Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to support the Ottawa-Carleton Child Care Association, a dedicated group in my community that represents 52 non-profit child care agencies serving approximately 4,000 children and their families, and employing 500 staff.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Jobs Ontario Training fund will not be taking up the 20,000 spaces promised in the 1992 budget. The Minister of Community and Social Services is daily receiving requests that the eligibility criteria be broadened to include parents who are engaged in training or attempting to begin an educational program. She is also daily receiving requests from child care operators right across this province that half of those 20,000 spaces, 10,000 of them, be designated as subsidized child care spaces.

I urge this government to immediately assign half of the promised child care spaces to help shorten the waiting lists that exist in this province: 12,000 right across this province, 4,000 of those in my own community of Ottawa-Carleton.

The Minister of Community and Social Services needs to address the real needs in child care, rather than restructuring the system while existing child care spaces go unused and are wasted.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): With me today I have a thousand hand-printed petitions from children in Unionville, Box Grove and Locust Hill, and 3,000 more petitions signed by people in my riding, plus another several thousand signatures. These people are saying the battle against the dump isn't over, and when this government comes out with its short list this week or next, the battle continues as of today.

Today we met with representatives from community action groups committed to stopping the dump. As the date for the short-listing of the dump site comes closer the anxiety grows. The unfairness of the Interim Waste Authority process becomes clearer. The question is asked over and over again: "Why us? What have we done to deserve this?" That is why representatives from all our communities in York, Durham and Peel feel it necessary to sign a declaration of protest.

"On behalf of all the residents living near the site, we believe the process used by the Interim Waste Authority to select a site is flawed and unfair. The Ministry of the Environment, by introducing Bill 143, violated our right to make our own waste management decisions. Bill 143 takes away our right to explore all alternatives in addition to landfilling, and as such we hereby pledge our continued support to fight the IWA process and reclaim our right to be part of the solution to find, and make effective, waste management decisions."

And so the fight goes on. This is just the end of the first chapter, and when they come out with the short list, the next chapter starts. This is a gift for Ruth Grier. Maybe she'll still change her mind.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PEACE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Speaker, I'd like to warm it up a little bit, thank you.

I've heard from six wonderful students at Prince of Wales Public School at 2285 Wyandotte Street West in Windsor. They're in close contact with community leaders both at home and across the province, and they share their thoughts on International Day of Peace.

The students' names are Steph Becchini, grade 2; Trevor Dusa, grade 3; Nicole Smith, grades 5-6; Sarah Douglas grade 6; Brianna Lanspeary, grade 4; and Jason Yu, grade 4. They urge all of us to observe International Day of Peace. They would like me to spread their wonderful message to those in the Legislature today, and as well, to Ontarians watching the proceedings at home.

I promised Mr Plantus, principal of Prince of Wales, and the students that their message and their drawings would be shown to some 400,000 citizens at this very moment. I'd like to show the messages and also read the names of the six students I call the ambassadors of peace.

Steph Becchini is in grade 2, and she says: "We all want peace in our world. Families are for loving and for caring." Trevor Dusa, grade 3, says, "Please keep our world safe." Nicole Smith, from grades 5-6, a wonderful drawing, says simply, "Peace." Also, Sarah Douglas, grade 6: This is what Sarah does. Brianna Lanspeary from grade 4 says, "Stop killing and also ban guns." As well, Jason Yu is in grade 4 and Jason says, "Stop the war."

I'd like to thank all these students from Prince of Wales school at 2285 Wyandotte Street West in the riding of Windsor-Sandwich, as well as the principal, Mr Plantus.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On behalf of my party, I want to recognize the start of Drug Awareness Week in Ontario.

As a society we have taken strong measures over the past several years against the use of alcohol and drugs. The Don't Drink and Drive campaign has been highly successful. As well, the use of alcohol and drugs by students and adults has decreased over the past decade. Yet while these trends are encouraging, there is one segment of the population in which things are getting worse, not better.

The area to which I refer is street youth. Use of cocaine, LSD and heroin by street youth is at least 10 times greater than rates of Ontario students. Almost half of the street youth reported serious alcohol problems, four times the number compared to other youth.

Even more disturbing is the fact that 34% of these youth report that alcohol use in the family was a factor in their decision to leave home, while 18% report that drug use in the family was the factor.

Despite these disturbing trends, this government has virtually ignored the problem. Money spent on drug treatment has been dismally low, aimed at school-attending youth. Street youth have no access to teachers, health promotion classes, public health nurses or in-school drug prevention classes. Many do not have a family doctor or access to counselling. Yet these are the most vulnerable youth in our society, living amid an endless supply of drugs and alcohol every day.

This government must accept its responsibility and provide the much-needed funds and services to put treatment programs where these youth can access them. We need an integrated approach of identifying, treating and counselling these young people or we risk raising a generation of addicted and troubled youth.

We implore the government to give these youth a chance and provide the services that can turn their lives and our society around.

1340

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): A week ago the Minister of Community and Social Services confirmed reports that hundreds of millions of dollars will be cut from her ministry. She also stated that all programs and services will be scrutinized with an eye to cutting, or in some cases, eliminating services. The minister's strong words worry me considerably, as I am sure they worry many families who have come to depend on the special services at home program.

With the help of this program, families are able to keep their developmentally handicapped children at home instead of placing them in institutions. When the minister is considering which programs in her ministry should undergo cuts or be eliminated, she must take into account the effect these cuts will have on society's most vulnerable people, as well as the long-term cost implications of cuts in service or elimination of programs.

It is hard to describe the emotions I feel when constituents contact me on this issue. It is hard to describe the desperation in their voices. They do not want to institutionalize their children. All they're asking for is a little assistance in the home so that they can keep their children.

The financial reality is that these people are actually doing the taxpayers a service. The cost of institutionalization is much higher than the cost of help within the home. The minister will not be doing the taxpayers any favour by shortsighted, short-term cuts, when in the long run she will force families to surrender their children to institutions because they are not getting the help they need in order to keep their children at home.

I hope the minister will not slash programs across the board. She should instead attempt to prioritize programs and services according to need and cost-efficiency. If she cannot do this, then she is not competent to be minister and the Premier should appoint another Minister of Community and Social Services.

BOWMANVILLE SANTA CLAUS PARADE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Good news. Santa Claus will be riding into Bowmanville from the North Pole this Saturday, November 21. The parade is the 31st annual non-commercial Santa Claus parade in that town. This year the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Honourable Henry Jackman, will be the parade marshal.

The theme for this year's parade is, 'Tis the Time for You to Know Who in '92. Last year's parade was a huge success with 70 entrants and this year's parade will be even bigger with the presence of His Honour being assured. This year the streets of downtown Bowmanville will be lined with children and their parents eagerly awaiting for Santa Claus to pass them by.

Entrants from across the riding of Durham East have entered groups and a number of schools will also take part in the parade. There will be horses and other live animals on parade, with at least 10 bands. This year's parade promises to be the best ever. Traditionally, on November 21 the weather is very kind to the folks in Bowmanville.

I urge everyone living within driving distance to come to Bowmanville on Saturday for a really great and joyful time. Come and feel the real spirit of Christmas in lovely downtown Bowmanville. The parade starts at 10:30 and I'm looking forward to seeing everyone, including the member from Etobicoke.

LANDFILL

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It is a credit to the people of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association in the riding of Durham West that they are able to retain their sense of humour. This is the case notwithstanding that their lives have been sorely disrupted by the policies of the Minister of the Environment and her tactics for dumping garbage throughout the greater Toronto area. This is also despite the fact that for two months the delay in publishing the short list of candidate sites is still with us. Those sites were promised in September and we still do not know what they are.

I see that some people from this group and other individuals concerned about waste management in the GTA are here in the members' gallery today. I have in my hand an application for the Boy, Can I Pick 'Em Award contest. The rules are rather simple. The person who correctly selects the top five sites on the Durham region short list of sites will be awarded a prize. The contest of course is closed to employees and relatives of the Ministry of the Environment, the Interim Waste Authority, M.M. Dillon consultants etc.

To enter the contest, you simply send your five guesses and $5 to the residents' association at Box 55, Whitevale. I would caution you, however, that there will be a skill-testing question: What does the IWA stand for? Here's a hint. It doesn't stand for sound policies in waste management in the province, it doesn't stand for a real solution to the garbage crisis and hopefully it will not stand for, "It's Whitevale again."

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Last month Metro council voted to adopt a variation of market value assessment in a deal cooked up, on the fly, in the last two hours of debate. This flawed process resulted in a final plan that has had no impact studies and received neither public presentations nor scrutiny. So poor was the planning that many potentially devastating consequences were not identified or addressed.

Rail rights of way are to be hit with full market value assessment tax increases. GO Transit's share of the increased property taxes will be over $12 million a year. Since this government is putting forward legislation to allow implementation of this flawed plan, it must take responsibility for the results.

What is the Minister of Transportation proposing GO Transit do to pay this massive tax hike -- increase the cost of tickets by an estimated $240 per passenger per year or reduce service? Or will the minister allocate an extra $12 million each year to GO, and has the minister considered the impact of this increase on future service expansion plans?

For a government that purports to champion public transit, this is the time to put that commitment into action. I urge the government to hold public hearings so that all implications of the Metro plan can be fully aired.

GREG CURNOE

Mr David Winninger (London South): Members of the House may have heard of the untimely death on the weekend of the renowned Canadian artist, Greg Curnoe. This is a tragic loss, one that will be deeply felt not only by his family and friends but by the countless Canadians who have admired and enjoyed Greg Curnoe's work.

From the moment he first arrived on the art scene 30 years ago, Greg Curnoe made his mark. There could never be any doubt about his views on Canadian art or what he thought about the old-guard arts establishment or what he believed contemporary Canadian artists should be doing. Whatever the medium, the message came through loud and clear. It is a measure of this man's talent and eloquence that he broke through the stuffiness of the 1960s status quo and achieved recognition from every corner of Canada's art world.

Greg Curnoe believed passionately in art that was uniquely ours, art that could not be counterfeited from south of the border. He lived out that passion, making his life a political statement about the kind of art he cared about. He refused to leave his home of London, Ontario, making it the subject of much of his art and the centre for the pioneering work he did to encourage other artists.

Greg Curnoe was never afraid of controversy, and that courage, combined with his wide-ranging creativity, permeated everything he touched: his own art, the London art gallery he started up, the arts magazine he founded, even the jazz band he played in since 1965. Throughout his career, he remained on the cutting edge of contemporary art.

Norman Bethune once said that the function of the artist is to disturb, that the artist's duty is to arouse the sleeper, to disturb the peace. In his brief but powerful life, Greg Curnoe was one such artist. Through his towering work and his actions, he was a catalyst for change. He inspired untold artists and became a valuable mentor to his younger colleagues. He will leave a huge void to fill. He was indeed a true original and will be greatly missed.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming the 11th group of pages to serve in the first session of the 35th Parliament: Marsha Barrow, Scarborough West; Ian Beith, Halton North; Liane Boyer, Renfrew North; John Burnett, York Centre; Nicole Davis-Faroque, Sudbury; Marcius Extavour, Dovercourt; Stephan Kerametlian, Mississauga East; René Lambert, Cochrane South; Daniel Liadsky, Willowdale; Beth Marlow, Northumberland; Samantha McGlone, Lincoln; Donald McKinnon, Bruce; Heather Ranson, Durham Centre; Alim Remtulla, Etobicoke-Rexdale; Ian Roberts, Leeds-Grenville; Cameron Rogers, Scarborough East; Natalie Santilli, Wentworth East; Despina Souhleris, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Karen Tellier, Essex-Kent; Alexandra Tinker, Parry Sound; Michael Townsend, Wellington; Monica Tran, York North; Ryan Tuer, Perth, and Lisa Vergeer, Elgin. Please welcome our newest pages to the chamber.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENERGY CONSERVATION / ÉCONOMIES D'ÉNERGIE

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I am pleased to rise today to tell the House about an exciting new pilot project which is being started by the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Energy through the Jobs Ontario Capital program.

Dans le cadre du programme boulot Ontario Construction, le gouvernement consacre 26 millions de dollars à des modifications éconergétiques visant le parc de logements de l'Ontario, des modifications qui permettront d'économiser de l'argent et d'élaborer de nouvelles technologies.

Under this two-year demonstration project, more than 7,000 non-profit and public housing units will be switched from electric heating to natural gas. Using renewable energy, heating with other fuels and other energy-efficiency measures will all be considered under this program.

The project combines this government's concern for the environment with our support for job creation. Energy retrofits create jobs in some of the hardest-hit sectors of our economy. They allow us to conserve energy, and the technology will develop and encourage the private sector to contribute to this program now and to expand it to the wider residential sector.

On the job front, this project will create almost 1,100 person-years of employment in Ontario in its first 18 months. Energy retrofitting is labour-intensive and it will have an impact on workers in a range of fields from design to manufacturing and construction. These retrofits are an important step in our work to conserve energy and preserve our environment. As we improve our energy efficiency, we reduce both the need to build large generating stations and our use of electricity from coal-fired generating plants.

Natural gas heating is also about two to three times less expensive than electric heating. In fact it's estimated that switching a town house from electric to gas heating can save up to $600 per year in energy costs. There are 100,000 units of social housing using electric heating right now, so you can see that the potential for savings is significant.

Our government is already encouraging a number of programs which contribute to energy efficiency in social housing, and we're going to combine this initiative with programs such as Ontario Hydro's Lighten Up/Tighten Up program for non-profit buildings so we can maximize the results from these and other energy conservation measures.

I want to take a moment to emphasize the private sector's role in today's announcement. The information we gather and the lessons we learn from this demonstration project will be passed on to the private sector for improving and expanding the use of this technology.

We are particularly interested in high-rise apartments, where the technology is least known. We want to research and develop technology specific to high-rises so that the private sector will be able to use what we learn in its own residential, commercial and industrial buildings.

We hope that as we start to prove the technology, the private sector will contribute more and more to this project. Since this partnership is such an important part of our work, we'll be giving priority to retrofitting proposals which have a component of private sector financing. Proposals will also be reviewed on their potential for job creation and energy savings.

À long terme nous espérons que le travail que nous faisons aujourd'hui donnera lieu à une technologie mise au point en Ontario, une richesse que nous aurons créée et que nous pourrons alors exporter.

This is a project that benefits many people in many different ways. It will save money for taxpayers and tenants, create short- and long-term jobs, cut down on our use of electricity and lay down important groundwork in the fuel substitution field, groundwork that will help the private sector meet its own energy conservation needs. I look forward to seeing it in action.

MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister of Government Services): I am pleased to rise today to announce the details of an agreement I have signed with Canada Post Corp on behalf of the Ontario government. This contract will save the Ontario government up to $9 million over three years and will result in significant improvement in service to the public.

We are the first province to establish such a partnership with Canada Post. Ours will be the model for future negotiations between Canada Post and other provinces.

The contract covers letter mail, formerly known as first-class mail, that is sent out in large volumes. We have made a commitment to standardize our mail to meet Canada Post's specifications, making delivery easier, cheaper and more accurate. In return, the province will receive significant discounts on postage.

In addition to the postage discounts, the Ontario government will avoid paying penalties in the form of extra postage applied by Canada Post on mail that is oversized or addressed improperly. Saving a few cents on mailing a letter does not sound like much, but when multiplied by the 50 million pieces of large-volume letter mail that the Ontario government sends each year, those pennies add quickly into millions of dollars. It is just a part of the government's commitment to first-rate service to the public and cost-effective management of taxpayers' dollars.

This contract contains special provisions so that all Ontario government ministries, agencies, boards and commissions are eligible for savings. It replaces about 25 separate contracts that Canada Post has held with individual ministries. By combining all these departments under a single contract, the Ontario government has become Canada Post's second-largest customer, next to the federal government.

This single, consolidated contract will also be much easier and less expensive to administer than 25 separate agreements. We estimate the savings will be between $5 million and $9 million, but with improved efficiency of our mailing systems, the savings could go even higher.

I am proud of the role the Ministry of Government Services played in negotiating this important agreement on behalf of the Ontario government and taxpayers and I am proud to do my part in cutting government costs while improving service to the public.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): Good news is so rare for this government that I have to offer some congratulations to the minister for making this agreement. But I do have a couple of questions: First of all, when does it take effect, and when will you sign such a contract for regular mail as well?

I would like to also question the necessity for 50 million pieces of mail going out every year. Perhaps the volume could be decreased by eliminating some of the self-serving stuff that we receive.

As well, I would like to make sure that all the ministries, agencies, boards and commissions are aware of this program and take advantage of it as soon as possible.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I would like to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Housing. On the surface, this announcement would certainly be welcome news and good news. After all, it is fostering energy conservation and energy efficiency, and that makes economic sense, it makes social sense and it makes environmental sense. So we could certainly all support that.

It also claims that it's going to create jobs, and certainly at this stage in Ontario's history, we are in desperate need of creating jobs.

Thirdly, it's a joint effort with the Ministry of Energy, and it's nice to see the Ministry of Housing consulting with the Ministry of Energy.

But that's all on the surface. Forgive me, but I doubt this government's sincerity with regard to energy conservation and, particularly, this ministry's concern with energy conservation. When we were going through the Bill 121 hearings, this minister and this ministry ensured that there were provisions in there that not only were not an incentive for energy conservation for private landlords but were an actual disincentive. Not only was it a disincentive for landlords, but it ended up in losing jobs.

1400

Let me give you just one example. There was an agreement in principle signed with Caterpillar and a major Japanese company. They were going to bring in energy conservation, new technology, and because the federal government had changed the regulation to allow it, the investors were able to write it off as income tax capital losses. So the landlord was not going to pay for the energy conservation, the tenants did not have to pay for the energy conservation through rent increases and the private sector was going to do this due to an initiative by the federal government. Well, what happened when these companies saw Bill 121 and the regulations in it was that they said, "Hands off; the deal is off."

It was 30,000 jobs that you cost, Madam Minister, because your ministry refused to listen to the Ministry of Energy, you refused to listen to Hydro and you did not bring in energy conservation measures to your private sector legislation. So you can talk all you want about what great things you're doing for energy conservation, but I can tell you, these 1,100 person-years of employment in Ontario will not compare to the jobs that you personally have lost because you did not put the proper measures in Bill 121.

