colleague from Nipissing and the minister, and I want to point out to the minister that I think the very least he can admit is that the drafting of that particular section is ambiguous. I have an idea of what he wants to achieve by that particular section, but it doesn’t say exactly that. For instance, let’s say, and I think I’m right --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, that point can be debated in committee. It is the principle of the bill which is to be debated.

Mr. Roy: The most important principle, Mr. Speaker, if I just might --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, may I just point out that you are haggling over the details of the bill and I think you should debate the principle of the lottery.

Mr. Roy: No, no, all I want to --

Mr. R. S. Smith: The principle is where the money goes.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, one of the major principles of this bill is that the funds will be earmarked for certain specific purposes, and what we are saying is that because of the drafting of that legislation the bill doesn’t necessarily do that. Surely that’s the most important principle of this bill.

What I want to point out to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is that at the very least the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct or may not direct at all. It doesn’t say “shall direct.” When the section says “to be available,” what does that mean? Why don’t we have something like “shall be used for the following purposes”? What I want to say to the minister is that the draftmanship of that --

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Don’t get into details.

Mr. Roy: -- particular section is not all that clear and it is confusing. It is short of commas and the bill does not specifically make it mandatory for that money to be earmarked for the purposes of physical fitness, sports, recreation and cultural activities. Mr. Speaker, I want to make some general comments about the bill and possibly emphasize, and repeat I suppose, what some of my colleagues on both sides of the House have said about the bill.

I would think that the creation of a lottery in Ontario was something which basically was forced on this particular government, and I think for good reason; that there was so much Ontario money from residents of Ontario being funnelled out of the province. Whether we are talking about the Irish Sweepstake or the Quebec lotteries in the Ottawa area, small lotteries which were permitted under the Criminal Code could not compete, for instance, with Loto Quebec -- and that is something I’ve mentioned to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on a number of occasions. Of course, with the Olympic lottery now, we have tremendous amounts of money being funnelled from this province to other jurisdictions, and I think that what the government is basically doing here, Mr. Speaker, is creating its own lottery so that -- since the residents of Ontario have proven that they are prepared to buy lottery tickets as large a number as any other jurisdiction -- at least the moneys will stay here to benefit certain activities going on in this province.

As our House leader has mentioned, we are very much interested in knowing from the minister what the arrangements were with, for instance, the Olympic lottery, and how long they are going to go on in light of the fact that they are facing a relatively large deficit. What we also want to know is when does the minister plan to have this lottery start? What is his target date? Is it sometime after the Olympics or is it sometime before?

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that is of great concern, and it has been mentioned by a number of members, including my colleague from Nipissing, is that this lottery will be an ideal vehicle if this government wants to start playing politics and start dispensing favours. In fact, the announcement had hardly been made when people were already calling up members saying, “I want to be an agent. I want to sell those tickets. I want to get hold of my member to see whether I can’t get something out of this.”

It is going to be interesting to see which members are going to be named to the corporation. It says here “three and not more than seven,” and I would think that the minister is going to have trouble appointing seven. I don’t think there are seven Tories in this province who are out of work presently at the rate that this government has been appointing them to boards and commissions.

Mr. B. Newman: They will be shortly.

Mr. Roy: If we wait a while, if we wait through this year, 1975, it may well be that many of those people opposite will be out of work. It may well be. And then there will be jobs for them, but I’m not guaranteeing that they will make it on this particular lottery. There might be some consideration made, Mr. Speaker, to naming some of these good people, on the left there, as agents. We might name them as agents if they behave. But there is just no way they are going to make it on that commission, I can tell them that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Is the member for it or against it?

Mr. Roy: So, Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the minister, don’t, with any undue haste, start naming people all over the place until the public of this province have had an opportunity to decide how good a job the government has been doing since 1971.

Mr. Walker: Is the member supporting it?

Mr. Roy: This has been mentioned as well by my House leader, Mr. Speaker -- I think it is important that this legislation goes to standing committee. It is a new step; It is something on which the province, as such, has no precedent. I think it would be important, to send the bill to standing committee, to give the public of this province an opportunity to express some views. I think the member for Lakeshore mentioned the fact that the bill was before us when the announcement was made on Jan. 30. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not sufficient time for the public to have sufficient input into the legislation. I would encourage the minister to do it. The government has got a lot of catching up to do as far as standing committees. No doubt the ministers are aware of a bit of research that was done by my colleague from Sarnia about how many bills are going to standing committee. It’s difficult for us to go across this province and preach to the public that we are interested in having their views, when throughout, what is going on in this House is going through the House without going into standing committee.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): That’s not true.

Mr. Roy: Well, my colleagues want to argue with me --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, it has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Pardon me?

Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Well, I think it’s an important principle that this bill go to standing committee.

Mr. Speaker: You have made your point. It is not debatable.

Mr. Turner: Let the member just tell us, not keep us in suspense.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in closing I do not want to repeat all the points given by my friend, but I trust that the minister will send it to standing committee so that we can get full airing of different views, or what the minister’s thoughts are, in the implementation of this bill, and so that we can amend section 9.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Walker: Does the member support it or not?

Mr. Roy: We are for it.

Mr. Walker: Get on the record.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I enter the debate with some ambivalence. I recognize that lotteries, and selling of tickets, and gambling have become a way of life in this province with a lot of people.

Mr. Turner: Tell us about it. The United Church members support it.

Mr. Ferrier: A number of us, I suppose, speak with forked tongues in the fact that we have bought many tickets. But I can also remember the number of sermons that I have preached in times past about this very subject. It’s not all benefit as seems to be suggested by some people. I think the needs of this province need to be funded by the taxation revenue that can be gained from legitimate sources, and that legitimate needs should not be at the whim of a particular lottery.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: How about adjourning?

Mr. Ferrier: The fact that we are now moving in this legislation to have a lottery which is approved by the province is opening the door for not just this, but off-track betting and so on it goes.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Does the member think he could stop and adjourn this debate?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, perhaps before the member gets into the body of his remarks he might --

Mr. Ferrier: I have a few more remarks that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, and I would be pleased to resume at 8.

Mr. Speaker: Well, we want to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Ferrier moves the adjournment of the debate.

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