Journal des débats 1986-oct-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the government of Ontario and on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my colleagues, we would like to recognize Greek National Day. On this very day each year the Greek community remembers the bravery and heroism of Greek soldiers and, at the same time, mourns those who gave their lives on behalf of their native land during the Second World War.

Memorial services and wreath-placing ceremonies are held across the province to commemorate this solemn occasion. These observances ensure that future generations will remember the sacrifices of their forbears. On this day we are especially mindful of the important contribution the Ontario Greek community, which numbers approximately 86,000 people, has made to our province.

I, therefore, invite all members of the Legislature to join me in remembering Greek National Day.

Mr. Davis: We in the Progressive Conservative Party would like to join with the government in acknowledging this special day within the Greek community, this day that is known as Ochi Day, October 28, on which the Greek people remember their soldiers who died in the Second World War.

It was on October 28, 1940, that Greece was forced into war by an Italian invasion from Albania. The Greek army, under General Alexandros Papagos, was successful at driving back the invaders until April 1941, when the Germans also invaded Greece and the country was overrun. The occupation of Greece lasted until October 1944 and was marked by tremendous suffering and great heroism in the face of adversity on the part of the Greek people. Today we join with the Greek people in this solemn remembrance of those who lost their lives during the Second World War.

Mr. Rae: Today we commemorate, as we do every year, the heroism of the Greek resistance on the day when the Greek people said, "Ochi" -- no -- to the forces of fascism that invaded them. It is a historic day in Greece, a day that brings together the population. It is also a historic day in Toronto, because there are many Canadians of Greek descent who commemorate and celebrate this day as well.

In fact, many members of the Legislature of all parties were united as we marched on the Danforth on Saturday in commemoration of this day. It is interesting that in the eight years I have been in elected office this year's parade was the largest and perhaps the best attended, an indication, I think, of the sense from generation to generation that the idea of resistance is one which touches even younger people and brings them all together as they commemorate the resistance with their parents and their grandparents.

It is also a time when Canadians of Greek descent think about the issue of Cyprus, because today the question of the occupation of Cyprus and the condition of refugees in Cyprus is one that continues to dominate the consciousness of Greek people everywhere. It is certainly one that touches me, since I have been able on two occasions to visit Cyprus. I visited the Canadian troops there as well as the refugee camps in the southern part of Cyprus and the occupied north.

Together with many people of Greek descent around the world descent, we say together:

[Remarks in Greek].

13:37

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL VISIT BY SOVIETS

Mr. Shymko: I am deeply disturbed that exclusive preferential treatment is given by the Toronto Board of Education and the principal of Humberside Collegiate Institute to propagandists from a totalitarian police state by comparison to Canadian politicians such as myself. Someone such as myself, or for that matter anyone from another party, is allowed to address the students of Humberside Collegiate only during election debates. Even if I were to address a public issue, other political parties would have to be represented.

I defend this approach because it defines our freedom of speech on the basis of democracy, objectivity and the search for truth by looking at all sides of the issue. This is why I am truly disturbed and shocked that our educators and public trustees have violated free speech by allowing the delegation from Volgograd to speak to our students and not to be bound by this democratic tradition. They have given an exclusive forum to a one-sided propaganda blitz expounding only the Soviet view on the noble and universal cause of peace and disarmament, while the views of our government or our allies are not represented.

I wonder whether our board would apply the same principle to a representative of South Africa talking about domestic and international peace. Probably not. I see no difference between racial apartheid and Soviet political and socioeconomic apartheid. How tragic that those who stand up in defence of democracy, free speech, economic freedom and objectivity are labelled as enemies of free speech.

VOLUNTARY BOARDS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Recently, a number of events in Ottawa around the role of the local voluntary board have raised a question about the role of those voluntary boards, whether the children's aid society, the Robert Smart Centre or, in this case, the Ottawa and District Association for the Mentally Retarded. This case is probably the most disturbing of all in terms of conflict of interest of board members. I ask the minister to listen to what I am saying and to intervene in what is happening there.

Recently, the executive director was replaced on the recommendation of the planning committee and the board of directors. The chairman of that planning committee, a vice-president of the board of directors, has now been appointed the executive director of that agency.

To my mind, this is unthinkable. This has taken place without any public review. It blurs the role of the board and the role of staff and is throwing into question the good name of that agency in the city of Ottawa. I suggest that this is a time when the minister should intervene and should request that there be a full and open competition. Maybe it is time that we in Ontario start to redefine the role of private voluntary boards to make them accountable and to be very sure of what their role is in the management of those agencies.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr. Villeneuve: I wish to raise a subject of increasing urgency, which concerns senior citizens in rural parts of our province. First, there is a growing shortage of municipal nonprofit housing for seniors in rural Ontario. In my own riding, for instance, we have identified a need for seniors' nonprofit housing in three areas: Lancaster, Chesterville and Crysler.

Lancaster was given support to create Lancaster and District Non-Profit Housing Inc. and had even received unofficial assurance that funding would flow. They have now been told there are no funds. The village of Chesterville has also been turned down. The village of Crysler is still awaiting a final reply, while the number of seniors who could utilize these facilities grows.

To make matters worse, the core needs criteria, which seniors must meet to obtain access to 40 per cent of their spaces, ignore the plight of many seniors. These elderly people own their own modest homes but can no longer maintain them; yet the fact that they have assets prevents them from having access to these units.

The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) has been totally unsympathetic. In fact, he has said in writing that in the future seniors across Ontario will receive a smaller portion of municipal nonprofit allocation. Will seniors have to hire Liberal hacks to lobby on their behalf, as seems to be the case in other areas touching this government?

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: Twice recently, including yesterday, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) has tabled in this House his comparative figures on auto insurance rates between the public plans in the west and insurance available in Ontario. The figures he tabled purport to show that rates are lower in Ontario than in Manitoba.

Two things should be noted. First, the minister was fed these figures by the private insurance industry, hardly a neutral source. Second, the minister is careful never to state that these figures are representative and that insurance rates are generally lower in Ontario.

Even John Lyndon, the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, gave figures in last Saturday's Toronto Star that showed British Columbia rates 14 per cent lower than Ontario's. Of course, BC has the most accidents and the highest rates of any of the public plans in the western provinces.

Let us look at neutral surveys. The Globe and Mail on January 2, 1985, reported rates on average 50 per cent higher for adult drivers in Ontario than in Manitoba. The Canadian Press on January 9, 1986 reported Ontario adult rates 14 per cent higher than those in BC, 70 per cent higher than those in Saskatchewan and 100 per cent higher than those in Manitoba.

Yesterday I quoted the 1978 Woods Gordon report in depth on the comparison of the Ontario private system versus the public plans in the west. This report showed that, for an equal payout in claims, the western motorist paid 20 cents less per premium dollar.

The minister said he found it strange that I would give him that figure, which is eight years old. That is his fault, not mine. He has an obligation to update the figures.

FLOODING

Mr. D. W. Smith: I bring to the attention of this House a meeting I was able to attend last Sunday of the St. Clair River and Lake Huron Coalition. About 200 people attended this meeting. They are very concerned about the high water level in the Great Lakes and about the facts that were brought out that a tremendous number of miles of shoreline and assessment along this shoreline are in the jeopardy from the high waters and from the wave action from these high waters.

I hope the members of this Legislature, and especially this government, can help in some small way the people who are concerned about their property along the shoreline. The one thing that came out during the meeting is that they are not asking for a lot of grant dollars. They are asking possibly for loans and for time to help pay for groynes or sea walls along the shoreline.

In bringing this to the attention of the House, I hope this government and the members of this Legislature will help these people along our shorelines.

CZECHOSLOVAKIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mr. Shymko: Notwithstanding the astuteness of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship and culture (Mr. Ruprecht), there is another anniversary that is celebrated today. I want to remind the members that today marks the anniversary of Czechoslovakian independence.

It was on October 28, 1918, after a century of tremendous effort by the Czech and Slovak people, that a free and independent Czechoslovak state came into being under the leadership of the famous Jan Masaryk. The new independent republic became a model for democracy in central Europe.

As members know, at the onset of the Second World War, in 1938, the first democratic republic came to an end because of the Nazi occupation. It was later reinstated for three years until 1948, when a Communist coup d'état occurred and Czechoslovakia again became a Soviet satellite. Even in the spring of 1968, glimmers of freedom were crushed by a Soviet invasion.

These events led to an exodus of refugees seeking new life and freedom in the west. A great number of these refugees came to Ontario to establish their homes and to integrate into our Canadian society. The last census indicated that 33,000 people of Czech and Slovak origin live in Ontario.

Today we all join in solemn remembrance of a republic that in its brief existence developed into a showpiece for democracy in central Europe for the rest of the world.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Morin-Strom: Last Friday the Algoma Steel Corp. and the Algoma Central Railway announced that the federal and provincial governments had given a commitment to participate in subsidizing freight rates for moving sintered iron ore from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie. The issue revolves around a $5 million, per year difference between what Algoma Steel is offering to pay and the rate the ACR wants to charge. Rather than negotiate the difference, the two companies are looking to the public purse for a handout for an indefinite period.

The fundamental issue here is whether the Algoma Central Railway is a viable rail line that can continue to make a profit in the long run. We do not need a short-term solution to this problem. If the railway is a viable enterprise, why should the taxpayer subsidize its operation? If the railway is not viable, the Ontario government must guarantee the long-term operation of this essential freight service by having the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission take over the ACR's rail line.

I ask the Premier to consider carefully before he acts on this matter.

13:48

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yesterday the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) raised a question concerning the proposed convert-to-rent project. It was alleged that the project had been given special treatment by the Ministry of Housing and that it did not meet the program requirements.

Such allegations cannot be treated lightly; so I asked the Deputy Minister of Housing to conduct a thorough investigation. This involved senior ministry staff as well as personnel in the field office who were responsible for processing this particular convert-to-rent application.

This morning my deputy minister reviewed the proposal again. He confirms that it falls within the program guidelines and that no special treatment was accorded to anyone.

For the amplification and clarification of the House, let me walk through the process. The main aim of the convert-to-rent program is to help increase the amount of rental stock and to produce affordable rental housing. In June 1984, the former government decided to revise and expand the regulations to permit demolitions on nonresidential sites.

The key provision of that 1984 policy change stated, and let me quote two appropriate sections of the guidelines:

"Project eligibility expanded to include all conversion of nonresidential structures; demolition of an existing nonresidential building to enable new construction on a nonresidential site."

The honourable member was factually incorrect on at least three occasions in his statement in the House yesterday when he stated that to be eligible for this program, the project must convert existing rental stock.

At this point, I wish to inform the honourable members that three projects based on the demolition criteria have been approved. Two of them, in London and Bourget, were approved by the previous administration.

Let me turn now to the Toronto waterfront project, which has been subjected to such scrutiny. This project, being developed by Huang and Danczkay Ltd., calls for residential and commercial components on Maple Leaf Quay North on Toronto's harbourfront. The former Maple Leaf Mills site we are talking about contained an old office building at the time of the application. The silos were demolished some months before. Again, the member was incorrect.

Two 21-storey towers are planned, and the project will provide Toronto with 502 units of much-needed housing.

The convert-to-rent application was made on January 13, 1986, and the loan request was for $3,515,000; $7,000 per unit for the 502 units. The total capital value of the project at that time was estimated at $36.6 million, of which $22.6 million was estimated for the residential component. I am advised by my deputy that the application was treated in a normal fashion. The project has to meet all municipal requirements and building approvals.

To summarize, the proposal clearly meets the criteria of the convert-to-rent program, criteria that were put in place in 1984. Other projects have already been approved and built under the same eligibility requirement, which includes, I repeat, demolition of an existing nonresidential building to enable new rental construction on a nonresidential site. The proposal has been given conditional approval, which means it will not be given final approval until all municipal requirements are met.

Contrary to yesterday's claims, no funds have flowed to the builder, because all municipal requirements have not yet been met.

The member for Brantford also alleged yesterday that the development had been given "special treatment," a claim that disturbs me greatly. I am assured that the application was handled in the normal way. The normal process of application review has taken longer than usual because of the size and complexity of the proposed project.

If the member for Brantford has any evidence or any facts that indicate there was any undue pressure brought to bear on the public servants involved in processing this application, I suggest that he bring them forward now. The member should know that such actions would constitute a criminal act. If he has any information to support his allegations, I request him to bring the information forward at this time. If he does not, he should retract his allegations.

Mr. Gillies: Even from the Minister of Housing I have seldom heard such a nonsensical statement as the one he made in this House this afternoon. Once again, I will walk the minister through the rather unusual approval of this project.

The minister maintains that the convert-to-rent program was set up by the previous government, and in that he is quite correct. This project, which is the construction of apartment towers on vacant land previously owned by Metropolitan Toronto on the waterfront, was by his definition a conversion. The minister would have us believe these buildings are being built adjacent to, on top of or around silos that were demolished in October 1983, before the program was even announced.

I am sure the minister is familiar with the criteria listed for his own program. In the event that the minister is not familiar with these criteria, I will go through them for him. They are what members' constituents and mine would be subject to if they wanted to qualify for this program. Members should check the following to see whether their concept might qualify for interest-free loans that help to create new rental apartments.