I wonder how much of this announcement is a knee-jerk reaction because of the abysmal failure of the Jobs Ontario Training fund. We all know that was a major con job, just as the talk about 20,000 units and all the jobs for Jobs Ontario Homes were all a con job. Tell me, Madam Minister, how many jobs did you create through the Jobs Ontario Homes fund in 1992? The answer is, you didn't, and this is the same type of thing.

We're looking, in this announcement, for criteria. There are no criteria listed. We don't know how you're going to choose these units. We don't know what area of the province they're going to be in.

Madam Minister, the other thing I would say to you is that on the one hand you take away money from the low-rise rehabilitation project. Instead of putting money in there and helping in that way, you will spend $26 million of taxpayers' money on this conservation effort. While we support the conservation effort, quite frankly, you are showing that you're just shifting from one hand over to the other. It isn't new money; you're just playing games. So in the final analysis we'll look forward, some 18 months from now, to see whether you really put your money and your action where your mouth is.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses, third party.

MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): In response to the announcement of the Minister of Government Services today, it sounded rather like a book report. I'd give him a B minus; the presentation was rather weak but the content was okay.

It is pleasing to see that the government is finally thinking about making some savings, but when you think of Canada Post and the Ontario government, perhaps the two most inefficient organizations in Canada today, conspiring to save some money, we have to start thinking that maybe there's some hope for the Treasurer yet.

I would suggest that at the same time it might be appropriate for you to start saving money by getting rid of the 1-800 NDP chat line, which is a propaganda line for this party, no doubt about it, and we have to question the idea of sending out 50,000,000 pieces of literature a year. Minister, the fact is that your government recently sent out a request to corporations that they had to refile their corporation information, which was on file with this government. Every bit of information was already on file. People were being threatened that there would be dire consequences if they didn't refile it, and they were being asked for $50 for the privilege of refiling it. This is mail that you could have got rid of, that it wouldn't have cost anything to mail, because it shouldn't have been sent out in the first place.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In responding to the Minister of Housing's statement, I'd like to point out that, once more, this announcement was made first in the media studio, as it was the week before last about the ballet opera house. It wasn't even made in the House at all by the Minister of Housing. She seems to feel some kind of necessity to shroud things and hide in the media studio. We find that quite interesting, as a matter of fact.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): Oh, come on.

Mrs Marland: She doesn't have any respect for the protocol that has traditionally been the mode of operation of ministers in this House, I say to the minister of northern resources, who doesn't seem to do the same thing. However, I would also like to point out to this minister that her predecessor, Mr Cooke, announced in the spring of 1991 a program to build new, energy-efficient social housing. We've heard nothing about the results of that program. Possibly it's gone the same way as the announcement of the $1-billion Jobs Ontario Training fund, which up to now has created 675 jobs. They promised 100,000; 675 so far in November.

But I think the most ironical part of this minister's statement today is the double standard. We're happy that there is some initiative for the social housing, but it's such a contradiction from what we went through during the hearings into Bill 121, the Rent Control Act.

We actually placed amendments before the government members in that committee that would be an initiative for energy conservation in the private sector. Bear in mind that the majority of housing in this province, thank goodness, is still in the private sector and not owned and operated and subsidized by the taxpayers of this province. This minister has two sides of her mouth and apparently she thinks energy conservation is fine on the one side but not for the operation of the majority of buildings for rental accommodation in this province. Actually, why would landlords spend any money on energy conservation when, through her legislation, the rent control bill, they can't recoup the costs of any improvements they make to their buildings in any case?

Also, we heard last week about the NDP government spending $8.8 million to subsidize an 84-unit co-op in Ottawa which includes a communal greenhouse, solar heating, recycled water, and other energy-conserving features. This project was fast-tracked for approval and funding ahead of other applications.

We simply say, since Consumers' Gas still hasn't had a response to the correspondence it sent to the minister four months ago about Bill 121 being a disincentive to owners of rental housing who wish to convert from expensive electrical heating to more efficient natural gas heating, where are this minister's standards? She does not even reply to the supplier.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is time for oral questions. Point of order?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to make a statement regarding the passing of the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.

FRAN ENDICOTT

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I rise to speak on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship with responsibility for human rights and, of course, on behalf of the government.

It is indeed with sorrow and with a profound sense of loss that I rise to pay tribute to Fran Endicott, our chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, who passed away Tuesday, November 10. Fran Endicott was a tireless activist for social justice, a thoughtful teacher and a committed leader with vision and sensitivity. She was a consummate champion of human rights because she lived and worked for those rights.

For most of Fran's public life, she was deeply involved in education as a trustee at the Toronto Board of Education. It was at the board that I had the good fortune to work with and find a friend and ally in Fran. I quickly developed immense personal respect for Fran, which only deepened over time.

Over the years at the board, she initiated and influenced numerous programs and policies that brought the board to levels of achievement that made us all very proud to work there. Proactive anti-racist education policies are just one example. Greatly increased parent involvement was another of Fran's achievements at the board. She chaired the status of women committee, which was responsible for developing the board's sexual harassment policy. She was also immensely successful in consolidating open and effective relations among the community, the staff and the board trustees.

She brought those same talents to her work at the Human Rights Commission: a wonderful combination of imagination, vision, sensitivity, strength, a practical sense of reality and an uncompromising commitment to justice. Fran Endicott was wholely committed to human rights and gave us her tireless determination. She had strong beliefs and great hopes, and gave us reason to believe we could achieve our goals and our dreams. With her tremendous abilities and inspiration as chief commissioner, Fran set the Ontario Human Rights Commission on the course towards greater efficiency and sensitivity. Her stay was far too brief.

1410

She said of the commission, "Our success will depend on the degree of commitment and effort we collectively are willing to dedicate to building the best Human Rights Commission possible." She would say the same to all of us of our respect for human rights.

We miss her greatly and we grieve with her family and friends for their great loss. It is indeed a profound loss, which the province shares. I think one of the finest and most loving tributes we can pay to Fran Endicott is that we continue her work for human rights with the same vigorous spirit of dedication in which she lived.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today, I and all my colleagues would like to pay our deep respects to Frances Endicott, the late commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a trustee of the Toronto Board of Education, teacher and, above all, a brave and committed activist for social justice.

As a visionary leader, Fran was a champion of human rights, possessing a quiet yet determined resolve to eliminate all manifestations of inequality from our society and openly stating: "I intend to be a clear, loud, firm and maybe unpleasant advocate for human rights. Our success will depend on the degree of commitment and effort we collectively are willing to dedicate to building the best Human Rights Commission."

Fran was a strong optimist who believed in humanity. She also believed that society is capable of building a system wherein each human's worth can be respected.

I remember very vividly when she was being considered for the post of chief commissioner. She faced a legislative committee, and I was concerned that the lack of funding resources and commitment on the part of the government would impede her ambitious goals for the commission. She confidently reassured me, in her Fran Endicott style, that she could not share my pessimism and my pessimistic view as she was an ultimate optimist. She was steadfast in her endeavours, a committed leader, a people person, a genuine human being.

I'm sure she will be greatly missed by her family, friends and colleagues, and some of her best work is yet to come. We must console ourselves with the fact that her contribution to society will have an everlasting impact. Her vision will live on. It will continue to inspire those she loved, those she worked with and the community at large. The highest respect we can pay to her memory is through our personal commitment to her ideal of creating a just and equitable society. May she rest in peace.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On behalf of Mike Harris, the leader of our party, and the PC caucus, I too would like to share in this moment of remembering Fran Endicott, the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, who has passed away most suddenly.

She has left a legacy of concern and love for people that goes very deep. What an ambassador she has been in the whole effort for race relations in the province of Ontario. Certainly the honourable minister would have known her on the board of education, where he served for so long, in her position and capacity of chairing many committees, including the race relations committee. She was the author of several pamphlets on race relations. She chaired the board of education's affirmative action review program and chaired the influential school programs committee. She was involved with the secondary education review group, devoting many hours to school programs, far more than anyone would realize, to help bring about social equity.

She was also an independent consultant who specialized in training large public agencies on multiracial and multicultural issues. She had expertise in issues of sexual harassment and affirmative action for women. She had recently developed a manual for anti-racist employment equity practices for school boards. All of us have lost a great supporter of equity.

I, along with our caucus, extend to her husband Giles, her brothers, sisters and stepchildren our sincere sympathy. We know the special service being held at Bloor Street United Church on November 23 will be attended by many who will not want to forget this great gift she has given. We thank God for her life and for her example.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The kind and thoughtful comments by the members for Dovercourt and Scarborough North and Markham will be sent to the family of Fran Endicott.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. We are continuing to set records in plant closures, 11% of our workforce is unemployed and now we finally have the proof that the Jobs Ontario Training program is a sham.

The Treasurer and the Premier have continually touted this $1-billion Jobs Ontario fund as their big job program. The program has now resulted in hiring only 675 people, and yet the government still defines this as being a success.

My dictionary defines success as "the accomplishment of what was aimed at." I ask the Treasurer: Does that mean that your government now defines success as hiring 675 people in this program?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): It should be understood by the leader of the official opposition -- I thought it would be -- rather than simply swallowing whole the rather outrageous headlines that were in the tabloids on the weekend and late last week, that the Jobs Ontario Training fund was a multi-year fund that was set up to be innovative for training people who were either on social assistance or whose unemployment insurance had run out.

For the leader of the official opposition to think you could be that creative, to get a program started in August -- that was the beginning date of the program, not the budget date of April 30 -- to get an innovative, complex program like that, that's designed to get people who've been on unemployment or on social assistance, many people for a long period of time, into the workforce, to break a cycle other governments just haven't had the political will to deal with, is really a bit simplistic. I think she should be fairer-minded when it comes to assessing a program that's multi-year in nature and more complex than anything that government had the courage to try.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the Treasurer that once again we keep asking him to come clean about that budget he presented. I remind the Treasurer that we said at the time that the Jobs Ontario Training fund was not a job creation program and it could not possibly succeed. I remind the Treasurer that we said that the Jobs Ontario Training program was a program designed to train people for jobs in the private sector that didn't exist, that don't exist and that won't exist with your government's total lack of economic strategy programs.

Treasurer, I would remind you that what we were referencing -- and you're saying, "Don't believe things that are too simplistic." I take your words to heart. Our reference point was your statement in your budget that this program would create 10,800 jobs in this fiscal year.

Treasurer, it seems to us that just like so many figures in your budget, whether they're the revenue figures or your deficit projections or your job growth numbers, you pulled this 10,800 figure right out of the hat. I ask you: Will you not admit that the 10,000 jobs in the Jobs Ontario Training fund that you projected in your budget was a number simply pulled out of the air like so many of the other figures in that budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't need a lecture on pulling numbers out of the air from a party that raised flim-flam to an art form. I don't need any lessons from you in creating jobs or in manipulating numbers. That's absolutely outrageous.

I do believe that the numbers that were laid out in the budget are accurate numbers. Whether or not they are all achieved by the April 30, 1993, date is a question that's open for debate, because it is a complex, innovative program. The Leader of the Opposition may be correct that we will not achieve the full number by April 1993, but the fact remains that it's a good program, it's an innovative program and, for the first time in the history of this province, this government is attempting to address the unemployment problem of people on social assistance or whose unemployment insurance has run out that will be a long-run benefit to the people of this province and the people on unemployment insurance or social assistance, not the traditional make-work projects that the opposition has had for many, many years.

1420

Mrs McLeod: Treasurer, the unemployed people of this province don't need either empty words or your phoney attempts at a defensive attack. The fact remains that your program has seen 675 people hired. That is a fraction of the number of people who lose their jobs every week under this government. At the pace you're going, your program is going to reach 100,000 people in 25 years. I suggest that the unemployed people of this province shouldn't have to wait that long to see some results from a program that this government is bungling.

Treasurer, I would suggest to you also that even those very few people who might be eligible for your program can't figure out how to access it. The calls to the ministry aren't being returned. In Toronto nothing is happening because the contracts with the brokers haven't been signed. People are being stuck in training courses that don't fit their needs.

I simply ask, will you not, now that it is clear that the Jobs Ontario Training fund is a complete failure, just go back to the drawing board and design a program that will actually work to secure jobs and get people back to work again?

Hon Mr Laughren: I and this government remain convinced that this is the right way to go: to put in place proper training programs so that as the economic recovery occurs people will be trained for the jobs that will become available. Surely the leader of the official opposition understands that it takes time to work out agreements between the brokers in all the communities across this province, employers, who are an essential part of this program, and individuals who want to access the program.

The leader of the official opposition may or may not have noticed some ads that are in the paper today that spell out some of the details on how to access the program, but it's not fair for her to imply that this program, after starting up in August, now can be written off as a failure. That's outrageous.

I wish the leader of the official opposition would do what she promised she was going to do when she became leader of the official opposition: not simply carp and complain, but lay forth alternatives as part of her job.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, if I were to pursue the Treasurer's comments, I would point out the fact that he talks about the jobs that will be available. That is exactly our point: They aren't available.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question, however, is to the Attorney General. I have written to the Premier asking him to clarify his response to some very serious allegations that have been made about the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I believe that the matter is too important to wait for his return from Asia, although I would prefer to be able to place these questions directly to the Premier himself.

We're all familiar with the various reports that prompted the resignation of the former minister of tourism. I would ask the Attorney General if he would clarify exactly what has transpired to date. Will you provide us with a precise chronology, tell us the specific allegations that have been made, the incidents that have occurred, the Premier's instructions to you and the exact nature of the investigations currently under way?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Mr Speaker, I --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: The Leader of the Opposition --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, when the opposition allows me, I'll try to answer the question.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Interjection: He hasn't answered this question.

The Speaker: There was some distraction from the end of the chamber. I'm sorry; in concentrating on the disturbance I did not hear the response from the Attorney General. Could he repeat the response for me?

Hon Mr Hampton: I said, Mr Speaker, that when the opposition allows, I'll try to answer the question.

The Leader of the Opposition in fact asked a number of questions. What I can tell her at this time is that some information was given to the OPP. My understanding -- and I ask you to note that I have not received a full briefing or a report from the OPP on this -- is that some of that material was not firsthand and may in fact have been third-hand and fourth-hand. That information was relayed to the Ontario Provincial Police. The Ontario Provincial Police conducted an investigation into that information, but I have not received a report from the Ontario Provincial Police at this point in time.

Mrs McLeod: The Attorney General, as the law officer of the executive council, is charged with ensuring that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law. I would suggest that it's the responsibility of the Attorney General to advise the government and to superintend all matters of a legislative nature. That is the duty of the Attorney General.

I would ask the Attorney General that, given the earlier reports of possible impropriety, the fact that there was, as you've just indicated, an investigation that took place, and given your duty as Attorney General to advise the government and to ensure that all legislation, including the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, is properly enforced, would it not have been your responsibility to recommend to the Premier that this minister step aside as soon as the investigation began, which was before this matter became public? Did you in fact do that?

Hon Mr Hampton: Implicit in the Leader of the Opposition's question is the assumption that information, which may come from where we know not and may come third or fourth hand, should immediately result in someone counselling the Premier or counselling other members of the executive council about the potential for an error in terms of conflict of interest or the potential for some other type of breach.

I want to say very clearly to the Leader of the Opposition that the only information I was aware of was information that had been communicated -- and we did not know if it was second-hand information, third-hand information or fourth-hand information -- to the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate, to determine the veracity of that information.

Mrs McLeod: I asked the questions simply because it seems clear from the Attorney General's comments, and seems confirming of some of the reports that have been in the media, that there was at least sufficient concern to warrant an investigation at an earlier stage.

I say with very real concern that we have had, over the past while, some serious concerns about other issues with the way in which the government may withhold information. I would specifically reference the fact that the Attorney General seems to be determined to suppress the report on sexual abuse at the Grandview detention centre, even though the freedom of information commissioner has ordered its release and even though this information would be of great value to the many women who endured the abuse.

We want to raise the question of how much information from the current investigation will in fact be released. I will ask it as a question simply of the Attorney General, whose decision on release of the investigative report it will be. Will the Attorney General assure us that no information stemming from this investigation will be suppressed? Will the Attorney General advise us then exactly what information will be made available about the situation so that the public can judge the Premier's standards, or lack thereof, for themselves?

Hon Mr Hampton: Ordinarily I listen with great care to the questions that the Leader of the Opposition puts forward. I usually find them fair questions, but the Leader of the Opposition tries to imply that the government is suppressing a report with respect to Grandview. Let me deal with that first.

There is a very serious criminal investigation going on with respect to the Grandview centre. The Ontario Provincial Police and the Waterloo Regional Police want time to look at all of those records so they do not jeopardize any type of further investigation or jeopardize the laying of any charges. That is not the suppression of a report; that is what you call good investigation by responsible police officers.

For the Leader of the Opposition to say that someone is suppressing something is completely irresponsible and I would say amounts to trying to achieve cheap headlines at the expense of those victims from Grandview.

Let me deal with the second issue. The Ontario Provincial Police may conduct thousands of investigations every year in the province of Ontario. They conduct those investigations sometimes on the basis of firsthand information, sometimes on the basis of thirdhand information, sometimes on the basis of complete hearsay information. The Ontario Provincial Police will make the decision whether or not it wants to release its investigation report. That is not up to me.

The Ontario Provincial Police will come forward and say whether or not it thinks charges should be laid. If we get into this discussion about the OPP issuing every report it has ever investigated, that leads to irresponsibility as well.

1430

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Treasurer. In the week and a half since Bob Rae left for Japan and the Far East, where he has been criticizing Ontario businesses, we got a series of shocking revelations about what you have done to Ontario's economy. Business closures are up, bankruptcies have increased, welfare rolls have swelled and unemployment has increased. Treasurer, whatever it is you're doing or whatever it is you think you are doing, it's obviously not working.

You've had now a 10-day break from the Legislature. Your Premier's been away. You haven't had to answer his questions every day. Will you today admit that we need a major mid-term correction, that whatever it is you're doing is not working, that we need a new plan?

Given that I'm sure you agree with all of the above, why is it we don't have that new plan today? Since we don't have it today, can we expect it this week or next week or surely before Christmas? Will you give us a time frame for the new plan?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): May I welcome the member back to the Legislature after his 10-day absence, and welcome the Prime Minister back from Florida at the same time.

I want to let the leader of the third party in on something that just came across the wire today, I believe, that comes from Osaka, Japan, where the Premier was attending a luncheon. After the luncheon, the Kubota --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): He has resigned. Tell us. It is good news.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the members don't want to hear the good news, then I don't have to give it. The Kubota corporation of Osaka, a maker of agricultural and construction machinery, announced a $10-million plan to expand its operations in Ontario. I think that's good news. I didn't hear the Prime Minister come back from Florida with news as good as that. He came back and announced that federal policies were a failure. I think there's a big difference between the way the Premier of this province is performing and the way the leader of the country as a whole is performing.

There is a lot of good news in the province of Ontario. I don't expect the leader of the third party to acknowledge it, because just in a couple of short years he has slipped into an opposition mindset.

Mr Harris: Of course, Treasurer, there is some good news. It's not all doom and gloom. The problem is that the bad news outweighs the good news by 500 jobs a day. That's the problem. Obviously, the plan is not working.

We found out last week what a sham your Jobs Ontario Training fund has been. You told us you would create 10,800 jobs by the end of this fiscal year. I think you were being very conservative. It was to be 100,000 jobs over three years, and you set your goal for the first year very low, I assume because you would have startup times. Now you admit you have only created 675 jobs in the first six months.

You will now have to create 75 new jobs every single day from now to the end of the fiscal year to meet the target. Given that we are losing 500 jobs every single day -- that's the track record for the first six months -- would you admit today that you cannot possibly create 75 new jobs each and every day in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question that the economic recovery has presented challenges to this jurisdiction, as to all others in North America and elsewhere around the world, that were not anticipated last year or even earlier this year. So there's no question that's going to be very, very difficult. I acknowledge that.

On the Jobs Ontario question, I don't want to repeat what I said to the leader of the official opposition, but surely you would acknowledge that putting in place a training program that involves the private sector, that involves pre-employment training, that involves credits to the private sector and also day care spaces for people who need assistance to get back into the workforce, is complex and innovative, and that those things don't happen overnight.

Finally, that program didn't start until the month of August and here we are in mid-November. I think the leader of the third party is not being very realistic when he assumes that all of this should happen with the snap of one finger. That doesn't happen in this complex world in which we live.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary to the Treasurer, it surely must be obvious to you, as it is to virtually everybody else in the province, that whatever it is you're doing is not working, and that what I have been saying all along is quite true: that government cannot create jobs on its own, that the taxes you have to raise or the money you have to borrow to create these jobs on your own destroys more jobs than you create.

That's why your net is 500 lost jobs every day. You're destroying more than you could possibly create by trying to create them on your own. The evidence shows that every day you've been in office: Every day you come back and try to spend some more money, you make more announcements that you are going to spend more money to create more jobs, and every day the results come back that you have lost more.

Treasurer, it must be obvious that a new direction is required, that a midcourse correction has to be made, and I would ask you to consider this: Will you take whatever is left from your failed billion-dollar Jobs Ontario Training sham and cut a billion dollars in taxes so we can put money into the hands of those who truly can create jobs in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I really believe that flowing from the leader of the third party's question are two assumptions: One, that he doesn't give a sweet hoot about the deficit in this province; two, despite all evidence --

Mr Harris: I didn't say spend an extra nickel. I said quit doing what is not working and start doing something that will work.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- to the contrary, that the leader of the third party is locked into some kind of Reaganite time warp, in which he believes that supply-side economics works.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Not even Ronnie could lose 500 jobs a day.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I can tell you something, Mr Speaker, with that kind of thinking, where you cut taxes that largely benefit the rich, the deficit tripled in the United States in eight years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I will try to respond, but the leader of the third party surely would not deny that the Reagan plan was to cut taxes in order to stimulate investment. That's exactly what this leader is saying. That was the Reaganite plan. It didn't work. The deficit tripled in the United States. No, thank you; we are not buying Reaganomics in this province.

1440

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, as you will remember, about two weeks ago, Mr Bill Cameron of the CBC conducted an in-depth series on the state of Ontario's education system. On Friday, November 6, specifically, he asked you when -- "when" meaning at what grade level -- his children who are currently in elementary school should be able to write a paragraph with proper sentence structure, grammar and spelling.

It's my understanding from looking at the tape, Mr Minister, that you weren't able to respond to that question, and I'm going to ask you if you will respond today.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I would have thought that if the member was going to ask that question, she would have actually given an indication of the full answer that I gave, which was that I couldn't answer the question on the spot in terms of at what particular point in time. But what I said also in answer to the question was, first of all, that it was the kind of question that needed to be able to be answered and would be answered through the Benchmarks process.

Secondly, I think I also indicated more specifically to him that clearly somewhere in the elementary years we ought to be able to indicate very clearly to parents and to people in the system at which point those kinds of levels should be achievable by all our students. So I was simply answering the specific question as frankly and directly as I could, which was that I didn't have the answer to this specific question of the paragraph, but I certainly agreed then and agree now that that's exactly the kind of sense we need to be able to give to our school system and particularly to our parents, to be able to know what they can expect from the school system.

Mrs Cunningham: I think if the minister had gone home and asked one of his children, he would very quickly have found out what the answer is to the question today. But I think the big problem in education is that parents are advising us, and teachers and educators across the province -- they can continue to voice their concern because they don't know when their children are to master certain knowledge and skills, and obviously we have a parent across from us who doesn't know either. They are repeatedly asking us, grade by grade, subject by subject, for a specified, defined curriculum with standards.

In the most recent document that was released by the minister with regard to another common curriculum, they talk about mathematical skills and understanding, and I'll read it to you, "Mathematics is used in many disciplines and areas of life." You want to talk about technological knowledge and skills? "All societies and cultures have used technology to improve the quality of life."

I just have to say to the minister that that's not what parents are looking for. I'm going to ask him when he's going to release a document that will define core curriculum by grade level, by subject, with specific learning outcomes or testing involved. When will this be released?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me first of all say that as proud as I am of my four-and-a-half-year-old, I don't think I could expect him to answer the question that the member suggested he could answer.

Let me say also to her that I think she touches, first of all, on an important area and one which I think she's heard my comments on before. But I also want to say to her that she ought to realize that the kinds of problems we're having in our school system are not ones that have been around in the last year or two. The same issues that we're trying to grapple with, quite frankly, could have been grappled with by the previous government. They could have been grappled with by that government over there.

If there is today a lack of sense about the kinds of standards that we should have in our school system, don't look across the floor to blame us for that. We are trying, because we understand that there is that need, to be very clear with people in the system and with parents about what we can be achieving and what we should be achieving, and we will be doing that.

As I think I've indicated, we already have put out in school systems the initial draft of the math Benchmarks. We are going to be proceeding throughout the year with draft Benchmarks in the language areas, and all of that is geared towards establishing those very clear standards of achievement that we want for our students throughout the various grades.

Mrs Cunningham: I would suggest that the minister is sounding like an old Progressive Conservative rather than a New Democrat, and he ought to bring himself up to date on what's happening in Ontario.

It's been some decade since we've had a review of our curriculum. We've had an opportunity to look at it and it hasn't been working. I would be the first one to say it hasn't been working for a decade. He's had every opportunity in opposition to bring his suggestions forward, and his colleagues to bring their suggestions forward, to the government, as we did to the Liberals, and to take up what the Treasurer talked about today in bringing specifics forward.

We have, and I'm sure the minister has read it, A Blueprint For Learning in Ontario, where we suggest how to proceed by saying:

"Government, teachers and communities need to work together to establish clear goals for the school system and give priority to the core subjects. A core curriculum, setting out benchmarks and standards for achievement for each grade level, should be developed" -- and I think the key is here -- "by the Minister of Education, working with both parents and teachers."

Since the minister last answered my question on November 2, saying they wouldn't be involved, I would like him to explain that today. We need this curriculum to be set out and we need public input by parents and teachers. My question is, will you be involving parents and teachers and the public in a very big way in a discussion with regard to your new curriculum, core curriculum with testing, yes or no?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Minister?

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes, Mr Speaker.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I have a question for the minister who, for the past two years, has created a crisis and chaos of the highest proportion right through the greater Toronto area in her mismanagement of the garbage issue. I have a question for the minister who, we find out today, is a co-conspirator, along with Metropolitan Toronto, in the unauthorized expansion of the Brock West landfill site. I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about her misstatements of her waste reduction achievements made to the people of Ontario.

I say to the minister that her target was to reduce waste by 25% in absolute terms by the end of 1992. On October 8 the minister told the Recycling Council of Ontario that, and I'm quoting, "Statistics for the first six months of the year show a 21% per capita reduction in waste."

Absolute numbers are important in this matter because they are needed to predict landfill capacity. The minister has changed the arithmetic and decided, because of the failure of her waste reduction program --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Sorbara: -- to begin to quote waste reduction numbers in terms of per capita waste reduction and not absolute reduction and the 25% target that she herself set for the province of Ontario.

Can the minister simply tell us why she is now measuring waste reduction in per capita terms rather than in absolute terms?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The target of a 25% reduction -- let me share the glory and the credit -- was a target established by my predecessor. The difference was that I put in place a waste reduction action plan to make sure we had some programs and some policies that would take us forward to in fact reach the target.

One of the difficulties in establishing whether or not we could get to the target was how to measure the target. There was certainly no history of accurate measurement and no basis upon which one could draw comparisons between one year's reduction and another's. The generally agreed-upon way of measuring achievement towards that target was a per capita generation of waste on a base year of 1987. I'm quite confident that our achievement of 21% in the first six months of this year will allow us to achieve the 25% reduction by the end of 1992.

Mr Sorbara: The minister's response is almost completely incredible. She was right to pay credit to the former Minister of the Environment, the member for St Catharines, because he did set a target, and that target was an absolute reduction of 25% of the waste flowing to landfill sites in Ontario. The damage began when the current Minister of the Environment took charge of the problem. She has failed miserably to meet the targets she set.

What she has done, instead of acknowledging the problem and changing her plans and abandoning the principles upon which she has been operating, is she has changed the arithmetic. She says: "We will no longer try and achieve a 25% reduction. We'll achieve 21% per capita." As the population grows the waste reduction is actually reduced, so that now what we're really getting at is a 13% reduction under her direction. That's a far cry from the very targets that she set for herself.

Will the minister simply tell us why, without any announcement, without any highlighting, without any underlining, she changed the arithmetic and dramatically changed her projections for waste reductions in the province of Ontario?

1450

Hon Mrs Grier: We can argue per capita, we can argue tons, we can argue tonnes, but let me remind the member of the facts.

The first fact is that this government passed a Waste Management Act, the first in the province. The second fact is that the discussion papers upon which regulations will be based about how to implement that Waste Management Act are nearing completion and the regulations will be released later this year. The third fact is that in 1992 more than 75% of the households in this province are participating in the blue box program.

The fourth fact is that more than 800,000 households are doing composting in their backyards, and 7 out of 10 companies in this province have embarked on waste reduction programs. I was at one of those in downtown Toronto today that has achieved an 80% reduction of waste in an office building in the centre of Metro with 1,000 employees. That's what Bell Canada has done. Many others are following them.

The member can argue numbers. I'm interested in results. Our waste reduction action plan is in place and is working.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This Minister of the Environment has all but lost her credibility when she moves the goalposts and changes the rules. The same thing is now true with the Interim Waste Authority, which any day from now will be coming up with its short list from the 57 sites in York, Durham and Peel, the landfill sites that will be looked at in greater detail, sites which could have easily have been pulled out of a hat. After all the criteria that were used, it was just a sham and waste of money. Yet not one cent has been spent on looking at the alternatives to landfill such as rail haul.

My question to you, Mrs Grier, is, are you prepared to put on hold the short-listing of sites until all the alternatives have been reviewed?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The process that the Interim Waste Authority has followed in trying to find three landfill sites for the greater Toronto area is quite the reverse of pulling sites out of a hat. That was how the parties opposite made those decisions.

As a result of the fair and very open process the Interim Waste Authority has been following, there are now 57 communities very concerned about that. I understand that. They have shared with me their concern. Before the end of this month the Interim Waste Authority will be in a position to significantly reduce that list from 57. To suggest that we prolong the uncertainty and continue the apprehension in 57 communities is completely irresponsible. The response to the member's question is no.

Mr Cousens: That's rehashed trash. That's all your answer is. Today I met with representatives from communities that you plan to destroy. They're angry and they're frustrated with your lack of compassion, with your ignorance and your self-righteousness in determining their future. This dump is destroying community life. You're destroying farm land, property values and the wellbeing of people in these dumped-on communities. You've not been fair with them or the people of Ontario.

You refused to look at alternatives. You refused to visit the sites. You refused to speak at the demonstrations. You refused to visit the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. You refused to meet with the mayor of Kirkland Lake. You refused to listen. I say, I refuse to ask you any more questions on this today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): There was a lack of interrogative in there, I detect. New question.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): The soft approach, Mr Speaker.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Housing and it's in relation to the wellbeing of the MTHA tenants in Metro. I certainly would like to find out a little more about a particular policy MTHA has chosen to change, a policy I commend. However, there is a particular area in that change I'm concerned about with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, that being the recent change to its contractor rotation list policy.

Madam Minister, I hear that the selection process has changed. I also hear that the key qualified MTHA managers we have have chosen to use a method I don't particularly agree with, and that is to pick contractors out of a hat. I guess the question is --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Mammoliti: Madam Minister, is this true? Is the new policy to pick our contractors out of a hat?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member is correct in saying that there has been a change of policy in the contractor rotation program at MTHA. This was the result of some careful study in the program MTHA has been following to improve the quality of maintenance at MTHA. They announced their new policy in April 1992. It was reviewed by the board and passed then.

Essentially what is happening is that for each area of the MTHA communities, work is assessed and contractors in various fields of specialty will be chosen to be put on a rotation list. But these contractors are fully qualified contractors. Their previous work is reviewed or their referrals are reviewed, and they have to be able to provide the kind of information all of us would want to assure ourselves of when they are doing work. They are chosen according to the volume of work required, and only if there is no other way to choose among contractors for selection for work is there in fact a kind of lottery system for choosing who will be assigned.

Mr Mammoliti: Madam Minister, I don't have a problem with the changes per se, except the picking out of a hat. I know contractors have to be qualified. I know that in terms of how you base your decisions, you have to take into consideration the previous history, the response time and the reputation of the contractor. My problem is picking out of a hat.

Is this how we've chosen to manage, by picking out of a hat? Don't you think the repercussions will be negative if you choose a particular contractor that isn't familiar with a particular area? Don't you think the tenants will suffer ultimately?

Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I don't believe that is the case. First of all, the work that is involved is about $9 million worth of work in a year for MTHA, and the interest in getting that work among contractors has risen significantly over the last few years because of the very difficult times the construction, particularly the residential construction, industry is going through.

What we have is a situation where there's a multiple number of contractors applying for work, all of whom are equally qualified, and I think it's probably the fairest way in the end, when you have the qualified people available, to put them on a rotation list. Then, if you have to choose by a lottery kind of choice, that's probably the fairest way to do it.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'm not surprised to hear the minister suggest another lottery as a way of solving problems here.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the government House leader, since we have had the resignation of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I believe that portfolio is now taken on by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, but perhaps he's not had a chance to get up to date, so I'll go to the government House leader.

On November 3 I raised a question to the Premier in this House regarding the Pro Line Sport Select lottery and I expressed concerns, which seemed at that time to be shared by members on all sides of the House, about our young people having access to this gambling game in the corner stores in all their communities where this game was introduced. There seemed to be some sympathy and some interest. On November 4, the next day, I introduced a private member's bill.

Since that time, we've had two weekends go by. We've had dozens of football games. We've had a couple of Monday night NFL games, another one tonight, lots of NHL games, CFL playoff games, with thousands and thousands of dollars spent by our young people gambling on this lottery, and I can't get this government to move.

I've asked the House leader if he would bring the private member's bill which got first reading back into this place for unanimous consent for second and third readings. Government House leader, will you do that today?

1500

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I have been discussing this matter with the member and I told him that we were working with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation in looking at his suggestion. The idea is being examined. As soon as we have a final answer for him, and I expect it this week, we'll report back to him.

Actually, we're looking at other private members' bills too from all three caucuses, because I think we should take private members' bills very seriously.

Mr Mahoney: That answer is exactly what I was afraid of. What this minister is doing is trying to use this bill and the very serious problem as a poker chip in setting his agenda in this Legislature.

That's not acceptable. This is an issue that every major newspaper in the province has called for the government to act on. We have resolutions from the city of Etobicoke and the city of Mississauga that have been circulated to AMO. We have parents in this province who are demanding action. As far as I can tell, because I've yet to hear a dissenting opinion, we have unanimous consent available in this Legislature to pass Bill 92, a bill that says it will amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act to make it illegal to sell lottery tickets to young people under the age of 18.

What in the world is the problem? I know you've got scandals. I know your government is coming apart at the seams, but that is not the issue. The issue is to get the kids to stop gambling. You have a chance to act on this. If you want to take my bill and write it in your name, I will be happy to withdraw my bill and support a government bill, if your ego is such that this is what needs to be done.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: I am demanding and the people of this province are demanding, we want action on this. Bring Bill 92 or a replacement bill into this place for unanimous consent for second and third readings immediately. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm surprised to hear this member talk about anybody else's ego.

I told the member that we're looking at it seriously. I wouldn't exaggerate the problem. The member wants to exaggerate the problem. The ministry's had approximately six complaints. But we agree with the concern of the member and we're looking at the specific bill he's presented to the House. As soon as I have a reply for him -- I expect it this week -- I will give it to him personally.

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I'm quoting a comment from Mr Ross McClellan in the Toronto Star last week in relation to the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation: "We don't want to be in a situation where cabinet ministers can be forced to resign because of rumours."

I want to indicate before I proceed with this question that we in this party certainly agree with Mr McClellan's position in that respect. I want to say that we also believe this should apply to senior civil servants, who have been treated quite differently within your ministry.