"Converting nonresidential property into rental housing," such as "empty school or office, warehouse, factory, space over retail store." No mention of vacant land previously occupied by grain silos. Let us try again.

"New rental construction connected to nonresidential buildings." I do not believe the apartment towers are connected to the grain silos.

"Converting part of single-family homes into rental apartments." I invite the minister to show me the string of waterfront bungalows that are being built upon by Huang and Danczkay.

"Creation of hostel-type accommodation from nonresidential space." At $700 to $1,100 per unit, I do not think we will see many people in search of hostel space living in the Huang and Danczkay apartments....

"Making better use of residential sites/ properties by converting space not used for housing -- such as storage, garage and utility areas." This is clearly not the case.

The minister maintains that the thrust of this program is to create affordable housing, an aim that every member in this House shares and I support. This project will put on the market some apartment suites renting for between $700 and $1,100 a month. I am sure, even by the minister's definition, this is not low-income or affordable housing for people of modest means.

The minister has failed to convince me and, I assume, most members of this House that the approval for this project was in any way within the criteria I have just listed or in any way normal.

I have been on the phone this morning to officials at Toronto city hall, and I am willing to quote Alderman Dale Martin -- politics makes strange bedfellows on occasion -- who says it is the conviction of many people in the know about this project at city hall in Toronto that there is no way this project would have been approved without pressure from Queen's Park.

The intervention of Mr. Fleischmann as the consultant, a man who is known to have connections and to pull strings with the Liberal Party and the government of this province, was instrumental in the approval of this project.

The only conversion we are seeing here is the conversion of public money into private gain. I invite the minister to call back the $3.5-million loan.

Mr. Reville: I too would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Housing. His statement shows us very well the grotesque mockery of the government's convert-to-rent program. It does not produce affordable housing; it produces enormous profits for the private sector.

The influence of Mr. Fleischmann seems to extend to the friends of my colleagues to my right, because Mr. Fleischmann was able to get the federal government to practically give Huang and Danczkay the land on which their project will sit. This sounds even more like the funnelling of public funds into the private sector.

Let us be clear as to what kind of a giveaway this has been. Let us also be clear that this Minister of Housing has been fully informed of the tortured path this development has followed. The very same Alderman Dale Martin, who was mentioned by my colleague the member for Brantford, corresponded with the minister on a number of occasions throughout the summer to try to determine why the provincial government was not in the least interested that this project was being built without a building permit, in defiance of the advice of the chief building official of the city of Toronto, or that the chief planner of the city of Toronto said this project did not qualify as assisted housing in any sense.

All these rents could be obtained if a developer were prepared to build without one dime of public money. Yet this government is prepared to put in a $3.5-million loan, which will cost Ontario taxpayers $5.1 million over the life of the loan. It is also prepared to pre-authorize rent supplements on these gigantic rents so that in a rent-geared-to-income program, a unit that rents for $1,000 a month will bear an actual rent of $200 a month, thus generating a whopping, wasteful, inefficient subsidy of between $7,000 and $10,000 per year per affordable unit.

That is a shocking waste of resources in the midst of an affordable-housing crisis. It is particularly absurd to imagine that a site as choice and as juicy as the harbourfront site would need a jot of stimulation from the government. People are lining up to build property on those sites.

This is a shocking indictment of the government's true intentions in terms of its housing stimulation program. It is not interested in affordable housing; it is interested only in generating outrageous profits for the development industry.

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

Hon. Ms. Munro: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to announce November 30 and December 15 as the nomination deadlines for the 1987 Outstanding Achievement and Volunteer Service Awards. Volunteers are the lifeblood of Ontario's cultural and multicultural communities. These awards are held to honour the many hardworking individuals and organizations that have made major contributions to volunteerism in citizenship and cultural activities relating to my ministry.

Outstanding Achievement Awards are given to individuals, nonprofit organizations and businesses that have achieved unprecedented accomplishments for volunteerism in their communities. Fifteen Outstanding Achievement Awards will be presented at a special ceremony in Toronto on February 13.

This is only one of the steps my ministry is taking in recognizing the vital service of Ontario's volunteers. I would also like to remind the House that nominations for Volunteer Service Awards are being accepted until December 15. These awards are presented to volunteers who have donated their time and energy for five, 10 and 15 years of service. Nonprofit organizations may nominate up to a maximum of six individuals each year. Lapel pins and personalized certificates signifying the various categories of services will be presented to individuals in ceremonies across the province during the spring of 1987.

Volunteer recognition for both awards must relate to the mandate of my ministry, which is far-reaching and which includes the arts, heritage conservation, public libraries, community information centres, newcomer services, multicultural activities, citizenship activities and programs by and for native people. Information and forms may be obtained by contacting the volunteer awards program of my ministry. We welcome all such recognition.

Mr. Allen: I join the Minister of Citizenship and Culture in expressing the desire of the members of our party to honour those distinguished volunteers in our communities who provide such excellent service in a whole range of arts organizations. If we have one reservation with respect to the volunteer recognition program, it is that sometimes the funding of museums, art galleries and performing arts organizations makes it necessary to rely on volunteers when, for example, students who are graduating from art programs and so on may well find places in some of those organizations.

With respect to those volunteers who have given years of service in those organizations to make certain that they have appropriate community rapport and that their financial, publicity and subscription campaigns are successful, we wish to express our great appreciation of the efforts they make. We ask only that the minister, who usually accords our members recognition on these occasions, will see that members on all sides of the House, from all regions and in constituencies of the province, share in that recognition.

14:06

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I have sent over to him a list of figures; so he will have a fair chance to confirm or deny what I have to ask him.

With regard to Bill 51, I suggest to the minister that if he were a tenant living in a two-bedroom apartment renting for $500 in a building built before 1975, which had been recently sold to a new landlord and which had annual rent increases due, some new capital improvements and a rent differential -- not an unusual or difficult-to imagine circumstance -- under Bill 51 rents could go up by $111 or 22.25 per cent. Can the minister confirm that a 22.25 per cent increase is quite possible under Bill 51?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the Leader of the Opposition wants me to confirm his mathematical calculations, I cannot confirm his mathematical calculations. He just passed this over to me. I will take a look at it and get back to him if his calculations are right.

Mr. Grossman: I suggest either the calculations on the sheet of paper I sent to the minister are fair and in accordance with Bill 151, for which he has been responsible for several months, or they are not. Let us look at a two-bedroom apartment renting for $800 in a building built after 1975. There is a new landlord, an annual increase is due and there are capital improvements, an economic loss to the landlord and a rent differential.

Can the minister dispute any of the following, that the estimated guideline rate would be a 5.25 per cent increase, that financing costs could be five per cent, that capital improvements could be five per cent, that economic loss could be another five per cent and that equalization could be another five per cent, for a 25.25 per cent increase?

Can the minister specifically state that any of the allowable five per cent increases I have laid out are not permitted under Bill 51, and can he confirm that, since they are permitted under Bill 51, a 25 per cent increase is possible?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Again the Leader of the Opposition has asked a very general question. If he has a specific case, we can look at it from that point of view. It is a very general question. If he is asking whether these things are considered under Bill 51, they are all considered under Bill 51.

Mr. Grossman: It is our belief that under the minister's legislation, many tenants could be facing a 22 to 25 per cent rent increase. In order for him to assure the tenants that this is not possible, I invite him this afternoon to tell the House whether it is right or wrong to say that financing costs could increase by five per cent; capital improvements could increase the rent by five per cent; an adjustment for chronically depressed rents could be two per cent; equalization payment could be five per cent; and the guideline rate could be 5.25 per cent, for a total of 22.25 per cent in the first example.

Which of those are not included or permitted by the legislation? If he cannot indicate it, can he confirm that rents could go up by 22 per cent?

14:10

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, all these are considered under Bill 51.

Mr. Davis: Even your own minister says they will go up by 20 per cent, and he knows it. He gave the example.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is not the member's turn. His leader is up. He should wait his turn.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is telling other people? He is used to telling the other ministers in his cabinet about it not being their turn; it is always his.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General can run only one party at a time, and I wonder about that sometimes.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

The minister was asked some time ago to deal with and table the documents and information with regard to the sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., which he specifically did not table or announce when the deal was closed. In tabling the documents, he failed to table a very key document, which is the Via Rail side letter.

Can he explain to the House why he has not made public the Via Rail side letter, which is an important part of the closing documents?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As recently as estimates, in response to a question by my friend the critic, we indicated and brought to that table all the documents we were requested to table. All the documents we were requested to bring were tabled at estimates, as they had been previously.

Mr. Grossman: The minister was asked to table all the closing documents with regard to the sale of UTDC to Lavalin, none of which he has made public. He did not table the Via Rail side letter.

Can he confirm for the House this afternoon that the letter he is covering up, the letter which he will not release to the members of this House or to the public, indicates that the Ontario government has a potential liability of up to $350 million in the event the Via Rail deal does not go through?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I will not confirm what the Leader of the Opposition says. I will state that those documents were tabled at the time they were required to be tabled and were resubmitted last week during the estimates process, with the dates clearly stated when they were required.

Mr. Grossman: The minister alleged last spring in a big announcement here that he was going to get up to $72 million for UTDC. In the second week of September, he closed the deal without the slightest announcement, without saying a word to the public about the ultimate deal that they had fumbled on because they had pre-announced an arrangement before they had struck it. The $72 million has disappeared. He has now been asked by the Legislature to table the documents and he has specifically covered up the Via Rail side letter, which indicates a potential liability owed by this government because of the mismanagement of this deal, which could come to as much as $350 million.

Is the minister prepared this afternoon to deny my allegations that the Via Rail side letter, which he is covering up, contains a potential liability of hundreds of millions of dollars in the event that deal does not come through? Will he deny that allegation?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Like so many of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition during the entire process relative to UTDC, I never made a statement in this House about the sale and I have never referred to the figure of $72 million. I am certainly not covering up anything.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Health. It is about nursing homes. The minister made the statement last week in reply to a question from me, "The people of the province will be proud of the nursing home operations," I am quoting precisely the words he used last week in the House. His word was "proud." He said, "The people of the province will be proud."

If this is true, can the minister explain why, for the period ending January 31, 1986, in the 331 homes in Ontario, 9,802 violations of the Nursing Homes Act and regulations were cited in reports? Of these, 257 had to do with special diets not being provided when they were ordered; 237 had to do with food services supervisors not being on staff as required by the regulations; 229 had to do with breaches of the requirement that the nursing homes be free from hazards to health and safety with respect to diet; 314 had to do with the requirement that menus be posted and dated; and 213 had to do with frozen fruits being identified and dated. Are these the reasons people should be proud of the nursing home operations in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That clearly indicates we have people who are looking at those situations to identify the problems. We have come to grips with some of the problems that have been identified in those reports. People have submitted and resubmitted compliance plans and a good number of the issues have been cleared up. I do not question at all the figures that have been submitted. They are probably from the material we filed in response to questions in Orders and Notices. I can tell the honourable gentleman that we are desirous of finding breaches of the regulations and working to eliminate them. We will identify and eliminate problems we find in the field.

Mr. Rae: If nearly 10,000 breaches of regulations is not a symptom of a system that is not working, I do not know what is. Specifically with respect to food, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has defended the amount of food that is being provided in nursing homes and has said that senior citizens eat less than other people, so they can survive on $2.50, $2.60 or $2.70 a day. The minister has also defended the system. Can the minister explain the fact that in Dr. Crittenden's report she stated very specifically, on page 19, that the highest single source of complaints with respect to nursing homes heard by her committee had to do with food and with meals? They received more complaints about that than anything else.

At the same time, the other document released by the minister, the Woods Gordon report, establishes clearly that there are fewer inspections per home dealing with nutritional problems than for any of the other areas, fire, environmental or whatever it may be. Can the minister explain why they are getting more complaints about bad food than they are about anything else and why there are fewer inspections dealing with food than anything else?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows full well that Dr. Crittenden's report also indicates that some of the concerns that have been expressed have been about the temperature of meals and a number of other items. I have no problem recognizing the situation when, as well, they talk about the time taken to help people eat their meals and attending at various times. We are concerned about this and we hope to deal with these problems in response to the suggestions made by the Woods Gordon report.

One of the suggestions made by the Woods Gordon report, as the members know, is that we make certain changes in the ministry to help us find the areas of violation and address the problems the Crittenden report made very clear and vivid to us. I can tell the member and members of the public that we are working to do that.

One of the prime concerns we have is that the people who now are inspectors also are being looked on as sources of advice. We are working to try to develop for them a consultant's role solely, so that they are not also involved in enforcement. We hope this will help to improve the manner in which our nursing home system functions in this province.

14:20

Mr. D. S. Cooke: A nursing home in Windsor called Beacon Hill Lodge was charged in March 1984 with several charges. One of them dealt with food and not providing snacks and fluids. In its annual report, there were several violations that referred to such things as special diets. Then the nursing home inspection branch was asked to investigate some concerns that specifically related to this nursing home recollecting margarine patties and creamers because it said, and the minister reported to me, its budget for food was 50 cents per day above the average for residents.

Does the minister think it appropriate that a nursing home recollect margarine patties and creamers to cut back on food? Why was this nursing home not charged, and why did the minister condone it in his recent letter to me?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Offhand, I do not recall the letter I wrote back to the member, but I will review it. I do not recognize the recollecting process. I presume we are talking about collecting patties and creamers from tables, which I will look into and get back to the member. I do not recall the letter. I know the member has written several times about Beacon Hill Lodge. I will get back and advise him of what I meant by my reply.

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Housing. On December 16, when he was speaking about convert-to-rent, he said, "The program's aim is to help produce moderate-cost rental housing." This afternoon in the House, he said the Huang and Danczkay project falls within the program guidelines.

Will the minister advise the House where in Canada these rents are considered to be moderate cost: $1,003, $758, $1,027, $999? I am reading from the monthly market rents proposed by Huang and Danczkay. Those rents are now 2.6 per cent below what they would be today. Will the minister please advise how such rents could be low and moderate?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Of the 502 rental units that are being created by the convert-to-rent program, some will be subsidized for affordable rental units.

Mr. Gordon: How many?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not think the members want to have the answers.

In Toronto, as the member knows, the market rents for rental units are pretty high. It is quite common for someone with a family to pay $700 for a three-bedroom apartment. These "true" or "false" or "fill in the dotted line" questions have to be consistent with what municipality we are talking about. We are looking at Toronto, and $700 is a rent that is quite amicable.

Mr. Reville: A monthly rent of $1,108 is a pretty fat dotted line.

On August 12, the minister wrote to Alderman Martin and said, "With respect to your specific concern about provincial convert-to-rent grants for the Huang and Danczkay project, pleased be advised that the program guidelines require evidence of building permits as a condition of the award." In view of the fact that the project still does not have a building permit, how can the minister account for conditional approval having been granted on April 23 and again, miraculously, on September 29? What is going on in the Ministry of Housing anyway?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I had hoped the statement would have clarified the questions that are being asked now. No money has flown to the developer or the builder as yet. As the honourable member knows, the guideline stipulates that 15 per cent of the consortium has to be in place before any money is passed on to the builder. As well, building permits must be obtained before money flows to the developers. Of course, we are quite aware of that, and my staff have transmitted letters to the developers to warn them of that fact.

Mr. Reville: The minister is making an understatement about money flown. Money is flying around here like crazy.

Will the minister advise the House of the extent of the subsidy per unit that is needed to achieve affordable rents through the rent supplement? How much is this pittance of subsidized housing going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario? I am interested in knowing the amount of deep subsidy per unit through the rent supplement program.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The convert-to-rent program that we have in place is to bring rental units to the market. When we do not build, there is a tremendous amount of criticism. Now that we are building and producing rental stock, we are being criticized.

The criterion stipulates that $7,000 per unit is given to projects in the convert-to-rent program. That helps with the costs of building, and therefore the rent can be reduced.

Mr. Gillies: Why has the Minister of Housing allowed Huang and Danczkay to construct these units on the waterfront, breaking the Building Code Act by building without a permit? Further, why has he as yet not responded to Alderman Martin's formal request for an investigation under section 27 of the Building Code Act to explain this flagrant violation of the regulations? Why will he not undertake a proper investigation of this matter and inform the House about Mr. Fleischmann's role in this extraordinary granting of public money?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Perhaps the honourable member wants me to run the municipality too. He realizes that the responsibility for building permits comes under the municipality. They are the ones who issue the building permits.

As I told him, we have already communicated with Huang and Danczkay to say that if they do not obtain the building permit, no financing will be granted to that project.

The member is making some very serious allegations here about interference. If he has any evidence, he should bring it forward and stop speculating. Let him bring it forward and we will deal with it.

Mr. Gillies: We are not speculating and we are not talking about the responsibility of the municipality; we are talking about this minister's responsibility for section 20 of the Building Code Act to ensure that construction is undertaken with building permits.

The building commissioner for Toronto, Michael Nixon, has said: "I know of no other instance in which a developer obtained agreement to allow building without a permit." Are there two laws in this province, one for Ivan Fleischmann and friends of the Liberal Party and one for everyone else? Why will the minister not live up to his responsibility and ensure that the law is adhered to?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Maybe I should say again to the member that the offer to Huang and Danczkay is conditional on their obtaining the building permit. If the developers want to continue their building and do not need the money, that is up to them, because we will not transmit any money to the developer if there are no building permits or if they do not fall within the guidelines of the convert-to-rent program.

14:30

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the guardian of the swamp, the Minister of Labour, regarding Domtar. The minister will recall that during estimates in December, I raised the matter of threats against Dr. Chong and Dr. Haines; I did so again in September. The minister is also aware that Domtar threatened the ministry with legal action and to close the operation if the Chong report became public.

The minister should be aware that the company wrote to Dr. Debow of his ministry on November 8, 1985, five days before Dr. Muir even indicated he was doing work on the first study, indicating another study was to be produced. Rather than trying to blame Mr. Erskine of the union and the two doctors, who are trying to clean up this mess, why does the minister not admit there was collusion between the company and Dr. Muir, that his ministry staff was aware of what was going on and that they are now trying to cover their derrières?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My honourable friend raises some very serious allegations. This entire incident has been referred to Mr. Laskin as one of the 71 incidents he is looking into. I have had an opportunity in the past couple of days to review fairly thoroughly some of the materials on file in the Ministry of Labour. With all the skill within his legal department and with the people who are working with him, Mr. Laskin has a full opportunity to review all those --

Mr. Rae: He has no power. He cannot cross-examine and he cannot subpoena.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If the leader of the third party would be quiet for a minute and listen, he might get an answer. Mr. Laskin has been looking at this matter in some detail for a great time. I give the member for Sudbury East and all members of the House my assurance that we will ask Mr. Laskin to look at this matter with the utmost care. I am confident all the documents are available for him to make a reasonable finding. I only ask my friend to wait until Mr. Laskin reports. We hope his report will be out some time around the middle of next month.

Mr. Martel: Laskin does not have the right to subpoena, cross-examine and so on. In addition, since the minister is now aware that Dr. Muir admits he moved without the involvement of the occupational health and safety committee and ignored the internal responsibility system, and since he said earlier he could not side with labour on any of these issues -- it is obvious he has sided totally with management -- how can this man remain as the vice-chairman of the Industrial Disease Standards Panel?

When is this government going to provide funding for independent worker clinics controlled by workers so they can get the testing done without interference by companies, as is the case in this issue?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member raises a number of questions, but he ought to be aware that the joint health and safety committee was consulted at most times in this matter. I agree with the member, and indeed so does Dr. Muir, that Dr. Muir made a very serious error in judgement in speaking at one point -- and at one point only -- with the company without, as the member so properly points out, dealing with the joint health and safety committee. The member and I are in total agreement on that point.

If the member looks at all the material at his disposal, he will agree with me that the joint health and safety committee has been involved at all points of the process and indeed has signed off on its concerns with the first report from Dr. Chong and the members of the joint health and safety committee.

Mr. Martel: Not so. They did not ask for a report to be rewritten. The minister is misleading. He tells half-truths.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I did not say he lied. I said he tells half-truths. I am being positive. I said he was half right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I heard it. I was just controlling myself as well.

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

Mr. Gillies: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing about his responsibility for the Ontario Building Code Act, and I will quote a couple of lines from section 20 of the act:

"Where it appears to the minister that there is or may be a failure in construction or demolition standards or in the enforcement of this act or the building code, the minister may designate a person to conduct an inquiry into such failure."

In September, the minister had a formal request from an alderman of Toronto to investigate the circumstances surrounding the approval of this Huang and Danczkay project. Why has the minister not lived up to his responsibility under section 20 to start such an investigation?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am quite confident the city of Toronto is able to conduct its business in a very professional way. I have all confidence that it will deal with the matter of the building permit with Huang and Danczkay.

Mr. Gillies: I want the minister to know that we will not stop asking about this project until we have a full and proper investigation.

The minister said in his statement earlier today that this project fitted the criteria, but the silos, which by some wild stretch of the imagination he is suggesting were converted into apartment stock, were torn down more than three years ago. The land on which the buildings will be constructed has been vacant for three years. The approval under the ministry's convert-to-rent program was this year.

How can the minister possibly say this project came within the criteria of the convert-to-rent program? How can he say that? Why cannot any other developer building new apartment units say to the minister, "I qualify under this program"?

Mr. Grossman: Silogate.

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

Hon. Mr. Curling: I may have to send the member the guidelines. He said he called my office and got instructions. I think he may have heard wrong, because his interpretation is completely off. I read it in my statement here, and I will read it again: "All conversion of nonresidential structures" --

Mr. Gillies: There is no structure there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member suggested in his statement that silos were converted. I want to state for the record that he stated silos were converted; my statement is that those silos had been off that lot for three years.

Mr. Grossman: There were no silos. Exactly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait. New question, the member for Lakeshore.

TRITIUM REMOVAL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Last week, I raised with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) the need for a public hearing about the transportation of tritium around this province. The Minister of the Environment indicated he was exploring that possibility. Can the Minister of Energy tell the House whether he supports the need for an environmental assessment hearing into the transportation of tritium?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: First, Ontario Hydro is removing tritium from heavy water to protect the workers at Ontario Hydro; that is the main undertaking. It has transported heavy water from place to place on many occasions, because heavy water, of course, is not always produced on the site of a nuclear plant. During the past years, Ontario Hydro has built the kinds of containers that would enable it to be moved safely. I am sure all the concerns of the honourable member will be taken into account in the movement of heavy water.

14:40

Mrs. Grier: I do not think that was quite what I asked. I wonder whether the minister is aware that what we are talking about is up to 1,200 truckloads of tritiated water already existing at Bruce and 800 truckloads at Pickering. When the tritium removal facility is completed at Darlington, this material will have to be brought to Darlington.

My question to the minister again is, will he support an environmental assessment before moving that very toxic material through small towns and along highways all across this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I understand the question exactly as the member posed it. If there is going to be an undertaking of an environmental assessment, she should put that question to the Minister of the Environment. I am in complete concert with him in protecting the people of Ontario in transportation and in any other areas that might have some impact on the public. He certainly has the responsibility, and I have co-operated with him, to this point, 100 per cent.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pierce: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I am sure the ministry is aware that the people of northern Ontario are suffering layoffs and are being threatened with further layoffs if this government fails to take action on the softwood lumber issue. The government has done nothing to help the laid-off workers while they wait for the final tariff decisions in December. I am afraid many of these lumber workers and their families in northern Ontario will have a very bleak Christmas this year because of the government's inaction.

What action does the government plan to take to assist the laid-off workers by providing other jobs in northern Ontario while they are waiting for this decision?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe that on several occasions I have mentioned several of the actions that the government is taking. I should mention in the softwood lumber area that my officials met with the people who came up from the United States on the verification process. We will be meeting with them later this week and putting forward Ontario's case.

Mr. Pierce: I am sure the minister is aware Northern Wood Preservers and Great West Timber will be laying off 100 people by Christmas, Lecours Lumber of Hearst has laid off 35 workers, Martel Lumber of Chapleau has not sold or taken any orders since the announcement and Atikokan Forest Products has laid off 14 workers and announced the layoff of an additional 14 workers. What is the minister doing for these workers, who are subject to layoffs before Christmas?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have mentioned in the past, in this area we intend to push the talks as quickly as we can. We do not expect a resolution to that problem until the end of December. It does cause a problem to those people who are laid off, and we are concerned about it.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Premier. I know that during the past several months the Premier will have heard his double act, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), say that if the bill this government introduced with respect to equal pay were extended beyond the very narrow base of 26,000 workers working directly for the government, it would, according to them, shipwreck the bill, scuttle the bill or skewer the bill. Those were the nicest things they had to say about those amendments.

The Premier will know that those amendments, by the wisdom of the committee, have been ruled within the powers of the committee, and it is clear that those amendments to broaden the bill are going to go forward. I can certainly say on behalf of our party that they are going to go forward.

Can we have the Premier's categorical assurance that he will not use these progressive amendments as an excuse to withdraw the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think the honourable member has interpreted the events quite properly. As I understand it, the chairman of that committee, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), made a ruling with respect to the jurisdiction of his committee and the jurisdiction of the House to amend a particular bill.

My colleague to the left, the government House leader, tells me there is a long-standing tradition in this House, part of parliamentary tradition, that says the opposition does not have the power to widen a bill, particularly where money is at issue. I do not pretend to be an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I respect people such as the government House leader. I believe the chairman of the committee said exactly the same thing. If I am incorrect, I am sure he will correct me, but I believe my facts are right.

This raises the very interesting question of the responsibility of the opposition. In a minority House, the opposition can do virtually anything it wants. In my opinion, we have seen many abuses of this power in the past little while. If the honourable member expects minority government to work, he has to respect the traditions of this great parliament. When the opposition violates the traditions of this parliament, I cannot make any predictions about what will happen. My friend has to show responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Do the representatives of the Conservative Party recognize that the people of Ontario are watching this?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the last time, order. I remind the members they have wasted another three minutes of their time.