I want to pose a couple of questions in respect to individual employees within the ministry of corrections. The superintendent of the Chatham jail, back in August of this year, was suspended based on a harassment charge lodged by the union with allegations that apparently an incident occurred some 11 years ago. The alleged victim has not come forward and is not prepared to come forward. These allegations are being pushed by the union. That individual, the superintendent of the Chatham jail, has been on suspension since August. His family is undergoing a great deal of stress, as you can appreciate, Minister, as well as the individual himself. How can you justify the treatment of this individual in the way you're handling this situation?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): The issue the member refers to, to the best of my knowledge, is still under investigation. It has been the policy of the ministry, where there have been allegations of this nature and where it's deemed appropriate, that people have been transferred to other locations for the protection of and in the interests of all concerned. I believe this is consistent with that, and to speak further at this point would be inappropriate.

Mr Runciman: It really doesn't deal with my question at all. I was talking about a double standard here, the fact that we agree with Mr McClellan's position in respect to these sorts of suspensions, if you will, and the removal of an individual from cabinet. I'm asking you about a similar, comparable situation where a senior individual has been removed.

I have another one. This is a prominent man, an individual who many of us on this side of the House have known for years as a very outstanding civil servant, Mr Sidney Shoom, the regional director of corrections for the eastern region. Apparently, a phone call was made and a complaint lodged against Mr Shoom of workplace harassment. This was a phone call, nothing in writing. Mr Shoom's lawyer can get none of the details about this accusation.

This is another man, a prominent man, within the civil service at a significant senior management level who has been suspended for some period of time now without any answers. Certainly, you can come up with some sort of response that's more satisfactory to the individuals involved and in keeping with Mr McClellan's comment of last week.

Hon Mr Christopherson: It's my responsibility to answer for the policies and actions within my ministry and that's the scope in which I have to answer the questions. I would say to the member that there have been a number of allegations. Certainly, the honourable member across the way would know as well as anyone in this House the importance of these kinds of allegations, the importance of these kinds of issues, and in fact he made a particularly strong case some months ago that indeed this ministry and the entire government deal adequately and appropriately with these kinds of issues.

There have been allegations made in a number of locations, and where it's been appropriate, staff members at all levels in different cases have been reassigned, pending the outcome of an investigation. I think that's the appropriate kind of action, and I would stand behind it. When the answers are available, when the investigations are completed, I would be glad to give the member, as well as everyone else, those findings.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Education. The taxpayers of Durham region, in my area and in Oshawa and Whitby, are very concerned about innumerable reports in the paper about rises in costs, about additional services, about $46 million for an education centre.

Also, there has been a great deal of concern raised by the board of education about, of course, the junior kindergarten program, the public school in Durham being one of the few areas without a junior kindergarten program in the province. There has been a statement -- this letter I received this morning -- of $12 million, and in another paragraph it was $7.2 million, in terms of the needs of that program, the cost of the startup. We want to know what that program will cost, if there is any estimate that you have, and how those kinds of arrangements can be made with the school board in Durham to mediate the concerns that the taxpayers of Durham region have.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I am not able to tell the member the exact cost that obviously a school board in Durham would have to implement junior kindergarten. What I can say to him, however, is that there are funds and grants available from the Ministry of Education to that board and indeed to other boards, both for capital needs in the range of $100 million that has been made available between 1990 and 1994 that boards can apply for for the building of additional facilities for the implementation of junior kindergarten and, in addition to that, there are incentive grants available for the purchase of large-scale learning equipment on the basis of about $3,000 per classroom.

Of course, once the program starts -- that is, once the junior kindergarten program is implemented -- then the enrolment in those programs, the students in those programs are calculated for grant purposes in the normal way that grants would flow to the school board. The degree of those grants would obviously then be based on the school board's level of property tax assessment, and all of the other normal factors would then come into play.

1510

Mr White: Thank you for those considerations, Mr Minister.

I understand the $46 million being spent on the education centre, some $26 million of that is entirely out of the tax base in Durham. I'm wondering as well, though, about the cost of that implementation. Is your ministry going to be talking with the Durham board to ensure that those costs are as efficiently arrived at as possible; that the least possible costs are borne on a short-term basis?

Hon Mr Silipo: If the member was asking specifically about the issue of the education centre, I can say to him that there are no provincial grants available for that. That is an issue clearly in the hands of the school board.

With respect to the issue of implementation of junior kindergarten, I know the Durham board is one of the boards that's been considering and talking with us about alternative ways of implementing the junior kindergarten initiative and we've indicated that we're quite open to looking at those proposals. I've talked, I think, in this Legislature in the past about the proposal from the Grey county board, and I know the Durham board is looking at some alternatives we would be delighted to continue pursuing with them. As I say, we remain open to looking at alternative ways of implementing this important initiative.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has released draft standards of the reports that police will have to file as a result of his unholstering regulation. According to the Solicitor General, these standards make it clear that a report should be used to improve police training and not for disciplinary or other purposes. I listened to the Solicitor General today on CBC Radio Noon and I'm still not clear. My question to the Solicitor General is quite straightforward: Will the Solicitor General amend the current regulations so they reflect the commitments he has made to the police officers in the province, and why will the Solicitor General not simply include the provisions outlined in the standards in the actual regulations?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As I indicated with my meeting last week with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario, I would have police services division, in writing, send a directive to every chief of police and every police services board in Ontario indicating that the reports would not be used for discipline. If it is possible -- and I am having ministry staff review it now -- to do that by way of regulation that will not complicate or delay the matter, I'm quite prepared to do that as well.

Mr Curling: He knows quite well he hasn't got to go through that procedure. He just has to say that and it can be done.

Last week the Solicitor General distributed a press release which stated he had heard the police and responded to their concerns. Quite clearly, police officers across the province, as you know, do not believe you have heard a thing they have been saying, and the job actions continue. Both Bob Morrison of the Police Association of Ontario and Art Lymer of the metropolitan association have apparently described their meeting with you as just a waste of time. Indeed, many people find it curious that your response could be distributed before the meeting had even been concluded.

Many important issues, such as occupational health and safety concerns, that have been raised by the police remain unaddressed. Police officers have asked for an inquiry or public hearing on these important issues.

My question to the Solicitor General: Will you take that small step to help bridge the gap that has developed between your government and the police? Will you call for an independent inquiry into policing issues in this province?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First of all, just a correction in the information that someone has improperly supplied the member opposite: My statement was not distributed to the media or the public in advance of its being presented to those in the room itself.

Secondly, we will go beyond taking a small step to make people understand the reasonableness of the report. We made a rather large step in that we have guaranteed that these reports will not be used for discipline. We've indicated they need not even be in an officer's personnel file, but rather they can be within the use-of-force file. We will limit the retention with respect to the report to only two or three years, not for the lifetime of the officer's career.

We have also included them in any major consultation on any changes with respect to police policies and also guaranteed them access to the government on any legislative amendments in 1993 with respect to the special investigations unit and the police complaints commission.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to ask the Minister of Housing a question concerning her Jobs Ontario Capital announcement today. Madam Minister, you indicate that $26 million will create 1,100 person-years of work. I just got off the phone with a contractor to give me a ballpark figure on how much would be spent on capital and how much would be spent on wages on a conversion of standard units from electricity to, let's say, gas. The answer was 60-40, very labour-intensive, if it was baseboard heating, about 40-60 the other way if it was forced-air electric heating, and on average about 50%.

Given those figures, and let's say the average for wages is 50% -- that's assuming there's no other program costs, and I assume there would be some, engineering and technical aspects -- let's be very generous then and suggest that there might be $13 million available for wages. That works out to under $12,000 a year per person-year of work.

I wonder if you could tell me, have you overinflated the number of jobs by three or four times? Do you plan to boycott all the union shops? Could you tell me, are the figures inflated for jobs, or who is it you plan to hire for less than $12,000 a year to install these new furnaces?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm delighted to have this kind of question from the leader of the Conservative Party. It's certainly the first time any member of this government has been accused of doing things too cheaply, so I will undertake to give him whatever details we can provide through the ministry as quickly as we can. I would hope that I would have those answers for him by tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

PETITIONS

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have a petition signed by some 80 constituents of my riding and of the greater Ottawa area. The petition has several "whereases," which I will not read. However, I will read the petition itself. It says,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I've signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Today I'm introducing a petition from a number of citizens in my riding, from Bothwell, from Dresden, from rural routes of Chatham, Ontario, and it's a petition that's dealing with the strong opposition to Bill 38, the elimination of Sunday as the definition of a legal holiday, and I do affix my signature to it.

1520

PORT HOPE AND COBOURG DISTRICT HOSPITALS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): It's my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of over 1,700 people living in the riding of Northumberland, four of whom are in the members' gallery. It is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Port Hope, Cobourg and the surrounding townships, hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario to act upon the following:

"That the board of directors and the administrative staff of the Port Hope and Cobourg district hospitals be amalgamated. The reduction in director expenses and administrative services and salaries will create a saving in overhead expenses that can be more effectively directed towards patient care.

"Our community of 40,000 people requires more beds, with fewer managers and directors. Closures and a reduction in the health care providers hurt the community while benefiting only the bureaucracy."

I have signed this petition as well.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 48 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the recent death and injury of five youths within the riding of Dufferin-Peel have deeply disturbed the residents; and

"Whereas these deaths might have been prevented if legislation concerning graduated licensing had been in place; and

"Whereas we would like to prevent further deaths and injuries to our new drivers and young people,

"We would like to petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forward legislation to introduce graduated licences within the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have received more petitions from residents of the city of Toronto concerned about the impact of market value assessment.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as the basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax at the wrong time and in the wrong place; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas, if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine our own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional government; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and our small businesses will be devastated by further increases; and

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto and to allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I agree wholeheartedly with this and have affixed my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province. We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning the Premier, Bob Rae, to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have signed this petition.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition regarding a Catholic elementary school in Nobleton.

"For the following reasons, we, the undersigned, request that our elected member of the provincial Parliament assist us in expediting the construction of a Catholic elementary school in Nobleton in the township of King:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has approved the building of this school;

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has provided funding for this school;

"Whereas Holy Name school in King City, where most of Nobleton's Catholic students attend, is severely overcrowded;

"Whereas the Ministry of Education and the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board have made a joint proposal to the Ministry of the Environment for denitrification facilities on the new school site,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario to assist us in expediting the construction of this Catholic elementary school in Nobleton in the township of King."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): "We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, oppose Bill 40 and draw attention to the following:

"We object to the government's assumption that the only good workplace is a unionized workplace. We believe the balance of power is already tilted in favour of labour and that further tinkering will result in fewer investment dollars being spent in Ontario, loss of jobs and revenue and an increase of tension between labour and business. We believe that Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession and that employers are already being challenged with existing and proposed legislation. We, the citizens of Ontario, did not ask for these changes.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that Bill 40 be revoked immediately."

Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. I will affix my signature hereto.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 32 residents of the county of Middlesex, who ask that the report of the arbitrator, Mr John Brant, for the greater London area be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the people of Middlesex who said very, very clearly that it was too extensive an area of annexation, that the report will cause the county of Middlesex to be jeopardized in terms of protection of agricultural land. It will compromise the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

Signed by a number of people, I submit it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex patently not being economically viable,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report of the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition here that's signed by many residents of my riding from Blenheim, Erieau, Charing Cross and other areas. It says:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act. I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38 to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

1530

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition here regarding lights at the intersection of William Roe Boulevard and Yonge Street in Newmarket.

"Concerned residents in the area of William Roe and Yonge Street would like to have traffic lights installed at the intersection of William Roe and Yonge Street to prevent further accidents and allow easy access to the bus stop on the west side of Yonge Street. Let's act now before someone is killed at this intersection."

This is signed by hundreds and hundreds of residents in the area, and I have affixed my signature to this petition and hope very strongly that the minister will act on it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

P.J. CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Cordiano, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive P.J. Construction Limited.

MODERN OPTICAL LTD. ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Cousens, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr63, An Act to revive Modern Optical Ltd.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GAMING SERVICES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES SERVICES RELATIFS AU JEU

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services / Loi prévoyant la réglementation des services relatifs au jeu.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The Clerk is going to find out what time is left on the clock for this, Mr Speaker, but I'm pleased to have the opportunity to carry on my discussions on this bill, a bill that is intended to regulate the activities of commercial participants in Ontario's charitable gaming industry.

It's really rather interesting how much time we spend on gambling issues in this particular day and age in this Legislature, with this government. It seems like every time we turn around, it's either the Nevada tickets or bingo or lotteries, betting on the sports lottery, casinos: It really is quite something. Perhaps it's an example of the state of the current government in that the only way it seems to be able to resolve or attempt to resolve any of its fiscal problems is to come up with some new scheme.

I even hear that in the Whitevale area they've got a lottery going for the new dump, so that if you pick the first five lotteries, you can put five bucks down and you can win some money on that. The key is that you have to guess a skill-testing question, which is, "What does IWA stand for?" Apparently, it does not stand for "It's Whitevale again," but it could be.

I don't know. These guys have got a lottery and a gambling idea for just about every cockamamy scheme they can think of. I guess that's because, as the province well knows, with the government coming apart at the seams every day, it's bankrupt of new ideas.

This particular bill is based on good intentions, but there's not a lot of trust in the charitable community organizations that this government will be able to live up to the commitments and follow through with its plan. Last July, I wrote a letter to the minister, the Honourable Marilyn Churley, who has responded to me with some of the concerns. I want to put these concerns, Minister, on the record publicly so that the people who have raised them are comfortable with the issue and so the minister knows that since it's been put on the record, the minister is well aware that these issues have been raised publicly.

Both the first and second draft discussion papers outline a change in the prize level. Just to help the minister and the people watching, you can appreciate that the prize level at a bingo game will determine the success of that game. The number of participants: If the prizes are reasonable, then they'll get a good turnout at a particular time.

The fear was that the government wanted to simply change -- it said so in both the first and second draft discussion papers -- the level of prizes from 50% of the proceeds that come in to 60%. That, on the surface, may not seem like such a big deal, but that 10% increase in the prize level is in fact being taken right out of the profits the charities enjoy, because everything else is regulated. The amount the operator can charge is regulated, tied to a percentage. The only thing that's not regulated would be the sales of food and soft drinks and things of that nature sold at these bingo events. But everything else is regulated by legislation.

The only place for that increased prize money to come from is from the pockets of the charities, which runs totally counter to what the intent of this particular bill is, or what the minister and the government tell us the intent is. The 10% increase in the prize money simply reduces the amount of money available to the charities.

Let me give you one example, Bingo City in Mississauga. I have the statistics here. The total revenue over the year in Bingo City is in the neighbourhood of $5.5 million. A reduction of 10% in the revenue to the charities -- you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out -- is over $500,000 a year to the charity groups going out. You ask yourself, "Why would they want to do this?" Bingo City is quite successful. The charities are quite successful. We can appreciate that perhaps in other parts of the province, less populated areas where perhaps there is not the great interest in bingo -- although I think that interest is province-wide -- perhaps bingos are having trouble surviving and making a profit.

It is not so in my riding, in Mississauga. I'm sure it is not so in many of the ridings around the greater Toronto area and in Toronto itself, where bingo is extremely popular. So in these areas where you want to attract more players, it might make some sense to increase the amount of prize money available for these players in the hope that more folks will come out and therefore play more and generate a larger revenue.

That's not the case and should not be used as a broad brush in the areas where they are successful, because all you're doing -- that extra 10% in prize money in the Bingo City community will generate really very few, if any, additional bingo players and the fact is that it's not needed.

The money is just taken away from the community, and at a time when this government is looking for ways to cut its spending in every ministry. We know the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced millions of dollars are going to be just arbitrarily slashed within her ministry, trying to fight the deficit and fight the recession on the backs of the very people the New Democratic Party has purported to represent and fight for over the years.

At a time when that kind of mentality is going on in government, I say it would be shameful if, for no reason, the government was to simply, in a broad-brush way, increase the prize money under this legislation, taking it out of the pockets of the charities. Ask yourself, what do those charities do with the money? Whether it's the cancer society or the heart and stroke fund or whether it's minor sports, there is the amount of good that is done within the community.

1540

I've been pressing this government to pass the private member's bill I recently introduced to make it illegal for young people to buy lottery tickets. At a time when our kids are out there gambling on professional sports, going into our corner stores, which have been turned into bookie joints by this government, and betting on Monday Night Football or NHL games, at a time when our kids are being really exhorted to do this by the advertising put forward by the Ontario Lottery Corp, sponsored through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, backed up by this government, then maybe this is the time we should really be looking even more seriously at the good works that are done by the many minor sports groups that run bingos.

I can tell you I have personally worked in those bingos, to sell cards and help in those terrible smoke-filled rooms, to try to raise money for hockey teams, for the Mississauga Jets, for the Mississauga North Stars, for good organizations within my community that work very hard for the Erindale baseball, for the Erin Mills baseball, for the Cawthra baseball. What are these people doing it for? They're not out there working their bingos on Friday and Saturday evenings, taking away time from their families to try to raise money for their own particular good; they're doing it for the good of the kids who are involved in minor sports.

What's happening today is that those kids are taking money and going down to the corner store and gambling it on professional sports games. This government, by its apparent lack of willingness to go for unanimous consent to give second and third reading to that bill, is starting to make me fear it doesn't particularly care about that issue.

It's equally important that if that is the mentality, I say to the minister, we ensure that these sports organizations and the charitable organizations have every opportunity to raise the money needed to promote the good-quality programs they offer.

This brings up the second concern that has been raised by people operating those facilities, and that is eligibility. Let me go back to one of the draft papers. This is a discussion paper, the second draft. Under "Policy and administrative issues" it says, "Eligibility decisions for all groups will be made by the province."

It goes on with some detail to outline, I guess, the proposal that the provincial government will use to determine who is eligible to get a licence to participate in bingo.

This is right out of the document: "Organizations which are eligible to conduct lottery events will be placed into one of three different categories: registered non-profit, charitable organizations; non-profit, non-charitable organizations which raise funds for others (service clubs), and non-profit, non-charitable organizations which raise funds for themselves. How the charity can use its lottery funds will be determined by the category under which it is classified. The province is not proposing to change the eligibility guidelines already established under a bulletin that had been put out previously."

The reason I mention this is that the minor sports groups are very concerned that the day may come when this government decides to extend its mandate or its tentacles into the bingo revenues to try to solve the health crisis, or to try to solve the Comsoc crisis that it is creating with the cutbacks that this minister is sort of dangling out there like a carrot to see who's going to get upset. That's what she's doing: sort of flying a trial balloon.