Mr. Rae: I seem to have struck some chord or nerve or some sort of problem with the Premier. I am interested in all the heckling I am getting from the other side. I would have thought they would have wanted to hear what the supplementary was.

I did not hear an answer from the Premier to my question. I heard a fine rhetorical speech that ignored all the precedents that were established between 1975 and 1981, when we had minority government for six years and the House and committees were given the ability to amend and change legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a good 40-second windup to the question. Will you please place your supplementary?

Mr. Rae: It was a very good 40 seconds.

I want to repeat the question and try to get an indication, with no rhetoric about how unhappy the Premier is, of whether he is prepared to continue in good faith to try to find a piece of Legislation that the whole House can agree on -- I believe we can find it -- with regard to this bill as well as with regard to Bill 51; or is he going to use the exaggerated rhetoric he appears to have lapsed into, shared by the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour, using such adjectives and verbs as "shipwreck," "scuttle" and "skewer"? Is the Premier prepared to continue in good faith with a sensible discussion of legislation, with all the members of the House participating in a democratic fashion?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend recalls precedents between 1975 and 1981. I do not recall that he was here in those circumstances. If he was here, nobody noticed. I was here. My honourable friend to the left, I think the member will agree with me, as the dean of this House is the most respected member of this House in terms of parliamentary precedent and authority.

14:50

I went through those minority times and I remember them very well. Indeed, there was a minority situation when I came into the House. I believe the opposition parties respected the rules as they existed in the Legislature at that time. I assume this ruling is troubling to my friend the member for Sarnia, who I believe has used his best judgement and presumably got advice in the circumstances. The House leader also has been troubled by this precedent and he has sought advice on the matter as well, but it points out a situation where the opposition parties in a minority House can gang together and do anything they want, whether it is within the confines of parliamentary precedent or whether it is legal or not.

In my view, it requires a degree of responsibility that sometimes is not shown in the House. I recognize we have to be responsive to all parties and we try to be so. At the same time, however, the other parties have to respect our responsibility in these matters as well.

We have heard assurances from the Attorney General that he is introducing another bill with respect to equal pay that will deal with these questions. It is being done in an orderly and thoughtful way. The whole plan was shared with the members before. I do not understand the recent conversion to equal pay by members of the official opposition. It smacks of hypocrisy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Andrewes: I will try not to be provocative, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It would be most helpful.

DRUG BENEFIT FORMULARY

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. On two occasions over the past 13 months, he has publicly committed himself to a new Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. He is aware that his failure to meet these commitments means not only that pharmacists are not able to recoup their costs for drugs they dispense, but also that taxpayers and consumers are now paying for that foot-dragging.

I want to offer the minister this example. A pharmacy in Jacksons Point, which is not a large community, estimates that on five drug products it dispenses that are now available in generic form but not in the drug formulary the ODB program is losing $229 a month. The Ontario Pharmacists' Association, using the Ministry of Health's figures, estimates that on 13 commonly used drugs available but not listed in the generic form, the taxpayers and consumers are now paying close to $13 million a year.

Is the minister going to publish a new formulary?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes. We are working on the new formulary and we have indicated by correspondence to the pharmacists that we are working as well on the proclamation of Bills 54 and 55 on November 15.

It is not always easy to find the accurate information with respect to drug prices under our current situation so that we can print the formulary without Bills 54 and 55. However, we believe that with some of the authority now residing in those two bills it will allow us to get accurate information so that we can print a formulary under the best available price formula that the committee developed in its deliberations.

Mr. Andrewes: I remind the minister that his correspondence with the pharmacists is looked at with a jaundiced eye after his commitments over the past year.

I remind the minister also that his failure to act on this issue is causing some severe human suffering. The doctor of a terminal cancer patient in Mississauga, who has a severe drug reaction to an ODB-listed narcotic, has tried for days to get a special authorization number for a different drug, but he is confronted continually with a busy signal on the telephone line. The patient cannot afford the $190. Does the Minister of Health not think he has some obligation to patients who find themselves in this kind predicament?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the special authorization program, I understand those phone lines are busy. I would like to receive the information from the honourable member directly so that I could help make some progress with respect to that patient. We have been working very hard on the information we felt would be needed to put out a new formulary. We found that was not possible under the circumstances. We convened meetings between ourselves and the association and between members of my ministry staff and representatives from various manufacturers and we could not come up with realistic prices to be printed in a formulary without Bill 54 and Bill 55, as they were passed, being proclaimed.

We will do that and we are looking forward to the printing of that new formulary. We will be looking at listing those products the honourable gentleman suggests must be listed in the Ontario drug benefit formulary.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Premier regarding the joint release last Friday of the Algoma Central Railway and the Algoma Steel Corp. in Sault Ste. Marie, which stated the provincial and federal governments have agreed to subsidize ACR freight rates. Can the Premier confirm the substance of the release, that governments intend to subsidize if the ACR employees agree to wage and benefit concessions? Can he inform the House how much of the estimated $5-million cost will come from provincial coffers in the first year and how many years the proposed subsidization of these private companies by the taxpayers is expected to last?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not aware of the release the member mentions, but I am very much aware of the discussions that were going on with Algoma and the ACR as well. The member will be as familiar as any member of the House with the problems the railroad and the steel company have had in the past little while. He will know that one of the competitive problems is the price of the haul from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie. He will be aware that one of the problems with Algoma Central Railway is that it does not have a large load base over which to apportion its overheads. It has to put a substantial amount of those costs on that particular run.

He will also be aware that the transportation cost of bringing iron ore from the mine the company owns in Michigan is substantially less than the haul from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie, and everyone is searching for solutions to that problem. Like the federal government, the union and the company, we do not want to see Sault Ste. Marie take any more hits in this situation, so there are discussions going on. To the best of my knowledge, nothing is finalized. I am not aware of any agreements that have been signed. I know discussions are ongoing. We are searching for a permanent solution in the long term.

Mr. Morin-Strom: We know the Deputy Minister of Northern Development and Mines has been involved in these discussions on behalf of the provincial government. One of the fundamental issues surely has to be whether or not the rail line is a viable private enterprise. If it is a viable enterprise that can make a profit in the long run, why should the taxpayers of the province be subsidizing the operation? On the other hand, if it is not a viable enterprise, does not the Premier think the best solution would be to have Ontario Northland Transportation Commission take over the operation to ensure that we have this essential freight service available in our area, the district of Algoma, on a long-term basis?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not trying to be unkind, but frankly, that socialist logic does not ring with me. The member is saying it is losing money and, therefore, we should take it over.

Mr. McClellan: That is not what he said.

Mr. Wildman: I said if it is a viable operation, why subsidize it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is exactly what my honourable friend, the former economist with Algoma, is telling me. Algoma is lucky he is here and not running the plant right now. That is his logic. He is saying it is losing money; therefore, the government should take over the rail line.

We are searching for a solution to this problem. I am not interested in taking over any more companies, particularly ones that are losing. We are in a situation --

15:00

Mr. Wildman: If they were losing the feds would subsidize them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me tell the member that there are competitive problems. The worry is that if there are any more problems with Algoma the railroad could be affected by them and that could have disastrous consequences in northern Ontario. We are looking at all the alternatives to stabilize the situation, both short-term and long-term. As I said to my honourable friend, there is not an answer to that question today. Discussions are ongoing.

I am sure it is one of the issues we will be discussing next week in the Sault when we are there, and I hope my honourable friend is there to give an assist to that discussion. I am sure he would not want to see any more problems created in the Sault, particularly if we are in a position to assist, and we are exploring all options in order to do so.

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It has to do with the homemaker program, one of the most important programs we have in our province to help people stay in their own homes longer, to help the frail, the elderly and the sick. It is an important service, but there is a funding problem.

What action is that ministry taking to fund the services of homemakers, especially those provided by voluntary nonprofit organizations? What is the minister doing about the funding problem they have right now?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have met with the Visiting Homemakers Association across the province and I have met with the provincial association for the Red Cross. They have indicated to me the specific problems they have. They raised, for example, the issue of the increased premiums for workers' compensation and the increased minimum wage base, which affects all wages above it.

I have indicated that in both of those situations I am prepared to request additional assistance from our own resources and I am also prepared to request that municipalities share the cost of those increases with us.

Mr. Cousens: The action is required sooner than later. There is a dazzle-dazzle of announcements coming from the ministry, but what is happening is that we are paying for the social programs on the backs of underpaid homemakers who are doing the heavy burden of the job. We are seeing people in our province paid less than $90 a week for 20 hours work. We are seeing 30 of some 47 different branches of the Red Cross society facing a deficit. How soon can the minister begin to put money out there where it is going to begin to count and where it will help those services to continue?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The concerns the honourable member raises are not the same all across the province. There are some places where the rate is in the $9 range and other places where the rate is in the $5 range. Our attention has to be put in those areas where the need is the greatest. That is why we told both the Ontario association and the Red Cross that we would work with them and with municipalities where the problem is the greatest.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Jaclyn Rowett, who is eight years old, goes to Brownies, ice skates, ballet dances, plays the piano and takes lessons in music. She is completely integrated into the community; yet the York Board of Education and now a provincial tribunal says that she cannot go to school with her brothers and friends but has to go 19 miles to a distant school and to strange classmates.

Jaclyn has Down syndrome. Her parents have fought for three years and spent $20,000 to get her into a regular classroom. Now they say it is the end of the appeals process. What is the minister prepared to do to help Jaclyn to go to school with her friends and her brother in the community school?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the member for Hamilton West for asking me my first question. I am very appreciative of --

Mr. Andrewes: The minister is never here.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have been here every question period save one. I just wanted to thank my honourable friend for inviting me to participate in this important --

Mr. Davis: I notice the minister has a new haircut.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, I have a new haircut, to the member for Scarborough Centre. I will not say anything else lest I get provocative where he is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Does that have anything to do with the question?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member raises a concern about which I am aware. I want to say to him that the case to which he makes reference has proceeded through all channels that are provided in the legislation. The final step is the decision of the provincial tribunal, which decision is final and binding. I intend to respect that and therefore respond accordingly.

Mr. Allen: This is a textbook case against the appeals procedures with which we know there are all kinds of problems and difficulties. The fundamental one is that onus is left with the parents to prove that theirs is the best placement and that the board's placement is wrong. The tribunal told the Rowetts they had not made their case. How could they when they did not know the board's proposal, for example, until it was made at the hearing itself? They had no opportunity to prepare their case.

The director's defence that many of those disabled kids, as he puts it, have frequent emotional outbursts is totally irrelevant. It is a libel on Jaclyn Rowett, who does not exhibit those problems.

When will the minister state clearly that, occasional exceptional exceptionalities aside, unequivocally under Bill 82 the child will be placed in a regular classroom, in a regular school, and that the onus lies on the board to demonstrate conclusively that is not the most appropriate placement for that child?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the honourable member knows, we are reviewing the procedures under Bill 82 on the basis of our five year's experience. We hope that review will culminate in some positive change in the not-too-distant future. However, as to the here and now, I want to be very clear. The honourable member knows the special education tribunal is composed of experts in the field. They have passed judgement on this case within the context of the law as it is now written. I intend to see that the law as it is written is upheld in this case.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition, signed by 167 constituents, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have two petitions directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). One is a collection of letters; the other reads as follows:

"We, the parents and guardians of people with developmental handicaps in the Ottawa-Carleton area, want to direct your attention to very distressing developments at the Ottawa and District Association for the Mentally Retarded. Negotiations have broken down between management and union due to a decade of less-than-inflation pay raises, including the present pay offer. The recent strikes at the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton and the Robert Smart Centre agencies have been extremely destructive to families and clients who depend on them.

"The services you provide for us to ODAMR are of utmost importance to the wellbeing of our children. We implore you to act immediately to resolve this critical issue before a strike occurs at the ODAMR."

It is signed by more than 100 parents.

The group of letters is from workers at the Ottawa-Carleton Coalition for Quality Social Services asking for better consideration for wages for workers in that sector.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Grande: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"City of York residents pay the highest property taxes in Metro Toronto, but we still have bad roads, poor snow removal, backed-up sewers and insufficient services. This is due to our small industrial and commercial assessment base. For more than 10 years, the provincial government has failed to act.

"We, the undersigned, petition the provincial Liberal government to correct this injustice by providing special direct grants, as it did in Sudbury, to the city of York to maintain and improve services, while offsetting the higher property taxes paid by York residents."

It is signed by 245 taxpayers of the city of York, in the riding of Oakwood, and it will join a petition that was presented to this Legislature on July 10, with more than 3,000 signatures at that time.

15:10

TRAFFIC LIGHTS

Mr. Turner: I have a petition from the people of Fowlers Corners, including those from the townships of Smith and Emily, in the counties of Peterborough and Victoria.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We petition the Ministry of Transportation to install traffic lights at the corner of Highways 7 and 7B, officially known as Fowlers Corners.

"In the period between October 13 to October 19, 1986, more than 1,000 signatures were collected in support of this petition. Fewer than 25 people were disinclined to sign it when approached and the vast majority expressed very positive views on the subject, many of them favouring weight-controlled lights in the north-south direction allowing unimpeded traffic along the Lindsay highway during the quieter period.

"With the weight of local public opinion solidly behind us, we are asking our political representatives to join with us to present our request that this corner be made safer for us all."

I have pleasure in supporting this petition, and I have no doubt that my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) will be pleased to do the same.

EQUALITY RIGHTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to table a petition signed by 110 residents of North Bay and vicinity. This was collected by the North Bay Day Care Centre at Fisher and Haig Streets, North Bay, a very fine facility in North Bay.

"We protest against section 18, subsection (1) through (5), of Bill 7."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROFITS FROM CRIME ACT

Ms. Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 143, An Act to prevent Unjust Enrichment through the Financial Exploitation of Crime.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Gigantes: I point out to members of the Legislature that this bill was introduced three times earlier. It was a bill standing in the name of James Renwick, our former New Democratic Party colleague, now deceased and much missed.

The purpose of the bill is to make moneys earned by accused criminals from the sale of their memoirs payable to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which should use the funds received in each case to satisfy judgements obtained by victims of the crime.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of this bill, which is long overdue in this province, is to prevent an employer from taking money out of a pension plan or discontinuing payments into a pension plan where there is a surplus of money in the plan.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to draw to the attention of the members of the Legislature the presence of a well-known citizen and author, Laura Sabia, in the gallery. She is a person who I have always felt would make a good Liberal, but unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to put that to the test. I thought that since she has commented on the public work of this chamber for a few years and since her opinions are highly valued, we should recognize her presence.

COMMITTEE RULING

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I draw your attention to a matter that occurred in the committee dealing with Bill 105, I believe yesterday. It also came before the House by way of the question period, and as House leader for the government party, I thought I might ask you to give some consideration to the dilemma it presents to the members of the House.

For many years I have heard you and your predecessors say that what goes on in committees is the business of the committees, but in this instance an amendment to Bill 105 that would substantially broaden the bill and bring about increased public expenditure was ruled out of order -- I would say properly, in my opinion -- by the chairman, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

I understand this decision was reversed by a majority vote in the committee, which presumably means the committee is at liberty to go forward with amendments that involve the expenditure of additional public funds. This, as I understand it, is not generally considered to be in order in our tradition.

I draw to your attention as well that on February 11, 1986, in this House, during the consideration of the teachers' superannuation bill, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) moved an amendment to widen the scope of the bill. Actually, he would have increased the window for early retirement to five years from three years. It was ruled out of order by the Chairman of the committee. There was a challenge to that ruling, and the ruling was upheld.

While I would not for a moment say the comparisons are identical, they are very similar. Since one committee of the House has been permitted to go forward with amendments of that type, whereas the committee of the whole has reversed, or at least not upheld, a challenge of a ruling on a similar matter, I thought it might be useful to the members of the committee and to me as government House leader if we could have the benefit of the advice of you and your able staff in how this might be dealt with.

Mr. McClellan: It is my understanding of the procedures and traditions of this House that decisions by the chairmen of committees are the business of the committees and that the Speaker, not being part of those deliberations or of those discussions, is not apprised of them and is not able to participate in the ruling or to second-guess either the chairman of the committee or the decision of the committee itself.

There is a procedure, as I understand it, that would require the committee to write a report and to table its report here in the assembly on the matters that have been raised by the government House leader and that the House itself could then deal with the question on a motion to adopt or reject the report.

Since the Speaker was not present in the committee, the chairman of the committee was exercising the full powers of the Speaker in his stead and the committee itself has concluded its deliberations, the matter is final.

Mr. Harris: I concur with my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) that the government House leader's request is totally inappropriate, out of place and out of order. I do not know why we listened to it for so long.

Mr. Speaker: Many members bring many points to the attention of the House. I have listened very carefully to this request, I suppose I could call it on a point of order from the government House leader, and to the comments of the representatives of the other parties. As I recall over my many years here, the Speaker does not interfere with the activities of any committee. However, the committees are arms of the House, and the Speaker naturally has ears and listens closely to the activities that take place. At the moment, I feel I am not compelled to make any comments until such a matter comes before the Legislature.

15:20

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 134, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.

Mr. Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill 134, a bill that makes a clear statement about the cynicism of the current government, which I will get to later. Right now, I want to talk about some of the reasons the Progressive Conservative Party does not support this Legislation.

First, I would like to talk about some of the social consequences, concerns that are consistently downplayed, publicly anyway, by the government. The Conservative Party, unlike the Liberal Party, undertook a thorough study of the question through a task force that I chaired. During the fall of 1985, the task force toured the province, listened to 53 submissions and received a considerable number of written submissions. These presentations articulated a wide range of approaches to the question of alcohol distribution. For the benefit of the members, I will like to review the conclusions reached by the task force dealing with greater consumption.

Although there are differing points of view on this issue, the task force accepts the conclusions reached by the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Research Foundation that consumption levels would increase if grocery store sales were allowed. It struck the task force that an increase in outlets of the magnitude suggested must result in an increased use of alcoholic beverages.

Before I get away from the addiction research foundation, I would also like to make some comments for the record in respect of the report by the foundation that the task force made reference to. They drew an analogy between the current situation and the situation in the 1970s, when a decision was made to lower the legal drinking age to 18 from 21. Various political and social justifications were offered at that time, such as fostering sophisticated and cosmopolitan drinking patterns, reducing paternalism by the state, supporting local industries and discouraging illicit drug use.

Within a few years of that 1971 decision, it became evident that there was, as usual, a price to pay for easing access to alcoholic beverages. In that case, the price was increased morbidity and mortality around motor vehicle accidents involving young people and an increase in alcohol problems in secondary schools. As a result, the government raised the drinking age.

They talked about beer and wine in corner stores. One of the comments they made was that the proposed change involved a partial transition of beverage alcohols from the specialty shops to the general stores. There were a number of implications. However, the most important was that the special status of alcoholic beverages has eroded and the association with foods, sundries and everyday routines is enhanced.

To young people especially, but to adults as well, the message is likely to be that decisions to purchase this drug are no more significant than decisions about purchasing gum, newspapers, milk, cereal, light bulbs or bread. The perceived message will be that beer and wine are alcoholic beverages of moderation, while in fact there are no alcoholic beverages of moderation; there are only moderate drinking patterns and moderate drinkers.

The social ramifications of this legislation are significant. In my statement in response to the minister's introduction of this legislation, I described it as anti-family and anti-youth. I strongly believe that. We know there are many alcohol-related problems in our society that are costing us millions of dollars, if not billions, in health care costs and resulting in family breakups and worse.

In the past few years we have seen a real awakening on the part of educators and young people who are genuinely concerned about the problem of youth drinking. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has frequently spoken out on this issue. Now he stands up and supports the hypocritical message this legislation sends to those same people.

Supporters of this legislation say that if kids want booze they can get it. There may be some truth to that, I do not know. I do know that one does not address the problem of teen-age drinking by making it easier to obtain, which is what this legislation does.

In a study carried out in Michigan a few years ago, underage children were sent into grocery stores to see whether they could buy beer. They succeeded in more than 50 per cent of the stores. "It will be different in Ontario," is the argument of the government and of the advocates. I ask how effectively grocers are enforcing federal legislation prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to children under 14. I will tell the members how well they are doing: lousy. The same thing will happen with alcoholic beverages.

All the advocates point to the United States; they say, "It works there." Obviously, it does not work in Michigan. Last week, while watching a football game on television, I saw a National Football League player urge support in a public service message for an organization that deals with young problem drinkers. By young I mean 11, 12 and 13. He described it as a crisis in the US. This is the panacea the Liberal Party wants to transplant to Ontario. It wants to Americanize this province. This legislation is not only anti-family and anti-youth; it could also be described as anti-Ontario.

I came across a comment this morning in an article about the American situation. A lady was saying: "I have heard many issues raised by the public at large over my adult life, but I cannot remember anyone expressing a dire need to buy a beer in a corner store. Sure, booze is sold in corner stores in the United States and Quebec, but so what? From where I view the world, old boring Ontario has got it all over either Quebec or the United States in all ways, including how we sell beer.

"A couple of years ago, I went into a store in North Carolina. It was an `anything goes for a price' store, selling everything from chewing gum to vodka. Not only was the store very different from stores in Ontario; the store manager did not resemble any store manager in Ontario. The experience pops into my mind when I frequent a Brewers' Retail store. I like our beer stores. They are very orderly and clean. I appreciate the manner in which the staffers handle their customers. I have never heard anyone relate that a beer store salesman was ever rude to anyone. The brown-and-orange uniforms worn by staff are always clean and well pressed. The people who work in our brewery outlets are the kind of people I would like to have as neighbours. They are okay guys doing a fine job, so why on earth doesn't Premier Peterson leave well enough alone? What the Premier needs to learn is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

15:30

I want to move on to deal with some of the economic implications of the bill. Again, I quote from our task force report. Other members of our caucus are going to be dealing extensively with the additional social implications. In looking at economic implications, the committee initially talked about trade implications. The Ontario beer industry has had a long-established position and the Brewers' Warehousing and Brewers' Retail system, in place for 60 years, is accepted, although reluctantly, by Canada's major trading partners.

Any effort to dismantle the present system and dramatically increase the number of retail outlets by making beer available in grocery stores is unlikely to be acceptable to the signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade without a corresponding opening of the Ontario market to foreign beer, especially US beer. The implications for the Ontario industry could be far-reaching, including severe job losses and the loss of many small breweries and at least one major brewery. It should be noted here that one major American brewing company has a brand-new plant in Ohio which is not in use. This plant could produce enough beer to serve half the Canadian market.

With respect to the question of trade implications, I should advise the House that this morning I was informed that the Ontario government has been alerted to the fact that both the United States and the European Community would consider implementation of this legislation as a GATT violation. The provincial government has not consulted the federal government about this legislation. Article 3 of the GATT agreement states that once past the borders, foreign products must be treated equally with domestic products. There is no question that this legislation is in violation.

There are some other implications of beer prices. At present, Ontario has the lowest-priced beer, net of sales tax, in Canada. Information supplied to the task force indicated that extension of sales to the grocery stores would result in a price increase of approximately $2 per case of 24. This would be caused by increased transportation costs and the presence of an additional link in the delivery chain from the producer to the consumer.

Witnesses appearing before the task force indicated that the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores would result in significant reductions in government revenue. The loss projections on an annual basis range from $90 million to well over $100 million. In Quebec, the government experienced a 13 per cent decline in revenue following the extension of wine sales into grocery stores in 1978, as consumers were less likely to visit government liquor stores to purchase highly taxed spirits. It takes 14 bottles of wine to generate the same amount of revenue as one bottle of spirits, Mr. Speaker, in case you are interested.

While the minister has indicated that the provincial revenues are not going to decrease -- and I will be interested to hear the rationale behind that position -- I can only assume there must be a quiet prediction of a significant increase in consumption. That is the only way I can see the revenues being equivalent to what they have been.

Mr. Mancini: But the member is concerned about the reduction in revenues, and that means consumption.

Mr. Runciman: I was going to allow the other members to stress this, but based on the encouragement of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), I am going to run over some of the social implications before I continue with the economic implications.

I mentioned the matter of impaired driving in my comments a week or two ago. More than 40,000 people in this province were charged with impaired driving last year. The task force found it difficult to rationalize the objectives of the present government and past governments, on the one hand to crack down on impaired driving, and on the other hand to increase the availability of alcohol products. There is popular agreement across North America that strong measures are being taken to get drunk drivers off the road. Making alcohol so much more readily available seems to us in the Progressive Conservative Party to defeat the purpose of legislation against impaired driving.

On the subject of underage drinking, the task force concluded on the basis of testimony that sales to minors would be an increasing concern if beer and wine were available through grocery store outlets. In 1984, more than 384,000 individuals were challenged in Brewers' Retail outlets. In 1985, more than 400,000 were challenged, most on the question of age. This party believes quite strongly that the present system of sales provides the best possible protection against purchases by minors.

Regarding employment opportunities for youth, the present minister has indicated that individuals under the legal age for dispensing alcohol will be prohibited from selling such beverages in grocery stores. Grocery stores are prime sources of employment for teenagers. The government's proposal raises serious questions about the number of opportunities that may remain available if this legislation is enacted. Also, small family-owned-and-operated stores would find themselves in difficulty if required by competition to carry beer and wine.

Another social consequence, and it is an environmental matter, is container returns. The present system of handling beer container returns is the most effective in Canada. At present, 98 per cent of bottles and 75 per cent of cans are returned to Brewers' Retail stores. The task force believes that returns through grocery stores will be less effective and also suggests that the storage of empties will pose a significant problem for grocers.

Another area I would like to touch on is robberies and crime. The police forces across this province have indicated their opposition to this legislation. They feel that wider availability of alcohol, together with the perception of more money being kept in grocery stores, will lead to an increase in holdups and thefts. Many American stores have gone to great expense to install security equipment as a deterrent. We feel the Brewers' Retail and Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlets in this province provide much more control and security, and the police chiefs across Ontario agree.