Let me talk about all the cutbacks to the people who are taking care of their kids who need help in their homes, or the people who are living at home, the senior citizens, getting some financial assistance to be able to stay in their homes under programs that were initiated by the former Liberal government and that this government is about to start dismantling.

What these minor sports organizations are concerned about is the possibility that this revenue-greedy, revenue-hungry New Democratic government will decide that it's going to milk the cash cow called "bingo" and that it's going to redirect those dollars that are now going to support the efforts of such fine community groups as the ones I've mentioned, and many others all across this province. They're going to start taking that money and using it to solve the deficit problems created by the current Treasurer and by the current government, and that frightens them.

What could happen is that the government could simply come along under this particular policy -- eligibility decisions for all groups will be made by the province -- and decide that minor hockey groups, minor organization teams -- Mrs Marland, nice to see you come, nice to see you go.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I thought she was your friend.

Mr Mahoney: She is my friend.

They may decide that these sports groups are no longer going to be eligible to run the bingo and to use the money that they need for their groups.

I want to clear up any thoughts that anyone may have on this lottery business. I understand the significance of the revenue that can be raised throughout the province through lotteries and bingo, and the key here is to make them sponsored, run and properly organized by volunteer community groups, not by the government. We understand there have to be regulations, but this government is saying that the purpose of this bill is to regulate the activities of commercial participants.

For anyone who's never been through this whole bingo issue, let me tell you that in 1978, when I was first elected to Mississauga city council, I remember walking into the last meeting of the outgoing council, and the council chamber was jammed. It was packed. The issue on the agenda that day was bingo and who gets a licence.

What happens is that you get all of the various charity groups saying: "We want into this. We want an opportunity to raise money for our organization and bingo is a good way to do it." Then you get the commercial hall operators. These people are already regulated, they're already restricted by the amount of money they can charge for rent to the charities. A commercial hall operator is not allowed to run a bingo. A commercial hall operator is nothing more than a landlord for the tenants, who are the charity organizations within the community, and they, through working with the municipality, are the ones who get the bingo licence. They need a place to work.

Obviously, the charity groups are not in a position on their own. They all have other jobs. They're volunteers. They're not going to be in a position, either from a time constraint perspective or financially, to set up a great bingo hall with all of the electronic data that's necessary in a modern-day bingo hall, with all of the infrastructure that's needed, with all of the fans to get the smoke out and everything else that's involved. It's expensive to set up this kind of operation. So in comes the commercial operator who sets up a bingo hall and then goes out to the charity groups.

In essence what they have done is they've created modern state-of-the-art bingo halls. They've taken them out of the church basements by and large -- in some instances to the detriment of some parts of the community, although I recognize there's still a lot of bingo going on in church basements, and so it should be throughout this province -- and they've put them into highly commercialized operations.

I think it's appropriate that any government regulate and control what these commercial operators are able to do, what they can charge and how they must operate. This is something this government is going to experience as it moves into the gambling casino era. Like anything else, there is always an opportunity for less than ethical people to get involved in this kind of business.

There's tremendous money. One bingo hall in Mississauga, Bingo City, makes 5.5 million bucks a year in gross revenue. That's amazing. You can just spread that and extrapolate it, and that's only one hall in Mississauga. There are others. They're in Brampton and they're all over the province. I can tell you we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars in bingo revenue being generated to the charities. I don't blame the charities for being nervous when they see this government all of a sudden experimenting with gambling casinos.

1550

By the way, the people of Windsor hope that the revenue that comes out of their casino will stay in Windsor and will go to serve the people of Windsor, and not go to Pink Floyd so he can simply magically pay down his deficit that he's created through the mismanagement of this government.

The people of Windsor also don't trust this government. They see them opening up the gambling casino and, first of all, making a mess of it. Someone suggested they should get organized crime to run it if they want to make money. I wouldn't go that far, but I'm quite sure this government is going to find that it's going to have difficulty wrapping its ideology around this until it sees how much money is there.

Already there are signs the government is going to usurp the money that comes out of the Windsor gambling casino and use it for purposes other than what the original plan was designed for, and that's really unfortunate.

Today charities have more trouble than ever before in raising money. I have a nephew going on a trip with his hockey team. He plays for the North Stars. They're going to Europe. You can say, "Well, that's grandiose and they're a bunch of spoiled little kids." Not true: Those kids have raised money; they have sold chocolate bars; they have had car washes. Those kids have worked for two years to raise the money necessary, and whatever shortfall there is will be made up by the parents. They've run bingo, let me tell you, and they've raised money for this trip by bingo.

I've been involved in that. Twice I've led teams over to Europe and I know how difficult and how hard it is but, Mr Speaker, let me tell you that there's nothing more worthwhile for a young person than to experience that kind of happening.

In 1985 I led a baseball team through the Orient. All the money was raised by the kids, by the parents and by the community groups. Thay worked hard to ensure that the money was there so there wouldn't be one person on the team who couldn't afford to go. We all pitched in, and that's what happens with all of these groups: Everybody pitches in. If one person raises a couple of thousand dollars more than another person, then so be it. No one will argue against that because it's all for the good of the team.

People understand, when they're running organizations like this, the value to these young people, the things you teach them. You teach them how to be part of a team. You teach them hard work, something that I think today we more and more have to teach our young people.

You teach them that you don't get something for nothing, unlike what we're experiencing today under this government, where a kid has a chance to lay two bucks down on tonight's Monday Night Football game at his Becker's store. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine that we have actually come to this time and place in our society under this socialist government, led by holier-than-thou Premier, Japan-bound Bookie Bob Rae, can you imagine that we've come to this point in our society where a kid can take a $2 bill and go to his corner store and he can place a bet on Monday Night Football?

I've got to tell you that I'm glad my youngest is now 17. I've got a 20-year-old in university and a 22-year-old, and I'm glad they've grown up, because I would hate the thought of them being 10, 11 or 12 years old. They would be attracted to this lottery. Who wouldn't? You've got Don Cherry standing up, "Put your money where your mouth is." Don Cherry's one of their heroes.

You've got an opportunity to bet on Mario Lemieux in the Pittsburgh Penguins against the Leafs. Well, for a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old youngster, that's pretty exciting stuff. They get a chance to bet on Monday Night Football. Maybe the old man's been doing it through a bookie for a couple of years. That's his business. It's really unbelievable that we would have literally stumbled down the road to this point in time where we have that kind of accessibility available to our young people.

I know from talking to people in all three parties that there is general concurrence and agreement with my private member's bill that we should make it illegal to sell lottery tickets to our young people, and yet I can't seem to get the government to move. I hope that'll happen. That's not Bill 26, but it all relates to the bankruptcy of this particular government in having to resort to these kinds of desperate, revenue- and money-grabbing measures. They'll do just about anything, if they don't get caught at it, to raise additional revenue until somebody blows the whistle.

Prove me wrong. Go to your House leader and get him to bring in a motion for unanimous consent to pass Bill 92, and we'll make it illegal to sell lottery tickets to kids. Don't sit there getting all huffy with me. Prove me wrong. I'll be the first one to stand up in this place and say congratulations to the Bob Rae government for showing some action, congratulations for making it illegal for our young people to gamble in their corner stores. I will. I make that pledge that I will do that if you in that caucus will convince your government House leader to get off his butt and bring in unanimous approval to give second and third reading to that bill.

Every day we sit around here and go: "Well, there is due process. We've got to make sure everything's okay." One of the lawyers in the bureaucracy said he was concerned that there might be a charter challenge to the rights of children if we were to make it illegal for them to gamble. Can you believe it? Let them challenge. Let the lawyers bring in a charter challenge. I'd be delighted. I'm not a lawyer and I'd fight that one without a problem.

Maybe we should allow our kids to drive cars at 7, maybe we should sell them a beer at 14 in a bar anywhere they want to go, because we don't want to step on the poor little babies' rights in New Democratic Party Ontario. Why don't we let them run for office? Maybe they would do a better job, come to think of it. Maybe they would do a better job. Maybe we wouldn't have cabinet ministers getting booted and resigning every other week.

But we have to understand that we have some responsibility to recognize the good work that is done on an ongoing basis by all the volunteer charity organizations in this province. We have to make sure that we don't just inadvertently pass legislation that will hurt the efforts of those people.

The new rules that will be put into place to allow charities to run gaming activities will significantly expand the market for the lotteries. I know there are a lot of charity groups that want to get into the instant win -- what do they call them? -- Nevada tickets. They want to get into the scratch-and-win. They want to do all that kind of stuff.

By the way, this sports lottery that I've been going on about -- I note to the aggravation of some, but I don't care; I happen to think it's a critical issue -- is not the first time. Even though it brought it to my attention and to the public's attention, it's not the beginning of selling lottery tickets to young people. The scratch-and-win, you know, where they buy it for a buck and scratch and win a buck back or win a free ticket, whatever, has apparently been quite popular. We're all surprised at this. We didn't recognize that perhaps there was that kind of money being spent.

I know that particular lottery, like the lotteries, like the bingo games, like the Nevadas, will raise millions of dollars in the province. If it's done under the auspices of the charitable organizations, in my view and experience, it's good clean fun. It's done for a purpose. They have a game plan. They know exactly what they want to do. They're not raising the money to bail out the Treasurer. They're not raising the money to bail out the Minister of Health or the Minister of Community and Social Services. They're raising the money because they have a game plan. They want to take a team on a trip, they need new equipment for the teams, they have some concerns that they represent an organization, they want to use the money for research in a non-profit way. There are very good things that it's used for.

My closing message to the minister, aside from the fact that I have frankly a lot of personal concerns about the apparent attitude of this government that, "If we've got a problem, we'll just generate a lottery or we'll just come up with some cockamamy idea," those concerns aside, is that I want to say to the minister -- and I believe this minister agrees with me -- we want to ensure that we put in place legislation that does not harm the charity groups, we want to ensure that we put in place legislation that puts down rules and regulations for the commercial operators, clear-cut guidelines for the municipalities under which they can issue these licences and an opportunity for these charity groups to keep doing the very good work they do.

Minister, if that is your intent, I congratulate you and will support you in those attempts.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

1600

Mr Tilson: I would like to respond to the member for Mississauga West and his comments with regard to this bill. I think he's right. I think one of the big concerns the government should have is the control this government is giving with respect to regulations and the regulation of the whole gaming industry.

The ability of the government to take control of this industry is simply unlimited. There's no process for a review of the regulations. When you read the generality, for example, of section 48, it simply says:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(a) prescribing anything that is referred to in this act as being prescribed by the regulations."

Very general wording. There is nothing with respect to reviewing these regulations on an annual basis or a triannual basis commencing from the date of royal assent. There's nothing with respect to that.

I believe that one of the main problems with respect to this piece of legislation is that it paints all owners of and suppliers to bingo parlours as being nasty boys. When you read the sections of the bill, specifically sections 10(b) and 10(a), the obligation of these people is that they're going to have to prove to the registrar that they are individuals with "honesty" and "integrity" and are working in the best interests of their community. Who knows what these words mean? But it's putting a tremendous onus on these people.

It's even being suggested that these people must receive fingerprinting. Have you ever heard of such a proposal? If these regulations that are going to be proposed by this government -- we haven't seen any yet, but it's certainly been suggested that these people will be obliged to take fingerprinting. It normally, of course, is a suggestion for some criminal element to require fingerprinting, and I don't think this is the case.

So in order either to review or renew an existing licence or apply for a new licence under the legislation, the individual literally must jump through hoops for the registrar. I think that's totally unfair.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to rise in support of the comments of my colleague the member for Mississauga West and, I think, make two particular points. One is with respect to his private member's bill, Bill 92. I would hope that those people who have been watching the debate on this issue -- those parents, many of whom I know have been in touch with my colleague, with myself, with other members about making sure that young people cannot bet on lotteries -- would be getting in touch with all of us as individual members to say, "Look, this is something we want to see ended."

The member for Mississauga West has put forward a very sensible and simple bill. He has said as recently as today that he would be more than happy if the government would simply take that bill over, bring it in, and we could ensure a speedy passage of it.

But it is an issue out there that I've found has struck a real chord with many parents. I would hope it would be something where the government would say, "Look, this is something that doesn't make sense, that young people should be able willy-nilly to bet and gain money in that way," and that it's something we don't want to get them started on. Because what happens, of course, with so many kids is that they lose the money; they don't win. They're learning that that's the kind of thing you do to get sort of instant gratification, instant wins, and of course life isn't like that.

So I think one of the things we want to say to people who are following this debate is, let's get in touch with all of the members and say, 'Government, act on that private member's bill and make changes."

The second thing I want to note is just to underline what the member for Mississauga West said about helping the charitable groups. The Boys' and Girls' Clubs, for example, have written to many of us saying, "Look, we want to make sure we can continue to do what we've been doing."

We support the member for Mississauga West in his comments and we say to the government, let's bring in the private member's bill in 1992 and see some action.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Mississauga West, you have two minutes.

Mr Mahoney: I won't put words in her mouth, but the minister apparently has been quoted as saying that this bill is totally unrelated to the issue of casino gambling and other forms of gambling. While in the strictest interpretation of the bill that may be true, overall I think we have to recognize that legal gambling in this province is a $4-billion industry already. We can stick our head in the sand and pretend it isn't, but when you share it among charitable games, such as bingo played, as I've said, by the many various groups, the government lotteries, whether it's the sports line lottery or, prior to that, all of the straight number lotteries, or horse racing -- horse racing is a huge industry and a very important industry.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: It's $2 billion, the horse racing alone, the minister says. It's also a good form of entertainment.

My whole point in all of this is that it should be adult entertainment, and I don't mean that as some kind of purist, because I've dealt with young people, kids, having, as I've said, three young boys myself -- you can appreciate that leads to having many young folks around the house all the time over the years -- having been a coach in teams and involved for many, many years.

I'm kind of proud of the fact that I have a good relationship with the young people I know. Last summer I even played on a hockey team, believe it or not, where, other than me, the average age was about 19. So I appreciate that relationship, and I think it's important to understand that we're talking about charitable games that are being used to raise money for the benefit of those people.

What I am tying in -- I think it's all related -- is that I just implore this government -- and I know we get angry and bash the government; I guess it's in our job description -- that at the same time as we support the minister on this worthwhile legislation, we pass Bill 92 unanimously in this House as soon as possible.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I am delighted to be given the opportunity to speak today for longer than what amounts to the regular speaking time of half an hour as a result of the rule changes brought in by this government some time ago, which we continue to oppose and continue to express our contrary view that in fact democracy is not well served by the limitation of speaking time in this chamber for members to express themselves in their entirety about the issues that matter, and we are dealing with an important issue today, which is Bill 26.

My colleague spoke on it earlier and I want to make my remarks today with respect to the Gaming Services Act. The question with respect to Bill 26 is a $4-billion question, as my colleague alluded to earlier.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Maybe we should have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Lawrence, you have the floor.

Mr Cordiano: As I was saying, legal gambling in the province of Ontario is a huge industry. It's a $4-billion industry. It's shared among government lotteries, horse racing and charitable games.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations estimates that charitable gaming alone generates revenues of about $1.5 billion per year in Ontario. These are the figures I think the minister used in her press release. Approximately 25% of the revenue, or about $375 million, is used for prizes and expenses. The remainder of approximately $1.125 billion is left over for the charities that raise the money.

As the members are well aware, charitable gaming includes bingo, Nevada lotteries, raffles and Monte Carlo nights. As I said, charitable gaming nets about $1.125 billion per year in Ontario, and that money goes directly to the charities that raise the money.

Of course, Bill 26 is intended to regulate the activities of commercial participants in Ontario's gaming industry. I think the minister, in her news release some time ago, dated May 27, alluded to the fact that $30 million is being skimmed off the top of charitable gaming proceeds by what she called "unscrupulous operators." Obviously, this legislation is an effort to ensure that charities get all of the proceeds they raise, and of course I commend the efforts with respect to Bill 26 to do just that.

1610

Members also know that non-profit organizations, such as the Ontario Head Injury Association, have historically relied on the sale of Nevada tickets, lottery tickets, bingos and casino nights to raise a fairly large percentage of their revenues.

With respect to Bill 26, I want to deal with the history of this piece of legislation, how it came about. Members may not be aware, particularly those newer members who were elected in the last election, that legislation was being contemplated when the Liberal Party was the government. We issued a consultation paper in February 1990 which was entitled Charitable Gaming, putting charities back in the driver's seat. I think it's important to recognize what efforts were made to do just that with charitable organizations: putting them back in the driver's seat, giving them control with respect to direct revenues and giving them a full say and greater opportunities to increase those revenues.

As a Liberal government, we introduced legislation in June 1990, and of course it died on Orders and Notices, but the broad strokes of this bill are none the less very similar to what we had intended in that piece of legislation. But, as I say, the problem now of course is that we have to see regulations which the minister has yet to bring about. I hope those measures will put in place opportunities for the bill to be followed properly with respect to the regulations that are enacted and will in fact do what was intended in the legislation.

Bill 26 is split up into five sections. Part I provides for the setup of a registrar of gaming services and allows for deputy registrars.

Part II deals with registration and requires suppliers and gaming assistants to register with the gaming services registrar. That's important, because certain standards have to be met in the gaming industry, and those will be seen as part of this section.

Part II also allows the registrar to conduct inquiries of the applicant in areas such as financial history and competence of the applicant. I know the Conservative critic has alluded to the kinds of investigations which will be conducted, checking for things like criminal records etc, and he certainly made comment on the fact that he's uncomfortable with certain aspects of this. I think a full disclosure and a full and open investigative process need to be undertaken and I have no difficulty with that, so I would support the initiative to have full and open investigative procedures in place to do just that.

Part II further allows for any supplier or gaming assistant who has his or her gaming registration suspended or revoked the right to a hearing before the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

Part III deals with the parameters of activity of the gaming assistants and suppliers. Suppliers are required to keep financial records; again, very significant, the keeping of financial records. We want a proper accounting with respect to what takes place in these operations. We need to ascertain, for the purposes of guaranteeing the kinds of revenues that we're talking about, assured to the charities, that proper records be maintained. That is crucial, and that is certainly provided for in part III of the bill.

Part IV addresses the issues of investigations and enforcement and, as I said earlier, that is also very crucial.

Part V speaks to general items such as offences and regulations. I've made mention of the fact that regulations have not been forthcoming and obviously will be. I know that charitable organizations and suppliers have both expressed concern with respect to these regulations. The actual impact of the legislation with respect to charities' abilities to raise funds will not be known until that time, until regulations are introduced, but I would urge you to listen closely to what the charities have to say with regard to this because it's important not to lose sight of who this legislation was intended to help.

I want the minister to ensure that in the setting-up of a registrar of gaming services we do not have the same fiasco, if you will, that we had in the office of the registrar general, in the setup, in the time that it takes to set up the registrar. Certainly, the kind of mismanagement that took place at the ORG we do not want to see take place with this office.

It's absolutely crucial that this office be set up properly and I implore the minister not to bring about a situation where there is mismanagement on the part of that office, as this is critical to the survival of charities. That's what's important here, the survival, and we are talking survival, Madam Minister. We're talking survival because --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Talk to the bill.

Mr Cordiano: I am talking about the bill, and if the member would listen he might learn something.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm falling asleep here. Do the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, if the member wants to fall asleep, I suggest he go home, have a hot cup of tea, rest his feet in the air and contemplate what he's going to do here for the next two years, because he hasn't done very much in the last two.

I want to talk about the survival of charities because essentially that's what this bill is supposed to do: allow charities to survive, allow them to generate revenues which are an improvement over the past. I say to the minister, that's all fine and good and this legislation, in and of itself, will probably do that, all things being equal. But as we know, all things will not be equal. The fact of the matter is that you can't take this bill and deal with the impact of it in isolation. I think this is where this government is fundamentally wrong in its whole approach to this whole area.

My colleague the member for Mississauga West has raised important concerns with regard to the Pro Line sports lottery and the implications for young people, and I support his efforts to ensure that things do not get out of control in this province.

As we had gaming on this front, with respect to charitable organizations, things were pretty well under control, and I know that Bill 26 is going to improve the situation and the lot of charities. When you get out of control with respect to sports lotteries that enable young people to go out and literally gamble unbridled, uncontrolled, we're losing sight of what was intended by this minister, what was intended by this administration, with respect to the whole area of casino gambling and gambling in general.

1620

This is a fundamental question, and if the member for Yorkview is paying attention and not falling asleep as he usually does in this place, he would want to listen to this because --

Mr Mammoliti: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: I have yet to fall asleep in this place and I don't know where --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lawrence, would you please continue your debate?

Mr Cordiano: The member was earlier commenting on the fact that he was about to fall asleep, so I wanted to perk him up a little and make sure he wasn't going to fall asleep in his place.

I think it's important for this administration and for the people who make up this administration to realize that what we're doing here with respect to gambling in general is fundamental to the people of the province. We are altering once and for all the general landscape with respect to how people approach this subject. Now, once casino gambling is a reality of this province -- we now have a commitment by this government to bring about casino gambling -- we will no longer have opportunities to go back and address the kinds of concerns that have been raised by the member for Mississauga West. We can't have a situation where young people are allowed to gamble their money away, because that's quite a big concern for most parents to have their kids -- it's not a good example for kids; it's not a good example.

I think this government needs to address that immediately. That's why we call and the member for Mississauga West has called for the government to act immediately on his private member's bill. This government shouldn't waste any time. I know the minister is moving forward quickly to address the whole question, to bring forward the initiatives with respect to the pilot project in Windsor. This train is moving rather quickly, so there is nothing that you should do to waste time with respect to this whole area.

If we're going to have casino gambling, then do it properly. If you're going to bring about a fundamental change in attitudes in this province, let's ensure at least that young people are not dragged in with it. Let's give them the opportunity at least to look at other types of entertainment rather than gambling, because we know if they're indoctrinated to this type of lifestyle in their early years -- I don't think anyone in this House would support that view. I don't think there's a member in this House -- and I'd be shocked to discover that there would be -- who would want to see young children out there gambling, following those examples, because young people are affected by this. Young people are shaping their minds. Young people look for role models, for the things in our society which would point them to a future, and it's not a future, I suggest, that should involve gambling at a young age. When they become adults, that's a different matter; they're old enough to make their own decisions and I think that needs to be respected.

Let's give young people an opportunity before they go ahead and have unbridled opportunity to gamble in our province. That's certainly not something we support, and I suggest, again, that is certainly not something I would want anyone in this House to support.

I say it is important, it is absolutely crucial, that we understand the impact, the implications, that casino gambling will have with respect to charitable organizations. Bill 26 does nothing to mitigate the damage that will be done to charitable organizations with respect to casino gambling. The advent of casino gambling will seriously impair the opportunities for charitable organizations to raise revenues. There is no doubt about that. The minister has refused -- this government, Bob Rae's government, has refused -- to examine that very fundamental question: What will be the impact on charitable organizations? What will be the impact with respect to their revenues? Will they continue to have the opportunities that they've had in the past to raise revenues? They have done so for many, many years now and have become reliant on those revenues. As I said, $1.125 billion is raised by these charitable organizations from gaming activities. I have to repeat that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How much?

Mr Cordiano: It's $1.125 billion. It is an enormous amount of money. What the government miserably fails to understand is that once casino gambling becomes a reality, once those casinos are in operation, they will be competing, they will be sucking away gambling business from these charitable organizations, their gaming nights, their casino nights, their bingo operations. They will be drawing all that business which would have normally gone to these casino nights into the casino establishments themselves.

I ask you, how in the world are these charitable organizations going to compete with full-fledged casinos around the province? They're not going to be able to. This government has done precious little to look at that question. They haven't even bothered to look at that question. They aren't even looking at it with some really in-depth studies to determine what might happen.

I think it's important to note that when I asked the minister in committee about the kinds of impacts that will be resultant on the charitable organizations, she simply suggested that they weren't part of the revenue picture, that they weren't going to share in any of the revenue and that in fact they would be consulted -- about what, I don't know -- about the establishment of casinos in the province of Ontario.

I say to you -- and this seems to be the style of this administration -- that they say all the right words. "Consultation" is one of those words. "We will consult with the affected groups. We will consult with anybody and everybody who is interested in this matter or any matter that the government wishes to put forward." But these are very hollow words. They do not live up to the expectations they create.

I know for a fact that the charitable organizations have not been consulted with respect to revenues. They've been talked to very briefly about what's going to happen, but certainly they have not been consulted on the give and take that's required. Furthermore, it's been suggested to them that Bill 26 would alleviate most of their problems -- and I agree -- with respect to the world that we face today, the world we have in place today. But the world is a changing place, and in six months, a year, two years or three years from now, when casinos are full-fledged and in operation throughout the province, that world will be fundamentally different. That world will involve competition of an unparalleled kind, competition with charities. They will be seriously damaged, as I said earlier.

Going back to the central focus of this with respect to Bill 26, again, it speaks to the lack of consideration on the part of this government before it acts. I would suggest that perhaps, if they conducted their consulting properly, talked to the right people, listened and then acted upon those recommendations made to them -- you know, you don't have a licence, you don't have a monopoly on what's right in this province.

1630

Mr Bradley: They think they have.

Mr Cordiano: Yes, they certainly do think they have.

If they would wake up over there and understand that they need to do more with respect to the way they consult -- as I said earlier, consultation is not a one-way street. We tell you what's going on and you listen. You've got to get feedback. Not only have you got to get feedback, you've got to dialogue.

When I talk to people out there, they talk repeatedly about the lack of consultation. "The doors are closed at Queen's Park," they say. The doors aren't open. They're not listening to positions that are contrary. They're not listening to the variety. This province has a wealth of variety throughout it. There are people who have different points of view all over the place. If the point of view that's being expressed does not meet with the view of this government, it not only ignores it, it trounces it. They blanket it with their own initiatives, with their own propaganda, to make things look sugar-coated. It's simply not good enough.

As we've repeated in this House many, many times, this province is under severe pressures. The charities are facing severe pressures, my friends. They have the same kinds of pressures as anyone else, in fact, even graver pressures than you can appreciate at this time. I know. I hear from them. They tell us it's quite difficult to operate in these days. As a result, they are turning their attention even more so these days to gaming activities, casino nights, bingos, Nevada lottery tickets etc; whatever they can do to raise funds.

It's important that they be heard by this government. They simply aren't being listened to. They've been cut completely out of the equation.

I look around at the members who are sitting in this House, the members opposite, part of that government. They will probably hear a great deal from various charitable organizations in their ridings that will be calling on them to tell this government very clearly that it cannot leave them high and dry. Once casino gambling is in place, you simply can't abandon them unless you're prepared to make up the shortfall in some way. I have yet to hear that commitment from this government.

I ask you, how are you going to do that? Remember, it's $1.125 billion that is raised by these charitable organizations from their gaming activities. That's nothing to sneeze at. It's a huge amount of money. I implore this government to seriously consider the implications and ramifications of that.

As I said earlier, I spoke to many organizations across the province and they expressed deep concern with this situation. They pointed out repeatedly that support from the government has been steadily declining, and as I said earlier, the reliance on gaming activities has increased.

I think all charities really want is the opportunity to help themselves. They're wonderful organizations. They go out, they see problems and they organize to solve those problems. Not only that, they involve all kinds of volunteers, essentially enabling them to carry out their good work and do it in the most efficient way possible for the whole of society to benefit.

This government, which is fond of making things costlier in our society as a result of its views -- that party over there has done that over the past because of some of the views it holds -- would have us do a number of things that ultimately would make things more inefficient and more costly.

This is one of those cases where charitable organizations fulfil a great need in our society, do it admirably and deserve not only our accolades and applause but deserve our support, from this extent at least, that we do not interfere with the good work they do, that we not make it impossible for them to carry out this good work.

I want to make reference to an example, and a good example, of what I'm speaking about, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. I was written to by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. I'm sure other members have received this letter from the president. I want to read into the record parts of this letter, which raises a number of concerns that I've alluded to earlier, but it makes the point. I'm quoting from the letter:

"It is in relation to the legalization of casinos that I, on behalf of our provincial board and member agencies, am communicating with you. Let me begin by stating that agencies such as ours require diversified funding bases in order that we may be able to respond to the unique and individual needs of communities in which we serve. The existing legislation, which allows us to operate Monte Carlo and blackjack events, creates some of these needed revenues.

"We have been closely monitoring the development process for casinos over the past months and in the press to date we have seen little information about which partners the government is working with on this issue. The 'who' questions relate to who is involved in the development process for the legalization of casinos, who will be involved in the implementation of this system and which of the partners will share in the profits generated from the proceeds." Now we have some of those answers.

I see the minister is back. I just say to her that it's important to understand the depth of concern that organizations are expressing. I'm reading from a letter I received from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario commenting on the new legislation and the impact that casinos will have on its ability to raise revenues. The letter goes on, and I say for the minister's benefit:

"We wish to clearly state that we feel charities must have a significant role to play not only in the development of this new industry, but in being in a position to receive a portion of the funds generated. While we recognize that through this new initiative proceeds will be directed to government spending, we feel that charities should also benefit from the process. While we also realize that private enterprise has a role to play in this new industry, it would be regrettable if they, rather than charities, were the primary beneficiaries of proceeds."

I think that sums up what charities feel out there, the fact that they've been excluded from any consideration with respect to revenues that may be generated by casinos, the fact that they have not even been consulted properly, that they're not part of the developmental process surrounding this whole question, the fact that they have not even been given the opportunity to make their views known, which is what they say in the letter, that a process needs to be put in place in consideration of casino gambling once the minister moves forward with legislation -- and I hope she's listening now -- that she give charitable organizations the opportunity to make their case before the government, in public hearings, with respect to not only the revenues that will be generated but the negative impact on their particular charitable organizations, the fact that they're going to be hard pressed to compete with casinos in the province.

The minister has to listen to this concern. The government has to take into account this very real difficulty they will face. I know it will be a difficult world to operate in. The recession has really put the squeeze on charitable organizations. I hear this from members on all sides of the House and I hear this repeatedly from people across the province. Obviously, it is a difficult time to raise funds for anyone, and charities are certainly under the gun when it comes to going out and raising these revenues.

1640

As I said earlier, and I repeat again for the minister, charities, charitable organizations, rely heavily on their gaming activities, rely heavily on those Monte Carlo nights, on those blackjack nights, on the sale of Nevada lottery tickets, on bingos; they rely heavily on those activities to bring in the needed and necessary revenues that fund all the good works they do. The minister has to realize that this administration has to realize that once casino gambling comes in we, you, will have put these organizations in a very difficult position. There is no denying that.

What I'm saying and suggesting to the minister and to this government and the Premier, if he's going to listen from far away -- where is he, in Japan, in Asia somewhere? -- is that you have a serious question to deal with in respect of these charitable organizations. Do not leave them hanging dry. Do not leave them out on a limb. Do not seriously impair their ability to raise the kinds of revenues -- and as I said, it's a serious amount of money: $1.125 billion is what they raise each year from gaming activities. The minister knows this. I'm repeating it for the benefit of her colleagues who perhaps are not paying attention at this time.

As I said earlier, there is no other option for these charitable organizations. I noticed that in our committee hearing we heard from the Ontario Racing Commission, and Frank Drea was there to make a presentation to us at the committee. He talked about the changes that are being undertaken with respect to the horse racing industry.

I asked him on a number of occasions, repeatedly in that committee hearing, to give us a view of what might be the reality, the impact on the racing industry once casino gambling is in place, how he felt about that, how the impact would be felt in the industry. He said in response that they're undertaking a series of initiatives to overcome what impact casino gambling might have on the racing industry.

I know the ministry has supported the initiatives and has had a number of obstacles cleared out of the way for the racing industry in this province to then move forward and look at some of these alternatives. I questioned Mr Drea in those committee meetings as to the fact that it won't enable them to overcome all the problems or the downside with respect to gambling having been introduced, and the negative impact this would have on the racing industry.

Ultimately, he did admit that the changes won't overcome all the negative aspects of casino gambling. But, I say to the minister, you've at least enabled the industry to move forward with alternatives in order to fend off the competition that's to come. You've provided for them to do that. You are supporting initiatives in the horse racing industry to allow it to overcome the effects of casino gambling and you're paving the way for it to do that.

But what are you doing for charitable organizations? Bill 26 does not do that, Madam Minister. It does not allow these organizations any real hope that they can overcome the negative impact that casino gambling will have on their efforts, on their operation. I say to you, as I've suggested earlier, that you either allow them to share in the proceeds, the revenues that are generated from this, in some way that's equitable and in some way that makes some sense, recognizing that they will in fact be impacted, that they will see their revenues decline and have a great deal of difficulty overcoming what is an irresistible draw with respect to casino gambling.

You know, when you have casinos in the province --

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I was looking around to determine whether there was a quorum in the House. Could we have a count and see whether there is?

The Deputy Speaker: I'll ask the table if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you. I'm indeed glad to know there are at least 20 people in the House who are willing to listen to this address I am making.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Speaker, not only am I listening, but I'm going to re-read in Hansard every word.

Mr Cordiano: I say to the member for -- what is it, Downsview, or was it the member for Yorkview? -- I hope you do, because in the next election you're going to have to answer for things you're doing now, so stay awake, keep alert and listen. You might learn something, as I said to your colleague earlier.

Getting back to the matter at hand, I think it's --

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Don't worry about it. We don't have the time of day for you.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cordiano: I say to the members up there -- and I know the members who have been interjecting would like to know this -- that they have a number of organizations in their particular ridings which depend on these evenings. I don't know if you've attended any of them, but certainly all of them, I will assure you, will pay you a number of visits to hear what your views are with respect to this initiative of the government. I can assure you that these organizations will be looking to those members. Those members will have to answer for the lack of initiative and expression of their concern for charitable organizations.

You know, the hospitals in our areas raise money, other groups -- I don't need to rhyme off a list of these groups. They're going to come back and say, "Now that we have lost this revenue; now that you've decimated our budgets" -- they have groups doing this already, but these charitable organizations are going to come back, and justifiably so, I say to those members, and say: "You have devastated our budgets. You have completely crimped our ability to raise revenues in the way we have traditionally done so, seriously threatened our operations. Now we're going to come with our cup in hand to this government asking for you to help, or -- "

Mr Bradley: That's because they want them to be beholden to the government.

Mr Cordiano: Well, slavery went out a long time ago. I believe in freedom and I think it's important that this government understand that these organizations operate with volunteers, as I said earlier in my speech, who are very efficient, capable individual men and women out there who do the kind of work this government would be very hard pressed to find replacements for -- any government, of any day, of any stripe.

Once you introduce this, you are unleashing untold damage with respect to these organizations. This is why I'm making this speech in the way I am, because it's a serious matter with respect to all those organizations out there. It's not something you can easily ignore or just push aside. At least, Madam Minister, I say to you, study the impact. At least look at doing a complete study which will indicate what might happen.

1650

Mr Bradley: Tell her to check with Mel Swart. He would tell her what's going to happen.

Mr Cordiano: Mel Swart would be one of those people you should consult with. He'll tell you exactly how things are in his part of the world.

I think it's incumbent upon this minister to show leadership with respect to charitable organizations. I know they don't all come under her area of responsibility, of course. They have a number of ministries -- perhaps the Ministry of Community and Social Services, perhaps the Ministry of Health etc -- that they deal with, but they certainly deal with this minister in respect of Bill 26. She has a listing of all these groups and she has an ability to sit down and talk to these people in a meaningful way to chart out a course.

Show that kind of leadership which will indicate to these groups that you do care, that you will take it to cabinet, that you will make representations on their behalf. There's nothing wrong with showing that kind of initiative, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know how Bob Rae would deal with this, the Premier of the province.

Mr Tilson: Who?

Mr Cordiano: Bob Rae. Remember him? The guy who's overseas. Where is he? In Asia? How come he didn't take any of you gentlemen?

The thing I think it's important to understand, I suggest to you gentlemen over there, is that you should show the kind of leadership which is essential these days. These are difficult, desperate times. People are looking for you, in their respective ridings, in their particular localities, to show and demonstrate that you have what it takes to be here, that you have that kind of leadership, that kind of initiative.

All of you are leaders. Don't just rely on your Premier. Don't just go to him when things are difficult and rely on him to make those decisions. Don't allow him to prevent you from putting forward your views in this House, putting forward your views with respect to what cabinet might do, with respect to a variety of issues which are difficult to deal with, I admit. There's no doubt about that. It's not easy being over there. I admit that. But I say to you, these are difficult times, these are times which require innovative approaches, and we see little of that, we see very little of that.