Getting back to some of the economic implications, the task force report said they would be widespread. I would like to put on record the views of some of the chief executive officers of the smaller breweries in this province. The Toronto Star indicated we were opposing this legislation because we have friends in the brewing industry. I myself do not know anyone in the brewing industry. However, we are talking about some small businessmen here, some small breweries and microbreweries in this province. I would like to put on the record the views of these individuals.

This is from James Brickman, president of the Brick Brewing Co.:

"The proposed corner store legislation would significantly adversely affect Brick's future in two fundamental ways. First, since a corner store has limited shelf space, it is probable that the corner store merchants will only stock one or two brands of each of the major breweries. It is very doubtful that a merchant would commit any shelf space to a specialty beer such as Brick.

"In the likelihood of trade complications arising, corner stores could be inundated with inexpensive American beer brewed by large American corporations with large marketing budgets."

Ross Eaket, president of Northern Breweries Ltd., says:

"I would like to express our opposition to the proposed sale of beer in grocery stores. I feel we are a major contributor to the economy of northern Ontario. Our annual payroll costs are approximately $6 million. Fixed asset additions since 1977 were over $5 million.

"The proposed radical change in the distribution process will spell the economic death of our company for several reasons. Even if regulations were enacted to attempt to force corner stores to handle a brand from small brewers, it would be extremely difficult or almost impossible to enforce. Without the right to distribute our products through Brewers' Warehousing in the past, our company would now not be in business."

15:40

The president of Amstel Brewery Canada writes:

"If beer were available in grocery stores, distribution costs, handling costs and margins would significantly add to the price of beer. The small brewers, having less favourable efficiencies, would be under pressure. If small brewers have to organize their own distribution, the cost would be prohibitive. It would be extremely costly for Amstel to deliver beer in the north and for Northern to deliver beer in the south. It would also be prohibitive to deliver beer to retailers who sell only a limited volume per week. Direct deliveries by brewers to retailers would also lead to price deals. Such a price fight among the three largest brewers would lead to the demise of the small brewers."

I have one final quote from Frank Heaps, president of Upper Canada Brewing, which is a microbrewing operation:

"As a new, small brewing business, we are concerned that changes in the beer distribution and retailing systems in Ontario will seriously affect our sales and could ultimately lead to the demise of the Ontario microbrewing industry."

These are small operations we are talking about and not the majors. We are talking about the very small businesses, especially the microbrewing industry that has been flourishing in Ontario over the past number of years.

We are informed that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) is publicly supporting this legislation. The minister has said publicly that he is, and I am sure that is making all these individuals in the industry sleep well.

After reviewing the social and economic implications of Bill 134, one has to ask oneself why the Liberal government is bringing it in. This is where I get back to the remark I made about cynicism when I began my comments.

When I came into this House in 1981, I supported the concept of beer and wine in grocery stores. Changing my position was an evolutionary process over a period of years, but the most significant element of my re-education was my involvement in the task force process. I was able to get beyond the superficial appeal to become aware of the very serious, negative implications.

When the current government gave its off-the-cuff campaign promise in 1985, I believe it had done as much research on the subject as I had when I supported it in 1981, which is absolutely none. At that time, during the election campaign, it was beyond its wildest dreams that the New Democratic Party would present it with the gift of government and that it would actually have to implement this hare-brained scheme.

Over the past 16 months, the government has had the opportunity to become educated on this issue. Lo and behold, it ain't so attractive. What does it do? Here is where the cynicism comes in. As an open and honest government, does it admit it has changed its position? Heck, no. Instead, it opts to pull a quickie on what it considers to be a dumb and ill-informed electorate. It introduces legislation chockfull of goodies for special interest groups, knowing full well that the legislation faces certain defeat.

We in this House realize that if the Liberals truly believed in corner store beer, they could have brought it about by a cabinet edict through regulatory change, but the Grits assume that the vast unwashed out there, the poor old electorate, will not have a clue about the flim-flam they are trying to pull off. They are out there insulting the intelligence of the electorate, telling them, "We kept our campaign promise," when in reality they have rejected their campaign promise.

Smart politics? I hope not. It certainly is dishonest politics. It is the job of the members on this side of the Legislature to make sure the people of Ontario are made aware that they are now dealing with a government which is prepared to stoop to an unprecedented level of cynicism, which is best illustrated by the unnecessary Cochrane North by-election and this unnecessary and phoney piece of legislation. We are dealing with a government without scruples and without principles.

In summing up my comments, there is no doubt the idea of beer and wine in grocery stores has considerable appeal for many, but when one gets beyond the surface and takes a look at some of the very serious social and economic implications, it becomes far less attractive. We in the Progressive Conservative Party have gone beyond the surface. We have done our homework and we do not like what we see.

Brewers' Retail and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario are not without problems, but we do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. Our party has made a number of wide-ranging recommendations, while the minister has been sitting on his hands and fooling around with this phoney beer and wine legislation. Our party has made a number of wide-ranging recommendations with respect to both the LCBO and the Brewers' Retail organizations to have them more effectively meet the needs of today's consumers.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: After 42 years they suddenly came to life. Who was in charge of the store for 42 years?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Runciman: Unlike the government, we have adopted a responsible approach, one that recognizes the needs of our consumer-oriented society, while at the same time ensuring the long-term security of thousands of Ontario jobs and re-emphasizing our consistent position of concern with respect to alcohol abuse, especially teen-age alcohol abuse.

Mr. Smart: I rise to speak on this bill with some real concern and some feeling of anger and disgust over the way this issue and the bill have ended up before the Legislature.

The whole issue was treated in a very haphazard manner. In fact, in its getting into the 1985 election campaign, I think everybody would recognize there was no examination, no study, nothing done whatsoever in this regard by the Liberal Party before it came out with this flippant promise to put beer and wine in the grocery stores.

I do not suppose it was put any better than by William Walker in the Toronto Star on May 3, 1986. I would like to quote some of what he said.

"Political observers might think a party's policies are carefully thought out and debated for hours in a smoky back room by high-level strategists who try to forecast public reaction. But that couldn't be further from the truth when it comes to the Liberal government's policy to sell beer and wine in corner stores. About 15 months ago, David Peterson, then opposition leader, was strolling through Kitchener's Brick brewery on a tour when he offhandedly said, `We should be selling this stuff in corner stores.' With that simple statement, bingo, alarm bells went off in newsrooms and the story was flashed across newspaper front pages and led television newscasts.

"Back at Queen's Park, Liberal strategists scurried around trying to find out which researcher had been working to develop the policy. Nobody knew a thing about it. Nevertheless, it was instant policy. It happened almost by accident. So a summer student was assigned to do some research. In an election campaign that followed, few Liberals considered victory at that point, so the beer and wine promise was repeated across Ontario by Peterson."

15:50

I guess that is a fairly accurate indication of how this issue became a very live issue in this province and, what is more, how it became the policy of the Liberal Party of this province.

That bothers me. I guess it bothers me because of my background in the New Democratic Party, where these decisions are not made by the leader or the caucus but at conventions. Usually, papers are prepared, there is rather intense debate, and then the decision is made by a democratic vote at a convention where 1,200 or 1,500 people are present.

As a matter of fact, that happened at our last convention at the end of June. I have before me the resolution that was passed by the NDP convention after this kind of debate. I will not read it all. I will read the operative part. It states: "Therefore be it resolved that the Ontario New Democratic Party is opposed to the sale of beer and wine in convenience stores, that decision arrived at in a democratic manner."

I urge my friends opposite and my friends on the right to try democracy in this manner. It really works. It has an advantage to it. I am proud that within this party, these decisions are not made in the kind of flippant manner that the Liberals make them. Now they feel they have to live up to them and bring this bill before the House.

I am a bit angry too because of the hypocrisy that is prevalent in dealing with this issue vis-à-vis the Liberal government's approach to other liquor legislation. As has already been said, no investigation has been done even up to this time, except an investigation by them -- it is not an independent investigation -- to substantiate the decision they have already made.

There has been no seeking of public information on this such as they have been doing under the other liquor regulations. In fact, I have here the statement that was made by the minister, who is in the House today, when he initiated his advisory committee on government alcohol regulations. Let me read a few of the things he said.

"The purpose of the advisory committee is to obtain public and industry input on current issues so that we may continue this government's responsible change in our liquor laws. Again, the advisory committee will participate in a process of regional and local consultation, travelling throughout the province to approximately 20 centres and receiving reports and recommendations from these communities.

"It is in these areas," such as the drinking age, drinking hours, etc., "we believe," he says so fervently, "that both the public and industry should be involved and consulted before legislative, regulatory improvement is implemented." Then he says this: "Of course, we are proceeding with our policy on the sale of beer and wine in independent food stores." A totally different attitude towards this. No public consultation. No going out around the province to find out what the people think about this. No: "We have decided to do that, and we are going ahead on our own."

The very fact that the government could go ahead if it wanted to, that it does not even have to have a bill before this House but could go ahead and do this by regulation, I suggest, is a degree of hypocrisy comparable to saying, "This is an important item and we want to have legislation to accomplish it." It was not important enough that the government wanted to go around this province and consult with the people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We consulted. It was known as an election.

Mr. Swart: The members opposite consulted with them in an election. If the minister thinks that was authorization to proceed, he has not looked very closely at the polls that were done about the reason people voted that way in the election. A poll was done afterwards, and 15 issues were listed on why people voted the way they did. Does the minister know what was 15th on that list? Beer and wine in the grocery store. In fact, there were as many people who voted for the New Democratic Party and for the Conservative Party as there were who voted for the Liberals on that issue. According to that poll, it did not win the Liberals any votes at all. How can they consider that authorization to proceed? I find it very hard to come to that conclusion.

The whole thing, I suggest, is a political game to the Liberals. This decision has not been made on the merits of the issue in any sense. It is a political game they have been playing for the past year and a half.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was an election promise.

Mr. Swart: That was a political game too.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member can draw his own conclusions about that.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I have here the article by Derek Nelson that was carried in the October 22 edition of many, or perhaps all, of the Thomson papers across this province. He talks about this issue. He starts off by saying it is, "the political equivalent of the dance of the seven veils." He then lists a number of the things I have already listed and says:

"Probably the most opaque veil the Grits have thrown over this whole issue is why they brought in legislation in the first place. Even as Kwinter introduced it, he knew the opposition Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats had vowed to combine to defeat the bill. He also knew he could have allowed such corner store sales simply by amending the regulations that apply to liquor distribution. His explanation has added a major social issue and deserves to be dealt with by the Legislature rather than by the administration fiat."

I suggest to members, as they will know if they go on to read the rest of this, that it is a game, and one that has been only partly played out at this time. They are planning to play the rest of that game in the next provincial election. That is why we have it before us at present in this form.

Of course, the Conservatives have been somewhat all over the map on this as well. First their leader was all for it. Then they did a tour and came out against it. The next move, just a week or two ago, was that they were going to vote for second reading, which of course is agreement in principle. Now they have stated that they are going to vote against this on second reading. However, I have to give them this much credit: they did appoint a committee, go around this province and find out what the people were thinking.

Mr. Ashe: We listened.

Mr. Swart: They listened, and that is more than the Liberal government did on this very important issue.

16:00

As I said, I am annoyed. The Liberals deserve to be condemned because they are taking this political and ill-considered approach to the further liberalization of alcohol when almost all other jurisdictions in the world are moving in the opposite direction. If any study is done, they will find that is the case. Whether it is in the democracies or in the dictatorships, there is a move around the world to restrict access. There is a move towards extensive education programs. In many places they are raising the drinking age to 21. Drunk-driving laws are being toughened, and steps are being taken almost everywhere to tighten the access to and discourage excessive consumption of alcohol. Now we have before us a bill by this government, totally out of tune with the times, to encourage an increase in the consumption of alcohol.

The minister used nice phrases on tabling the bill, such as: "Ontario has come of age. It is time to broaden the method of liquor distribution. We are a mature, urban and responsible community. The paternalism of the past must give way."

That is great phrasing. Let us do it with speed limits on our highways. After all, we are a mature population. Why do we have speed limits on the highway? In fact, we lowered them not very long ago in this province. Let us do it with censorship. Are we not, as the minister says, a mature population? I have not seen him bring in any legislation to change the censorship regulations. What in heaven's name are we doing with seatbelt legislation if we are a mature population, as the minister says? Why do we not legalize all the other drugs if we are so mature?

The World Health Organization lists alcohol as the number one drug in the world causing drug problems in our society. I happen to believe that if there is a major social problem, a government has the responsibility to involve itself in remedying it and not in making it worse. I suggest that we do have a major social problem, not just in this nation but in most of the world, in excessive alcohol consumption. That is not said from the point of view of any bias. I like my glass of wine. It is said because it is factual, from all the studies that are taking place.

A Gallup poll was taken back on August 2, 1985. I have a copy of it here. It says: "Canadians Near Top in Alcohol Use and Abuse." It points out that the average of alcohol-related family problems in all countries is 14 per cent; in Canada it is 17 per cent. The average of people who drink in these 20 or more countries is 73 per cent; we are 77 per cent. The percentage who overindulge around the world is 21 per cent; in this nation it is 26 per cent.

That might not be too serious if alcohol consumption were spread evenly over the population, but of course it is not. Back in 1983, Canada put out a publication entitled Perspectives on Health, which was co-ordinated with the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from that publication, which set out the situation in this nation about as clearly as anything could:

"There were an estimated 635,000 alcoholics in 1978, or one adult drinker in 20. This total has more than doubled since 1965. An estimated 1.4 million persons, or one adult drinker in 10, now suffer from an alcohol-related handicap. As for mortality, data indicate that in 1978 alcohol consumption was a direct cause of 2,520 deaths" -- that does not include automobile deaths -- "and the indirect cause of 5,668 others, such as traffic accidents and falls.

"Furthermore, there is evidence that alcohol may have played a role in 10,142 other deaths. A total of more than 18,000 deaths in 1978, or 10.9 per cent of all the deaths in Canada in that year, have therefore been linked with alcohol consumption."

The medical profession has expressed its concerns about this excessive consumption of alcohol. I have here a newspaper article that appeared in the Globe and Mail during June 1985, in which the medical profession states, "Alcoholism is Canada's third most prevalent ailment after cardiovascular disease and cancer."

We do not have to go a long distance from this House or from this city to get other evidence of the results of excessive consumption of alcohol. A study done in 1978 by the Hamilton police force revealed that 44 per cent of offenders in family violence situations were under the influence of alcohol.

My colleague the critic for the Conservative Party states that this is very much a family issue and very much a youth issue. There is no question that is the case. It is also very much a woman's issue. The Philadelphia police department did an in-depth examination on the incidence of rape in that city. They found alcohol was present in 34 per cent of the 646 cases in that year. I quote from that report, "There was also a significant, positive association between degrees of planning the rape and the presence of alcohol in the situation."

Dr. Eric Single, who I think we all know is a senior scientist with the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation and a professor at the University of Toronto, made these comments at the International Congress on Alcohol and the Addictions during August 1985 in Calgary:

"In Canada today, approximately 80 per cent of cirrhosis morbidity is attributable to alcohol use. In the United States, alcohol use is a contributing cause for 30 to 50 per cent of motor vehicle fatalities" -- we know it is that high in this province; in fact, it is 50 per cent, not 30 per cent -- "44 per cent of accidental falls, 25 per cent of all fires, about one third of all homicides and 29 to 40 per cent of all suicides. These data indicate the enormous magnitude of alcohol problems in advanced industrial societies today."

16:10

Yet in the minister's statement when he tabled the bill there was not a single word about these problems we have in our society. Of course, he would have us believe that selling beer and wine in the grocery stores has no effect on consumption. He used that argument in his statement in the House, and he has used it repeatedly. I have here the Hansard of his statement when he tabled the bill on October 16. He said:

"Let me address some social issues... During our examination of other jurisdictions, we found there is no evidence that an increase in the number of outlets automatically leads to increased consumption and social problems. There is no evidence to suggest that Ontario would be any different."

Then he said, "In Quebec, wines were introduced into grocery stores in 1978. There was no dramatic increase in wine consumption."

I have the figures. The following year there was a 28.9 per cent increase in wine consumption in Quebec. After they introduced it in Montana, there was a 245 per cent increase from 1979 to 1985.

He went on to say, "Officials in Quebec and Washington state have not reported increased incidences of public drunkenness, robberies or break and entries as a result of policy changes." Does the minister not realize that there has been something like a 250 per cent increase in the robbery of corner stores since that legislation was passed in 1978?

The amazing part after all this was that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) defended his introduction of this bill on the grounds that all the other jurisdictions showed -- they did not, in fact, but he said they all showed -- it would not cause any social problems.

The leader of the official opposition got up to question the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) about the police objections to the introduction of this legislation. The Solicitor General said, "We cannot compare the statistics of Quebec with those of Ontario, just as there are many other things we cannot compare."

If there was ever a case of one minister cutting another minister off at the knees on all the arguments he had put forward in his comparisons, that has to be it.

The minister is out of touch with the real statistics and what the public, particularly those people dealing with alcohol problems, really thinks. I have four studies that have been done by other provinces on the proposals to put beer and wine in their grocery stores in the same manner in which the minister is proceeding here. Every one of them has concluded that it will likely increase consumption and has rejected the proposal. The minister must be aware that British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Newfoundland all considered it and rejected it.

I want to quote from some of these, and I make no apology for taking some time in this debate; this is an important issue. That it started in such a frivolous manner means that now it needs some very serious debate in this House.

In Alberta the report says, "We can resist any move towards allowing food stores to sell wine and beer.... It is important to emphasize that alcohol itself and its availability play a very important role in the development of alcoholism."

The report that was prepared for the Newfoundland and Labrador liquor commission by the mental health division of the Department of Health incorporates numbers of studies which have been done across the world. It talks in particular about one that was done in Finland. In 1969, the Finnish government relaxed its regulations to allow beer to be sold in a variety of stores. Within one year, the per capita consumption had risen by roughly 50 per cent. Furthermore, although the legislators had assumed that an increase in beer consumption would be at the expense of a decrease in consumption of spirits, this was not the case, and an increase in the consumption of spirits also occurred.

Although not quite as relevant, the 1973 study of Rootman and Oke also provides support for the Creasy study I just reported. This study was based on questionnaires returned by 4,724 junior high school students in 45 schools and communities throughout Alberta. The researchers concluded that the most important factor in predicting and explaining the rate of alcohol used among Albertan junior high school students is the accessibility of alcoholic beverages.

"In conclusion, it would appear from the most relevant studies available that such action as is contemplated by the commission would result in a very significant increase in the per capita consumption rate." That is from Newfoundland.

When it was determined that the government was quite serious about proceeding with this bill in the House and when we thought it might be advisable to get some independent advice on whether its passage would increase the consumption of alcohol, I asked our own legislative library research and information services to prepare a report on a number of things about alcohol consumption and also about the effects of increasing the number of outlets. Incidentally, this report was done by David Neufeld in the research office. This section is headed "Availability of Outlets and Consumption of Alcohol." It states:

"In 1983, a literature review of studies examining the relationship between the frequency of outlets for alcoholic beverages and consumption concluded that" -- this is a review of all the literature available -- "an increase in the frequency of off-premise outlets is accompanied by an increase in consumption. However, due to methodological weaknesses in many studies, the authors treated their conclusion as tentative.

"In 1984, the matter was further investigated by analysing longitudinal data from specific geographic regions where significant changes in the number of outlets occurred. Two of the four states investigated, Idaho and Maine, had increased the number of outlets permitted to sell wine, while in the remaining two, Washington and Virginia, only an increased selection of wines occurred. In the two states where the number of outlets were increased, wine consumption was significantly greater than one would expect.

"Based on wine consumption between 1961 and 1970, consumption in Idaho per capita in 1971 when the number of outlets was increased was predicted to be 0.39 litres. Instead, actual per capita consumption rose to 1.13 litres and data from subsequent years indicated that this higher level of consumption did not decrease over time. In Maine, consumption rose a dramatic 305 per cent in 1971, the year when the number of outlets was increased. The probability of this occurring by chance is less than once in a thousand years.

"After 1971, consumption dropped slightly and then continued to rise. The increase in consumption in both states was specific to wine only, indicating that substitution from other forms of alcohol was unlikely and was unlikely to have been caused by other factors. Thus, the results of this study suggest" -- this is the final sentence in this report from the legislative research department -- "that increasing the availability of alcoholic beverages by increasing the number of off-premise outlets will result in significant increases in consumption."

Another organization which has had a real interest in this -- and the official opposition critic referred to this -- is the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, one the government funds very substantially. I am not going to read a great deal from this because the member already referred to it.

16:20

It states in this report, which incidentally, is a very recent report done this month: "Increases in access to alcohol are likely to facilitate a higher rate of consumption. Conversely, decreases in access are likely to reduce consumption. The evidence in support of this point is from natural experiments where dramatic decreases have occurred, as well as correlational studies."

Then the member from the official opposition quoted the very last short paragraph, which says: "Given the historical experience of Ontario, and given the findings of research on the connection between alcohol availability and alcohol problems, it must be concluded that from a public health perspective, it would be against the best interests of the people of Ontario to permit the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores."

I had assumed that one of the main functions of the addiction research foundation was to advise the government. One of the best-qualified organizations in this province, perhaps in Canada, to assess and to make recommendations has come out against it; yet the minister has decided to proceed with it.

If the minister does not know of the studies that show a link between accessibility and consumption, it is only because he does not want to know. Not only is there a weight of evidence to show that the sale of beer and wine in the corner store is folly, but there is also the fact that those who deal with the problems relating to alcohol are overwhelmingly opposed. In fact, the public generally has turned against the idea.

Two or three years ago, all the polls across this nation showed that the majority of people, not a large majority, were in favour of beer and wine in the grocery stores. I have the Gallup poll here from December 22, 1983, which at that time showed that in Ontario, 54 per cent favoured beer and wine in grocery stores, 41 per cent were opposed and the do-not-know range was five per cent.

As I have already said, that has changed very substantially. The Toronto Star poll, which was taken by Goldfarb Associates on May 23, 1986, showed that at that time, 49 per cent were in favour of it and 51 per cent were opposed. The significant thing in that poll was that although 31 per cent agreed strongly that there should be beer and wine in grocery stores, 42 per cent opposed it very strongly. There is no question that across this province public attitudes have changed very dramatically.

A Gallup poll done even since that one showed that in Ontario 61 per cent of the people were satisfied. The question asked was, "On the whole, would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way in which beer and wine is sold in this province?" Sixty-one per cent were satisfied, and 28 per cent were dissatisfied. With regard to wine, 66 per cent were satisfied and only 26 per cent were dissatisfied. There is a growing realization partly, in fairness to it, from the tour the Conservative Party took on this issue and partly from a greater consciousness on the part of the people, because it was discussed in many cities across this province, so that people are turning against the proposal the Liberal government brings before us. With respect to whether they think this will be damaging, they are so far ahead of the Liberal government that one cannot even see them.

Angus Reed Associates did a very comprehensive poll in September 1985. Incidentally, the results of this have been confirmed by other polls. It showed that of the public out there, 82 per cent believe it will make the sale to minors a more difficult problem and worse, and five per cent think it will improve it. On sales to drunks: 77 per cent of the public think it will be worse; six per cent think it will improve. On impaired driving: 70 per cent think it will make the situation worse; seven per cent think it will improve it. In a 10:1 ratio, they think the situation will be worse by putting beer and wine in the grocery stores.

This government proceeds with the bill because a flippant comment was made by its leader a year and a half ago.

Various organizations across this province that have to deal with the effects of alcohol are equally opposed to the bill. Among the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, only a corporal's guard voted in favour of it, and the minister knows that. The municipalities of this province are deadly opposed to it. They were opposed to it a year ago, before the government brought in this silly change that there will be local options.

Mr. Martel: If they were so confident, they would bring it in as a province and not use the weasel words they are using.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There will be a period of questions and comments afterwards.

Mr. Martel: It is a weasel way of doing it and they know it. They do not want to take responsibility for what they are introducing.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I do not mind my colleague interjecting, because what he is saying makes sense. I will proceed.

The members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario use comments such as this, "If the province hasn't the guts to bring it forward across the board, then they should not foist it on us." Then the newspaper clipping goes on to talk about the vote that took place at that time.

I have another article here, May 16, 1980, "Valley Politicians Predict Mayhem with City Veto Power over Store Alcohol Sale." It starts off:

"Municipal leaders in communities throughout the seaway and Ottawa Valley expressed little enthusiasm Thursday for a proposal to give municipalities the power to veto convenience store sales of wine and beer. Renfrew mayor Audrey Green described the proposed bill as `the most ludicrous piece of legislation I have heard in a long time.' Mayor Lyle Smith of Deep River said: `Deep River is a small town. We already have a Brewers' Retail outlet. I do not believe there is any reason to change the current distribution system. We see so much personal tragedy, impaired driving, family problems and so on through alcohol abuse.'"

I could go on to quote much further from the comments that were made by those Ottawa Valley people.

I have a newspaper clipping here from a year ago. "Corner Store Beer, Wine Opposed by the Health Board." I am sure the minister knows that the health boards in this province as a group have come out in opposition to his proposal.

16:30

I have another headline here: "Trustees Worried about Liberalized Booze Sales." That comes from Lincoln county, in my own area. Again, this opinion is representative of all the school boards across this province. That was September 1, 1986. The story says, "Last night, they voted to tell Premier Peterson and Consumer Minister Monte Kwinter that they don't want the province to liberalize liquor laws and allow grocery stores to sell alcohol."

I have another article, from Brockville. The trustees there are going to fight it.

Recently, the school principals and vice-principals of this province came out solidly in opposition to it. The Federation Update of September 15, 1986, stated under the headline "Principals and Vice-Principals Speak Up on how Corner Store Beer and Wine will affect Schools" as follows:

"Ontario's public high school principals are asking the provincial government to rethink its decision to allow the sale of beer and wine in comer grocery stores." I am quoting from the release. "The decision followed a weekend meeting of Ontario secondary school principals and directors, which examined the possible impact of the government's decision upon neighbourhood schools and which also heard how corner store beer and wine sales affect schools in Quebec and large United States cities like Detroit, where the city of Detroit now is considering passing legislation to even prohibit grocery stores a substantial distance from schools from selling beer and wine."