I say to you, ladies and gentlemen of the government, that you will be facing, several years from now, a difficult situation which you will have to answer for. Once you have decimated these charitable organizations, once you have eliminated the possibility for these very worthwhile efforts that are being made on a volunteer basis -- I repeat that: on a voluntary basis by the people of this province, citizens right across this province -- you will be very hard pressed to replace those efforts.

Governments cannot do everything. Governments cannot replace the efforts of thousands of volunteers out there who do the kind of work which would be impossible for a government to do and pay for. Remember, these are services which are done free of charge on behalf of citizens around the province.

So think, and not only think, but do some serious studying. That's all I ask of the minister. Conduct a real, serious study, an impact study of what the negative effects might be on the charitable organizations out there that are at this moment desperately seeking alternatives to what might be the end of their activities, or a serious impairment to their ability to continue with their efforts at raising money through these gaming activities.

Some groups, such as the U-Bet Ontario Association, have been lobbying the government to establish permanent charity-run gaming casinos. Now, that's interesting. That's something I believe the government should look at seriously. The group and a number of other people believe that if the government is going to insist on proceeding with casinos, they should be run by charities which should retain all of the profits. Many other individuals, such as community organizations, believe that any profits derived from casino gambling should be pumped back into the community in which the casino is located.

Of course, the minister has indicated that she's not going to share the revenues with anybody, that the Treasurer is completely greedy on this matter. He needs all that money for himself, so he said no to any of the local communities. He said no to Windsor. He may give them some money to help with the additional costs of policing etc, but very little. He's not going to see that the revenues go back into -- I'm not suggesting for a moment that it will only be confined to the city of Windsor. Perhaps on a regional basis; improve the economy of the whole region.

The minister has made comment in committee and in this House and outside of this House that the real benefit to these communities will be the spinoffs. You take Atlantic City, for example; that is a casino economy. The spinoff benefits do not exist for Atlantic City. And let's not even talk about Las Vegas, because Las Vegas was intended for that purpose only: gambling. There's only one industry there; it's virtually a one-industry town.

Atlantic City existed before casino gambling went in, and in Atlantic City you have a complete wasteland all around the casinos. Restaurants, hotels, any other type of spinoff the minister wants to allude to is simply not there. Atlantic City does not have any real spinoffs. There are some additional revenues. I believe the state of New Jersey benefits from the revenues that are generated, but they're doing precious little for the local community, the local economy.

It is a complete and utter wasteland. Local businessmen in Atlantic City who thought they would benefit dramatically by the introduction of casinos in their community, right on the boardwalk and in Atlantic City, now find that they could not compete with the casinos, whether it was a restaurant or a hotel or even a parking lot.

This is why I've called on the minister and this government to do the kind of impact studies, in a serious way, in an unbiased way, in an objective way, in an effort to ascertain whether in fact the spinoffs she refers to will result in the kinds of gains she likes to point to and offer up to the citizens of the city of Windsor and the surrounding area.

I say to you, Minister, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a foregone conclusion that the city will benefit from any of the spinoffs. In fact, as has been proven in Atlantic City, the advent of casino gambling has seriously impaired the city's economy there. It has serious implications for the local businesses which operate next to the casinos. They can't compete, and many of them have closed down.

I say to you, Minister, we have very little by way of impact study that you've conducted. I know the project in Windsor is a pilot project, but I've said again on repeated occasions to you, once you introduce casinos, once you go ahead and start the pilot project in Windsor, you're telling me that at some point, if you determine that the thing doesn't work -- and again, we have no way to know what you will consider in terms of standards that will be determined to decide whether this is a successful operation or not. We have no way of knowing that at this moment as we speak.

We don't know what set of criteria you're going to use to make your decision as to whether this is a success or failure. If it turns out to be a failure, are you suggesting that you're going to wrap up operations there and close down casinos for ever; that once you've spent untold millions of dollars establishing this, you have sunk costs -- we know about sunk costs; other governments have been plagued by them -- you're going to reverse yourself and turn back and not move forward with this? No. I don't think so. I think this train is moving. It's out of the station and it's collecting a whole lot of steam.

1700

The fact of the matter is you will be hard pressed indeed to stop casino gambling if you determine, at some future date, that this was all some kind of a mistake. I say to you, study the question even if it takes a little more time and study it well before we actually move ahead. Know what the impact will be on charities, the impact of casinos on the social services of the area, the impact with respect to policing, the impact with respect to crime, the impact on local businesses. What real benefits and spin-offs will there in fact be? You simply have not done those studies, and I say to you, setting up this pilot project is not really the only answer.

You can conduct impact studies. You can have the kind of impact studies which indicate a sense of direction. It's not going to answer all of your questions, but it will point to some direction and it will point to questions being answered, general themes about which we have very little information now.

We can point to Atlantic City. What we see there I don't like, quite frankly, and I don't think any member of this House would want to have what happened in Atlantic City happen in Windsor. I think the people of Windsor will want to pay attention to what happened in Atlantic City. I'm pretty sure they've done their own examinations.

I say to the minister, you're spending untold millions of dollars to set up this pilot project, and once it's in place, knowing what all governments do, once they've spent millions of dollars, you're going to try and make it work. There's no question about that, but don't lose sight of the fact that the impact on the local community and all the other negative impacts that could result have to be mitigated. Quite frankly, I don't know of an example where that has occurred.

There is one place we could look to for some answers. That is Manitoba. I'm sure the minister has done some reading on what happened in Manitoba, as some of her officials and others in the ministry have done some sort of examination on the impact of casino gambling in Manitoba.

We know that small-scale charitable organizations, charitable casinos, were eliminated in Manitoba when the government's Crystal Casino in Winnipeg opened because of the limited gambling market and they just simply closed. I say to you, there is already an example there in Winnipeg, Manitoba. These small charitable organizations couldn't survive in the face of the competition they were facing from the Crystal Casino in Manitoba. So we have examples.

I think it's also important for the minister to realize that as the gambling business grows in this province, competition will also increase over time so that, yes, we may go ahead with the pilot project in Windsor -- it's one casino -- but competition will increase as a result of a growing awareness of gambling in this province. There will be even greater stresses on these organizations once this pilot project is up and running.

As a result of that, what you're going to get as well directly impacting on the charities, with the growth of competition among charitable organizations, is that the payouts will have to increase, resulting in fewer revenues for the organizations that do survive. Some of them will inevitably survive, but they will also have to increase their payouts and as a result have fewer revenues with which to do all of the things they do. Some of them will die off. Some of them will not be able to compete. But as well, some of them will be hard pressed to keep up the level of revenues which they generate today.

If Bill 26 is introduced on its own in the circumstances that we face today, it's a benefit to all charitable organizations; there's no doubt about that. We will support this initiative, this bill, because of that.

One could think that Bill 26 perhaps could have introduced, with respect to charitable organizations, additional measures by the government to take into account what's happening with casino gambling. I would sit here and say that the negative impact is going to be such that we have to do everything possible at this time to ensure that these organizations will at least, for the foreseeable future and in the next period of time, have this benefit of Bill 26 in operation before casino gambling is a reality. So therefore I say that we have supported the speedy passage of this legislation.

I think the minister, who's not here now, would recognize that we have been supportive of her efforts to get Bill 26 passed in this Legislature. I say again to the party in power, the NDP, that it is appropriate that we do everything possible to assist these organizations, and passing Bill 26 at this time I think will have, in some small way, a positive impact on their operations.

I want to return to the situation in Manitoba because it's very instructive for this government. Manitoba, as all members of this House are probably aware, introduced its casino, the Crystal Casino, in 1989. It's a year-round casino which operates with the proceeds going to the health services fund to pay for such things as health research.

The government of Manitoba was sensitive to charitable organizations. That's why I'm raising this again, Madam Minister. The Manitoba experience is very instructive and can give you a guide as to what could be done, unlike the general approach and the attitude we see from this government. But it's not too late to change your approach and change the way in which you're going about this.

The charities in Winnipeg were given access to lottery ticket revenues while the charities in the outlying and rural areas were given award money based on a formula. The formula's a little complicated, but essentially, it's the average revenue generated by casinos over the last three years multiplied by two, which was to allow them a two-year period in which to find other sources of revenue. I hope the minister has considered this. The Manitoba government has negotiated funding agreements with umbrella organizations, with inflation factored in, to provide them with a new set amount of base moneys. Any money the charities make for themselves through charitable gaming is their own.

I say to the minister, what can we learn from the Manitoba experience? But firstly, unlike the minister's stated intentions, the revenues from charitable gaming are going to health-related projects. They've targeted the funds for health projects, not to general revenues as this government intends to do.

It's instructive in this sense, because the government realizes that the moneys it generates from the casino should not be relied on to fund the main operations of the government, to provide essential services. Those essential services need stable funding. They don't need the kind of funding that is provided by casinos, which can fluctuate and has fluctuated.

1710

Of course, I think it's important to recognize that the Treasurer of Ontario wants to get his hands on this money. It's a real worry that he'll become so addicted to this money that he won't look for other sources or he won't look at making the government more efficient. All of a sudden he's got this great, big pool of revenues that are coming in that he begins to rely on. Over the years, as time goes by, he begins to rely on those revenues.

This is very important. The Manitoba government has tried to offset the negative impact that the casinos have had on charitable fund-raising. That government is prepared to look at core funding for charitable and non-profit organizations. I ask the minister, can and will she look at that possibility? Is her government prepared to look at that as an offset?

I think it's important to remember that these groups are going to suffer. As I said earlier, their core-funding requirements are going to increase. If they can't rely on casinos, and they certainly can't rely on project moneys, which they're beginning to rely on now, that's not enough. That is not good enough. The fact of the matter is that they need stable funding. They're going to continue to pressure this government and any government succeeding this government for those kinds of revenues, and rightfully so. If they can't raise it themselves, then they're going to turn back to the government and say: "Look, what are we to do? You take care of this problem." And I wouldn't blame them.

If that's what this government is trying to foster in our society, that people become even more reliant on government, then I say no. I say no to that approach to governance. It is entirely the opposite way in which we believe we should be moving it.

As I said earlier, charities are seeing government support steadily declining. It's not something you can look at lightly. There isn't enough money -- it's scarce out there -- and this is a serious matter for these organizations. It's not good enough to say to them, "Look, we will consult you. We'll bring you along in the process," and then turn around and say, "We need this money. We need this money for the general revenues."

Can't this government understand and realize that what's going to happen on the debit side will show up on the credit side and vice versa? If you don't pay it this way, you're going to pay it that way. Essentially, that's what's going to happen with charitable organizations. Or, worse than that, you're going to have a serious reduction in the level and standard of services which are provided by these organizations which -- I hate to say this -- we depend on.

Society is depending on them at an increasing level, unfortunately, but there are much more needy people today than there ever have been. These organizations fill in the gaps, fill in vacuums that are there as a result of the pressures on our society, the changes that we face in our society almost on a daily basis that result in real needs having grown and a real need for services to fill those needs.

Perhaps this government hasn't looked at these matters in the way it should. I am beginning to think this government just thinks: "We'll introduce these measures come what may. Let's not look at the impact. We have an agenda. We're going to follow it. This is our political agenda and that's that."

I say to the minister again that I can't understand why it's unreasonable -- and is it so unreasonable? -- to conduct full-scale impact studies on a variety of these questions before we move forward with such an initiative. I just simply can't understand that. I think it's appropriate.

I'm beginnning, as I said, to feel that this government does what it has to do to get by, does what it has to do simply to meet its political agenda, does what it does and reverses itself when it needs to. I'm beginning to think that this administration and this party is a party of convenience. It brings about policies and initiatives when it's convenient in the face of principles and beliefs which were long held, throwing those things way out the window.

You can't even describe this as being pragmatic. That we can appreciate, being a party of pragmatists that we are, the Liberal Party. We pride ourselves on being pragmatists. We pride ourselves on finding real-world solutions, practical, realistic solutions. There's nothing wrong with that, but we can't figure you out. One day you're pragmatists; one day you're ideologues -- for the most part you're ideologues -- one day you say one thing and the next day you say another. I know all politicians are accused of doing that, talking from both sides of their mouths, but I say to this government that you have perfected it to an art form and currently it's on everybody's lips: how you've reversed yourselves so completely and so thoroughly with respect to policies and principles that were long held.

It sort of has become: "Well, we'll do whatever gets us through the night" -- that kind of an attitude -- "just do whatever's convenient. On this day, we say this thing; on that day, we say another thing." That's not pragmatism, I'm sorry to tell you. That's not pragmatism. That's a lack of direction, a lack of leadership.

Many people have said that this Premier held great promise for a lot of people, and I admit that. When he was elected, people thought, "This is a Premier, a politician, who we can say has the kinds of principles and holds the kinds of beliefs we want to follow." But I say to the members of this government that what's on the lips of most people these days is that Bob Rae is like any other politician, and that's really disappointing. Worse than that, they can't figure out the direction they're going in. We can't figure out what kinds of policies we can rely on.

Are there any principles over there? Do you guys realize that people are quite confused about the direction in which you're taking this province? One day before the election you certainly weren't in favour of casino gambling and now you are. Before the election, you weren't in favour of shopping on Sundays and now you are, or supposedly we're going to have a free vote in this House to determine that.

Auto insurance, well, you wanted a public auto insurance plan and we certainly don't have that. Not that I'm in favour of that, don't get me wrong. But a lot of people out there have indicated and expressed their deep concern about the direction this government is setting; not so much the policies you're following, because some of the initiatives, a lot of people support. The auto insurance plan that was out there, that was in place, was working and I think a great number of people supported it. With respect to Sunday shopping --

1720

Mr Bradley: The member for Fort York is not listening.

Mr Cordiano: He's not listening. It's wise of them to pay attention, the members for Yorkview, Downsview etc. They should pay attention to this, because they're quite concerned about Sunday shopping. I believe they, as a result of their free vote, will express their opinions in this House freely. I'm sure they will reflect the views of the local constituencies they represent.

My friends, make the Premier aware of some of the things you are concerned about, make the Premier aware of some of the things you believe in, because ultimately it's only your beliefs that you can hold on to as you see your government reverse its policies, reverse its positions. You as a local member, as a backbench MPP, have got to be able to hold on to your views, those principles you hold dear.

Now, if you didn't have them, then we could appreciate your coming into this House, talking about casino gambling, talking about Sunday shopping with respect to the policies you're going to bring about, and the lack of public auto insurance etc. I would not be standing in my place today making this speech.

Mr Mammoliti: Is legal gambling --

Mr Cordiano: I'll tell you what's gambling. When the people of your constituency of Yorkview --

Mr Mammoliti: When people are gambling --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. The honourable member has the floor. Please continue.

Mr Cordiano: The only gambling that took place so far that was of a serious consequence was when the people of Yorkview elected the member who is in place now. That was a serious gamble.

But of course we're going to have casino gambling in the province of Ontario. Then, I say to the members, you'll be able to gamble your lives away for good.

Mr Mammoliti: Thank God they gamble.

Mr Cordiano: I fear for you, because your government took away funding for addiction research and we no longer have that as an option for you if you do go out and become addicted to gambling in this province. I fear for you. I am concerned because quite frankly that is something which should not have been done.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are a lot of interjections, particularly from members who are not in their seats. That is totally out of order. Please, the honourable member for Lawrence has the floor.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm certainly coming closer to the end of my remarks.

These matters are of a serious nature. It is important to understand that. Taking away funding for the addiction foundation which looked into matters associated with gambling is certainly something as well that the minister and this government and her colleagues should be looking at reinstating, in fact increasing funding for, because it's one of those negative impacts which will result in the kind of social ills that we do not want to see in this province.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We will all have the opportunity to participate, but the honourable member for Lawrence now has the floor. Please allow him the opportunity to continue. We are on time allocation. The member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm glad that the members in the back benches have awakened themselves and have joined in the debate. This is truly becoming a debate.

I want to say to the minister that the funding that was there for the addiction research that was being conducted and the kind of efforts that we're going to need in the future with respect to that area are essential. I certainly hope, and I think all members of this House would support, I say to the government members who should be seriously questioning this, looking at the impacts, the real impacts that will result if you do have people who are addicted.

You need to look at the US example. There are people in the US, in and around Atlantic City and elsewhere, who do become addicted to gambling. That's not a fairy tale; that is a truth, that is a reality. To eliminate funding for that very important organization which was conducting efforts to overcome addictions in that regard I think is totally irresponsible.

You can't take all the money from casino gambling, put it into the general revenue fund so that this government will be able to do whatever it wants with it without consideration for those social, negative impacts. One of them is the addiction, the possibility of being addicted to gambling. I think it's very important that the minister also look at the kinds of impacts, the real negative impacts, which will result on the local economy.

As I said earlier in my speech, just to come to a general conclusion about these things, the general impact on the local economy could be a negative one. She hails the advent of casino gambling as a direct stimulus to those local economies, a direct stimulus to the ravaged economy of Windsor.

The devastation that's been unleashed in the community of Windsor has the sympathy of all of us -- not only there but throughout all the border communities that have severely been hurt by not only the recession but cross-border shopping. I understand the initiative to move forward with this is an effort to support and to get growth going in those economies again, but you're simply not giving me or anyone on this side of the House the kind of indications that would suggest you fully understand how best to bring this about, how best to manage this so we get the most positive results from it and the people of Windsor will benefit from the spinoffs.

The minister has said repeatedly that in the long run the people of Windsor will see this as their biggest gain. I say to you, Minister, that is certainly not clear. There's no evidence to suggest that in any jurisdiction -- and I've pointed out that Manitoba has done things somewhat differently with respect to the impact on charities.

You have to understand that these things are for real. You're making decisions which I think will be unalterable and which we probably will have a difficult time coming back to and changing should we form the government, or should that party form the government or, in two or three years from now, heaven forbid, should you form the government.

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: I say that in the most partisan way, yes, but I think it's important to realize that the role you're following, the route you're taking, is somewhat irreversible. The damage you will do we'll be hard pressed to turn back from.

When you look at Atlantic City and the dire consequences of casino gambling with respect to the local economy, I tell you, they're still reeling from the impact of that. It may have helped certain people with respect to the inflation of real estate prices and that, I hope, does not happen in the city of Windsor.

I hope you have a concise, well-thought-out plan which I would like to understand in advance of its being implemented. I think most people in this province would like to understand it because, as I said -- I say and I repeat again, when you have this pilot project, moving forward with it, the initiatives you've undertaken with respect to it, it will be very difficult if it should not succeed. The measures and the criteria you have not stated to determine whether it will be a success or failure, but I know this much: In committee meetings you have suggested, Madam Minister, that $2.5 million or thereabouts has already been allocated with respect to this initiative; $2.5 million to establish a project team. I believe part of that money was used to venture off to Las Vegas and to take part in a conference that was held in Las Vegas on casino gambling. Sending people away on conferences surely cannot be the sum total of all these studies you're undertaking.

1730

I think it would be prudent for the minister to talk to people and bring them into a process whereby we would have a total approach to this, an approach that would consider Atlantic City, other jurisdictions, the impacts, the total picture. That's what we need. We need the complete picture. We do not need tidbits of information that are held by the bureaucrats. That is fine, they need to get up to speed, but I say to you, Madam Minister, ensure that we know what we're doing before this becomes a fait accompli, as it will with the advent of the pilot project, the casino in Windsor.

Once you have placed it, once it's up and running, there's absolutely no way I can see any government then saying, "We're going to shut this thing down." Millions of untold dollars will have been spent starting the entire process, and once you've done that, I think it would be very difficult to say to people: "I'm sorry, but we just simply didn't know what we were dealing with. We simply misunderstood the impact this would have on the province or the lack of benefit that resulted"; in fact, as I pointed out earlier as well, the negative impact that does result.

It will be difficult for this government and that minister to explain why we simply couldn't do impact studies, a comprehensive analysis of what the world would look like. Governments do this all the time, Madam Minister. I'm sure you have studies that are done for you on a number of questions. Unless you're withholding those studies -- I have requested that we see any studies you are conducting -- or you change your mind and you're going to conduct studies, then I would appreciate learning about those and I would appreciate this government bringing those things forward for all to see. It's that important.

The magnitude of the question we're talking about relates directly to the negative impact this will have on charitable organizations. We'll deal with the impact of casino gambling. I'm sure we will be given an opportunity to deal with this in the casino act. I know the minister has committed to a complete and comprehensive public consultation process when that casino act comes forward.

I, for one, expect we will have a clearly planned public consultation hearings process so that all the people in the province who want to be involved in that, who want to have their say on this very significant and important subject, will be given the opportunity to make their views known, and this government will not try to have some sort of sham consultation process, which we know on this side you conducted with respect to Bill 40, the labour legislation. It was simply not good enough, and until we got it into public hearings, there wasn't an opportunity for people to consult.

We need public hearings when the casino act comes before us. We will demand that. We need to know that these things will be looked at, at least in a committee, in a public way.

To wrap up my comments, Madam Minister, we will be monitoring the impact on charitable organizations. We will want to know what process you undertake with these charitable organizations. You've suggested on a number of occasions that they will be included in the consultation process and that in fact you've consulted with some of them. I suggest to you that what's taken place thus far has not been fully considerate of the magnitude of this question. You simply haven't done that process, you haven't undertaken it in as comprehensive a way as should be the case.

I say, take great care in dealing with the impact that results to the charitable organizations. Take the time that is necessary to really understand what they're saying, to fully apprise yourself of the real, serious impact that will result from the decision to bring about casino gambling.

You've precluded the possibility of charitable organizations sharing any of the revenues that will be generated from the casinos that you will start in this province. You have not made those revenue-sharing agreements possible with the city. You have not suggested to the city of Windsor that it will share in that, that in fact some of the social ills will fall hard on those very charitable organizations that will be impacted. You've got to see this. In fact, they will be very hard pressed indeed to cope with the fallout from these initiatives. It will be very difficult for them to cope with this as their revenues decline, as the kinds of revenues and moneys that are available to them decline.

If you're not prepared to deal with the outcomes, then I say to you, do not devastate these charitable organizations, do not ransack their budgets, do not take from them what they have now, because that's what you're going to be doing once you bring about casino gambling: You're taking away from these organizations. You're not going to increase the numbers, and there won't be a bigger pie. It won't be that significant. The spinoff, as has been seen in other jurisdictions, is not greater.

I suggest to you we have a serious question here as to the spinoffs and the impact they will have on a local economy and the social questions, the social ills that will result from that. There is a serious question to be debated here. We need full public consultation in place, and I suggest to you, Madam Minister, that you make that commitment.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's time is completed. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Tilson: I have listened, to some extent, to the member for Lawrence and his comments on this bill. I have agreed with him in estimates and in other hearings we've attended to with respect to gambling casinos in this province. He has indicated that he personally intends to support this bill, as do, presumably, members of his party.

I guess the question I have for the member is the unanswered question I have given the minister in this House and in estimates committee as to solving the confusion that has been created by this bill over what charitable organizations and sports groups and municipalities are allowed to do in terms of licensing lotteries for fund-raising purposes. That confusion still exists, and that hasn't been resolved by the minister and it hasn't been resolved in this House. Of course, I've spent some time in this House asking the minister to respond to those questions. I've asked her in estimates to respond to those questions.

Just the very issue of the fact that they put forward a consultation paper, then they put forward a bill, then they put forward a second consultation paper, yet we have no idea whether the minister is going to be submitting amendments to this bill that she has introduced as a result of the second consultation: We really have no idea about that. We seem to be plowing ahead with second reading. We don't know anything about that.

We don't know anything about the requirements that are being placed on both the municipality and the charitable and religious organizations in applying for a licence. We don't know about Nevada tickets, who can apply for and sell them. We don't know about sports lotteries. Can any charitable or sports association run one of these now under the bill? Since the bill hasn't received royal assent yet, are the requirements for licensing the same now, or will they apply after the bill has been passed?

I know the member is as passionately opposed to the proposals of gambling casinos as I am, but I would like to hear his comments on this confusion that's been created by this bill.

1740

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I just want to address very briefly the point that was brought up; I know it's come up before. The terms and conditions are very separate from this bill. It's very important -- and of course I've discussed this with Mr Tilson before and somehow there continues to be a lack of understanding -- that anybody who's listening to this understands that this bill is not about casinos, although people did take the opportunity, and that's fine, to discuss their feelings about casinos today; nothing to do with it whatsoever.

But also it's really very important to understand that the point just recently brought up is nothing to do with this bill, which is there solely to regulate the commercial sector, essentially. The terms and conditions would be going on anyway and we're still consulting around them. It's happening at this very time. The issues that are being raised are important ones, and they're important to the charities, but they have nothing to do with this bill.

An example was brought up earlier by Mr Mahoney. That is on the prize boards. That again, for instance, has been taken care of and dealt with under the terms and conditions. There have been consultations going on for years around this bill and on the terms and conditions and the issue around the prize board. Not everybody's going to agree at the end of the day, I suppose. This was a request from the charities. We are again consulting on that very issue. It will not be included in this bill. It will be included in the terms and conditions. We're hoping that at the end of the day we can have a prize board that will satisfy everybody. It's nothing to do with this ministry or what this government would prefer in the prize boards, for instance, but it's what the charities wanted us to look at, and we're doing so.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Lawrence has two minutes in reply.

Mr Cordiano: I just want to say to the minister that she is introducing this piece of legislation, and obviously she's going to see our support for this. But I want to point out one thing that is very important. The consultation process is not something that was undertaken by this government alone. The consultation with organizations has been and was undertaken very extensively by our government, so that when you got to this stage there was a record of consultation which brought us to this stage.

That is not the case, as I pointed out in my speech, with respect to the impact that casino gambling is going to have, and Bill 26 is very appropriate to deal with this matter on this day. On the one hand you're trying to give something to the charitable organizations in the form of Bill 26, and that is of some value and of some assistance. I supported that and I said our party would support that. That's why we've tried to give speedy passage to this piece of legislation.

It's because we're so concerned about the negative impact your casino gambling act will have, once you introduce it, on these very organizations which you attempt to help today that we want this to move forward. But don't get a mistaken impression. I don't want you to leave a mistaken impression out there that you've consulted with these charitable organizations on the subject of the negative impact that casino gambling will have on them. They are deeply concerned, I repeat again. You simply have not dealt with their concerns, and they say to us that you have no process in place by which they can express their views up to this point. You may have had some meetings with some of them, but I say, a lot is to be desired in the consultation that has taken place with you to this point.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services? The honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I look up at the clock, annoyed that there's the usual amount of time left in this House to debate a bill of this importance, and of course it all comes down to the new rules Bob Rae has brought into the Legislature which now force people to be allocated certain periods of time. I thought the system used to work quite well before, with a couple of aberrations, where things used to pass through this Legislature rather rapidly. But we obviously have a situation now where I'm going to speak on this bill for some period of time, regardless of what Bob Rae thinks I should be doing, because I think it's a very important bill that has been brought forward before the House.

The problem as exists is one which has been known for some period of time, and that is that charities and other groups and organizations have experienced some problems with certain gaming practices. Successive governments -- Conservative, Liberal and NDP -- have looked at this problem with a view to addressing it without causing great problems for legitimate organizations.

The example we brought to their attention was the junior B hockey team -- or junior B baseball, lacrosse, soccer, softball; you name the sport -- where the people were able to carry on their function because they were allowed to have a bingo. There was a threat out there that it would be taken away. Those of us in the opposition who rose in the House on many occasions have obviously persuaded the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that she should not do in those various organizations, which were threatened by government action. Those in opposition, particularly my colleagues the Consumer and Commercial Relations critic, the member for Lawrence, the member for Mississauga West and others, have put sufficient pressure on the government that it has decided to back down in its threats to junior B teams, junior C teams and so on, and if anything has been achieved by the opposition, we can say that has been achieved and compliment the minister on seeing that is the way things should be.

I want to also deal very briefly -- and I say "very briefly" -- with children gambling, people under the age of 18 gambling. My colleague the member for Mississauga West has seen that we now have youngsters in high school -- you talk to them in various locations when they're gathered together -- talking about how they can bet on games. This is under the new lottery we have out in the province of Ontario. I thought speedy passage this afternoon -- I would certainly have been silent on this -- of his bill, which would prohibit people under the age of 18 from gambling in this way, would have been a good piece of legislation to deal with this afternoon. I hope the government sees that that view, as well as our view on the junior B bingos, will be sustained as well.

I keep thinking of the people in the New Democratic Party, which has a long tradition, back in the CCF, of opposition to gambling. I'd be interested to see their reactions. Some are no longer alive today, but I could imagine the reaction of many of them to the installation of a government-run casino in one part of the province and potentially in many other parts of the province.

I know my former Latin teacher, Vince Dugo, would be asking the question in Latin, "Quo vadis? Whither goest thou?" when looking at the government. Another teacher of mine, whom I used to refer to as a parlour socialist, Norm Sheffe -- excellent individual, taught me virtually everything I know about history and was a major influence in my life -- was a CCFer or, as I referred to him, a parlour socialist, who certainly I think would recoil at the prospect of an NDP government bringing in casino gambling. M.J. Coldwell, the former leader of the New Democratic Party, or at least its predecessor, the CCF; Harold Winch in Vancouver East; H.W. Herridge in the Kootenays; J.S. Woodsworth; Bob Carlin -- sorry, Bob Carlin was kicked out of the NDP for being too left-wing. He was a very good member for the area of Sudbury when he was the member for Sudbury, but he was too left for the NDP, and if he saw them in action today, he would certainly be rolling over in his grave, because he did pass away very recently. Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, Stanley Knowles, Fred Young -- good former member from Yorkview -- Jack Stokes, Melville "Bud" Germa, Marion Bryden, Bill Temple: All of these people were strong CCFers who stood for something and stood against something: stood against casino gambling in this province.

I'm told the person who used to be most opposed to casino gambling in the province of Ontario in the NDP caucus meetings was none other than Premier Bob Rae, and today we see his government allowing casino gambling.

1750

There's a problem with casino gambling which is different. If I were a government member, I wouldn't want you to believe that there won't be a vote this afternoon. There might well be a vote this afternoon. But the problem with casino gambling, as I see it -- and it's part of this whole gaming exercise we're talking about today -- is that, first of all, it's a different kind of gambling. It's glamorous. It attracts people who might not otherwise be attracted to gambling. To those who are addicted to gambling it is probably the highest form, the most excitement that can exist.

I don't think my friend the member for Mississauga West will mind my sharing an observation he made to me in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan. He said, "In investigation of this I went to see what a casino gambling establishment would be like, because they were talking about ones in the Sault, Ontario, Windsor, the Niagara Peninsula and the Ottawa area."

He concluded, and I think I'm quoting him fairly correctly, "The very people who shouldn't be in a casino were the people who were in the casino." The very people who couldn't afford to be squandering their money on gambling were those who were addicted to it and were in the casino. That's what you people are promoting when you promote casino gambling in this province.

If you spoke to those families which have an addiction to gambling or where there's somebody in the family who's addicted to it and who may be embezzling funds from a place of work or from a service organization to pay for this form of gambling, you would know that this new policy of the government is not a wise one in the long run. Yes, it will produce some revenue for the Minister of Revenue and for the Treasurer, no question about it, but at what price socially will it produce that amount of money that the Treasurer desires?

We also take away, as my friend the member for Lawrence has said, from the local organizations -- for instance, the Grantham Lions Club and the Grantham Optimist Club in my community -- that have had casino nights. How many people are going to be attracted to that casino when they see a government casino down in Niagara Falls, for instance, if the government were thinking of putting it there? There's no question that there are only so many dollars out there and that those dollars are going to be attracted to a government casino.

There's the argument that we're going to get all this American money or all the money from Quebec, Manitoba or wherever coming into our establishment. If you think that within weeks of establishing a casino in a border area in Ontario you're not going to get one in the adjacent jurisdiction, you're very naïve, because that's precisely what will happen. So the only financially compelling reason for having such an establishment is removed when the competition moves in.

Everyone who has been associated with casino gambling indicates that you will see organized crime move into a community. In my view, Ontario will be no exception if you implement casino gambling. I think members of the government should remember what Bob Rae used to say in caucus, what Bob Rae used to say when he went to the provincial council, what Bob Rae used to say at a full convention of the New Democratic Party and what his predecessors -- good people like Mel Swart, who I'm sure would be opposed to casino gambling and has publicly indicated his opposition to it -- had to say.

I hope that you will take that into consideration and that the NDP, which has always featured itself as the party of principle, not the party of expediency, will look carefully at the potential social consequences of casino gambling in this province and will withdraw from this particular initiative, which is attractive in terms of gathering funds but negative in terms of its social consequences for this province.

As for this particular bill, it is a result of a lot of consultation from various governments. The problems have been there. All of us hope that what has been brought forward by the minister in the form of this bill will solve many of those problems, and we all know there have been. Each one of us knows privately and publicly that there have been problems with gaming practices in this province.

This bill attempts to address that. This bill doesn't do what we had feared it was going to do initially, rob various service organizations and athletic teams of the opportunity to gain funds through working at bingos and holding bingos, and it might well have a positive effect to the province.

That is why our member, our critic in the field of Consumer and Commercial Relations, has indicated that we will be supporting this bill. I only implore the government: When you're thinking about this bill and some of the minor problems you're trying to solve with this, look at the potential major problems that could ensue from casino gambling in good old Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I think the member for St Catharines has raised some points dealing with how much are we going to trust this government with respect to the regulation of this bill. I think that's the real fear: most of this bill is the unknown. A lot of it's being assigned into regulations, the bureaucrats, the very cabinet, orders in council will be passed. We'll have no opportunity to debate many of the issues that are coming forward. I think that's the fear of many of the service clubs, charities and religious organizations that get into fund-raising around this province.

Even the whole fact of identification -- and that's the one fear that has been repeated to me on many occasions, specifically section 6 which has to do with the application for registration. That has to do with personal identification in such form as the regulations prescribed. That's the fear of the rumour that's been flying around, that they're going to put forward a regulation that's going to require fingerprinting in this province.

There are other areas that we're assigning to the bureaucrats and this government which will never come back to be debated in this House. We're assigning it to the bureaucrats and the members of this government in passing the regulations with respect to this bill. Another one has to do with the registration of gaming assistance in section 11 that regulations are going to be passed there.

It goes on through other sections. An identification card is going to be required which again will be at the whim of the government and the bureaucrats as to the form.

Finally, the very general section, section 48, which simply lists all the various things that are going to be required under this bill. We have a great deal of concern as to how much we are going to trust this government with. Would you trust this government with all of these matters?

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I want to very briefly take a moment to expand on the comments made by the member for St Catharines and to congratulate him on his comments. I know he feels very strongly in relationship to casinos and that he personally is opposed to it and has publicly said he would fight that concept and I respect him for that. My concern about casinos is perhaps less based on my ideology of the issue rather than the fact he pointed out.

When I recently had to go to my home town of Sault Ste Marie to attend the funeral of my uncle, we did go over. I didn't ever realize there was a casino in Sault, Michigan. It's been so many years in fact since I've been in Sault, Michigan. A friend of mine said, "Do you want to go see it?" I did. I don't enjoy gambling. Frankly, I don't like to lose. So I generally --

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): How much did you win?

Mr Mahoney: Nothing. I just don't enjoy that, but I went over and it's an exercise that the members in the back benches of the NDP should go through. You should go and see it. It's not a Las Vegas style; it's on a reserve. It's run by the natives and frankly it's quite spectacular. I was very much impressed with the professional level at which everything was run.

But what concerned me is exactly what my colleague pointed out. We sort of did an analysis, unprofessional, just sort of by looking and talking to people as to who was there. I can tell you there were a lot of people who were unemployed, as there are in Sault Ste Marie, and they were most of the folks in this place. It was a Monday night; it goes 24 hours. Most of them were from the Sault, Canada, a lot of them who are laid off from their jobs at the plant, who are desperate, who are taking some unemployment money and gambling it, and you've just got to feel for them.

There's more to this than meets the eye, and I hope this government will take that into account and certainly look to the opinions of the people in the community before just deciding to oppose casino gambling.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for St Catharines has two minutes. He does not need his two minutes. Further debate? Would the minister have some closing remarks? The minister does not have closing remarks.

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 26, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Gaming Services.

Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Ms Churley: No, Mr Speaker, committee of the whole.

The Acting Speaker: So ordered. It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, November 17, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1802.