J. L. Martin, principal of Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute, was blunt in the release:

"Alcohol and schools do not mix. It must be obvious to anyone that having beer and wine available in the Becker's store across the road will increase the access in a way that cannot help affecting our young people and our schools. Having beer and wine there is likely to increase the incidence of robbery in those stores."

They list the questions that the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation asked on this issue:

"Does the population of Ontario need increased access to alcohol? Which groups or sectors of Ontario society desire this change? Who will benefit from providing beer and wine in grocery stores? Who will experience setback complications in public health or public order complications as a result of this change?"

Then they say:

"We would add an extra question to their list. How will the sale of beer and wine affect high school students all across Ontario? It is very clear to us that it can only have a negative effect."

I get a bit amused at the attitude of the minister and the government about this. Concern is being expressed across this nation for what has been happening in the campus pubs, which has caused some very serious problems, as the minister knows, with regard to the students there. The students themselves have stated that only three had abstained from alcohol in the previous month. "From studying 125 of the drinkers, close to a third said they had skipped classes because of drinking, 40 per cent blamed lower marks on booze and almost half said they drove after they had been drinking."

We recognize that problem, yet the minister says that somehow or other the corner store next to a school or across from a school is not going to have any effect on the students in that school. That is so much nonsense, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Martel: Who said that?

Mr. Swart: I am saying this.

Mr. Martel: No. Who said it would not have any effect?

The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the chair.

Mr. Swart: The minister has said that over and over again.

Mr. Martel: He sure knows a lot about kids and teaching. Some of the statements being made are unbelievable.

Mr. Swart: Yes. He has said that over and over again.

In addition to the groups I have enumerated, the police chiefs are violently opposed. The Ontario Medical Association is opposed to it. A number of social work groups have come out in opposition to it. The churches are opposed to it. The trade union movement is opposed to it. The Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation, which I have already quoted, is opposed to it. That is only a small part of the list.

The lineup against alcoholic beverages in the corner store is solid by those who deal with the effects of alcohol on our society. They all say it will worsen the situation. Today, as I have done before, I challenge the minister to name one group in that massive body that approves of what he is doing and says it will improve the situation.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Will the member yield the floor so I can do it now?

Mr. Swart: Yes. Let him do it.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Are you authorizing the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to ask you a question?

Mr. Swart: With your permission, I am giving him the floor momentarily.

The Acting Speaker: I see this as a very unusual situation.

Mr. Swart: All right. He can make his comments afterwards.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There will be a period afterwards when the minister will have a chance to ask you a question. Go ahead.

Mr. Swart: I am sorry; would you repeat the ruling? I did not hear it.

The Acting Speaker: I said there will be a period after your speech.

Mr. Swart: Thank you.

I want the minister to know that I am angry too, because I believe his proposal is a con job on consumers and other groups in our society. For instance, in his statement there is not a word about the increases in the prices that will take place. He did not even deal with that in the statement he made in this House. He knows very well there will be a dramatic increase in prices if there is a substantial amount of beer and wine sold in the grocery stores in this province.

Mr. Martel: Do you know where?

Mr. Swart: My colleague asks whether I know where most of it takes place. Sure; in the outlying districts. The average increase will likely be about $2 a case for beer. This is coming from the minister who is supposed to protect the consumers of Ontario.

The members probably know that Price Waterhouse has done a study on the comparison with Quebec prices. I will read this. The following table summarizes the cost of distributing beer from the manufacturing point to the consumers in six provinces. I will deal with Ontario and Quebec because they are the most similar, as it says here.

In 1984, in Ontario it cost $1.83 to distribute beer from the brewery to the last retail outlet, whatever that may be. In Quebec it was $4.10. In 1985, the gap had widened to $1.92 in Ontario and $4.31 in Quebec. The study says:

"The Brewers' Warehousing system in place in Ontario is significantly more cost-efficient than the distribution system in any of the other provinces. The relative cost savings associated with the Brewers' Warehousing system include substantially fewer retail locations; elimination of duplicate transportation, equipment and employees; consolidation in administration costs and of distribution incurred by the manufacturers; elimination of profit margin and markups that must be paid to a distributor's agents and retailers in other provinces; reduced working capital requirements; information systems that permit manufacturers to control both production and inventory levels.

"The value of the BW system of beer distribution is best assessed by comparison with that of Quebec for the following reasons. Quebec provides a good example of a totally decentralized distribution system whereby brewers individually distribute beer to licensees and grocery stores for ultimate retailing to consumers. The two provinces have similar demographics and consumption patterns. The populations and areas served are most similar relative to the other provinces. The volume of beer sold in both provinces is sufficient to assume that both systems have taken full advantage of economics of scale within the constraints imposed by the approach to distribution."

This is the conclusion of Price Waterhouse:

"Our analysis indicates that cost savings achieved by the centralized BW system in Ontario over the decentralized system existing in Quebec is $2.39 per 24-bottle case. With a total BW volume sold of 98.5 million cases, this equates to an annual cost saving associated with a BW system of distribution in Ontario of $235 million annually. Assuming a 10-year time horizon and five per cent real discount factor, this cost saving results in a value for the BW system of $1.8 billion."

16:40

The consumers' minister seems just as ready to hoist those kinds of costs on the people of this province as he is to block an auto insurance system that could save the people of this province at least $500 million. The report continues:

"Even if the absolute level of taxes were to remain the same in Ontario, shifting to a Quebec-type beer distribution system would require a price increase of $2.39 per case for the breweries to retain their same net return. However, due to the ad valorem nature of taxes, a basic price increase of $2.39 would result in a further $1.12 per case in provincial, federal and ad valorem taxes at existing rates, which could bring the consumer price increase to as much as $3.51 per case."

Granted, the government would get additional taxes on that. I am not suggesting the government is going to do it, but the distribution system alone will put close to a $2.50 increase on a case of beer.

This comparison between Quebec and Ontario is borne out by other studies. This is not something hypothetical; the figures are all there. It is borne out by other studies. In fact, I did some calling on my own, and my sister did some calling, and these figures are correct.

That means this flippant decision as an election gimmick will cost Ontarians a minimum of $235 million more annually. What a price to pay for carrying out a flippant decision that was made without any consideration ahead of time.

That is the average increase, but let us not forget that the uniform price will be gone, as in Quebec. In remote areas, the increase will be far greater than $2.35. I am sure my friends from northern Ontario, and perhaps some of the minister's own colleagues from eastern Ontario, will have something to say about that. Of course, the minister in his statement does not even mention prices or losing the uniformity of price across this province. What objectivity in the statement by the minister that is responsible.

This is also a con job on the grape growers and the wine industry in this province. The minister cannot deliver on domestic wines and domestic beers in the grocery store. Again, he does not even mention this in his statement. He does not mention this at all, but I want him to know that the grape growers of this province are aware of this.

I have a letter here which I want to read to the minister. It is addressed to me and is dated December 9, 1985. It begins: "I thank you for your letter dated November 27, 1985, and the enclosed clipping from the Toronto Star." It was a clipping about the minister, in which he was quoted as saying, "Perhaps there will be GATT objection to only permitting domestic wine to be in the store, and perhaps we may not be able to do it."

The letter continues:

"I am enclosing a copy of a brief presented to the task force on beer and wine in grocery stores on October 16, 1985, in which the board has stated, among other things, that the sale of wine in grocery stores is `conditional that all wine retailed through the grocery store system be Ontario wine or wine commensurate with the standards of the Ontario Wine Content Act.'"

"This position has not changed during the long period during which wine in grocery stores has been under discussion

"The board conveyed this understanding to the Honourable Gordon Walker under date of April 22, 1981, and all future endorsements of wine in grocery stores had been conditional on the wine being Ontario wine.

"The quote attributed to the Honourable Monte Kwinter in the Toronto Star is the board's first indication of a possible diversion from this policy. It is a divergence which the board will not endorse. I am in full agreement with your opinion," which I expressed in my letter to him when I sent him the clipping, "that the likely result would be a further reduction in the consumption of locally produced wines."

That is signed by Brian Nash, chairman of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board. They are not ignorant in any way about what this is going to mean to them.

He sent me a copy of that brief. I want to quote a few sentences from it.

"The board's support of a change is conditional on the following: that all wine retailed through the grocery store system be Ontario wines or wine commensurate with the standard of the Ontario Wine Content Act; that the board be assured of the change that you are proposing to make in this bill; that the board be assured of the GATT-ability of this change."

"The international trade agreement signed in 1979 between Canada and a multitude of trading partners included a reference to Ontario's wine industry. This reference stipulated that trading cannot be more restrictive than at the time of the signing of the agreement. Some experts in international trade have interpreted this to mean that in having Ontario wine exclusively in Ontario grocery stores, we would be considered in violation of this agreement. The board requires assurance on this matter."

That is from a brief by the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board.

Where does the minister stand on this, or what does the minister think about this GATT-ability, as they say? I want to quote from an article by Gordon Sanderson in the London Free Press of September 11, 1986. He quotes the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations as saying this:

"The GATT people are also very concerned about what they consider to be our discriminatory policy with European wine, and that is a very serious bone of contention with them. They have already put us on notice that if we were to put beer and wine in the corner stores and exclude them, that this would in fact be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and they would really ask for sanctions against us."

That is the minister speaking, the same minister to whom the grape growers' marketing board said, "We want assurance that this will not contravene GATT before we proceed with this bill." What did he mean by this? Perhaps when he gets up he will explain exactly what --

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: You are the same guys who complained that we did not do anything about the countervail on lumber.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: He is going to get us into a worse situation.

I thought the minister might have been mistaken, as he so often is. However, I called and had a rather extensive conversation with Frank Stone, who is the author of Canada, the GATT and International Trade. I have notes here from that conversation, about eight pages. In essence he says there is no possibility that sanctions will not be taken against Canada if beer and wine in the grocery stores are confined to our domestic brands. There is no possibility.

16:50

The minister himself raised the issue of the softwood. My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) made some comments which were very accurate. What the minister is doing by this will get this whole nation in trouble with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. He is going to bring down sanctions. He said so himself. It is so clear. Does the minister know the committee of GATT has already been appointed.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That has nothing to do with beer and wine.

Mr. Swart: It has everything to do with beer and wine.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is talking nonsense. It has nothing to do with beer and wine.

Mr. Swart: It certainly has. Frank Stone said they are scheduled to deal with the beer and wine here. They were set up to deal with the wine discrimination. Now they are going to deal with the beer and the wine.

Mr. Ashe: They are slow learners over there.

Mr. Swart: They certainly are.

The minister knows very well from his own statement that the government is not going to get away with domestic beer and wine in the grocery stores. He is conning the grape growers and they know it.

Mr. Runciman: They are trying to con the public, period. It is a hoax.

Mr. Swart: They are certainly doing that. I am sure the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) has close contact with the grape growers, who know they are going to be worse off if the government goes through with this bill. It may sound so good on the surface, but very shortly thereafter we will find that we have to allow foreign wines and beers in the grocery stores.

The minister might remember the handling charge, a very minor thing compared to this, and on that the United States threatened to take sanctions against our Canadian whisky. The minister must have read about that even though he was not in the House at that time. He knows very well what is going to take place.

The grape growers and the wineries will be left holding the bag if the government gets its way in bringing in this bill and proceeding with it. It is doing the same thing with beer. The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) mentioned it in his remarks.

We discussed with Frank Stone the issue of beer and whether putting it into the grocery store will break the grandfathering clause of 1949. He indicated to us that it would break the grandfathering clause we have now. I think everybody knows about the GATT arrangements and agreements that were signed in 1949 for those issues at that time, with the grandfathering clause. We had Brewers' Warehousing here and, therefore, foreign beers could not get into our province.

What is going to happen now? I can tell the members what is going to happen if this bill is permitted to go through. This province will be flooded with beer from other countries, and whether the beer is sold actually in the Brewers' Warehousing or whether it is in distribution, a very substantial number of our workers in the beer industry who have reasonably good jobs will be unemployed because this government insists on going ahead with this very silly proposal.

I want to state categorically that the minister and the government are willing and anxious to put Ontario grape growers, the wine industry, the brewing industry and thousands of jobs on the auction block to satisfy their own ego trip of beer and wine in the grocery stores. The government is going to bait sanctions that always have repercussions far wider than the single issue.

The minister said nothing about the policing of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores. Even his own appointed chairman of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, back on June 28, 1986, said that the sale of beer and wine in corner stores is a horrendous project that could require 200 more liquor inspectors and cost $3 million annually. In a series of interviews in the Toronto Star about the province's liquor laws and regulations, Douglas Drinkwalter also said that the enforcement question is magnified for inspectors because many of the people patronizing corner stores are underage school youngsters.

I presume the minister has got to him since that time and has told him not to make any more such statements, but I suspect he said that at the time from real concern. I suspect he had consulted with the minister and knew what he was talking about, and that is why he warned the government about it.

I know the minister says there will not be any problem and there will be tough penalties for anybody who sells beer and wine to minors. That in itself is an admission of the danger he knows is there. He is not going to put on the penalty to fit the crime; he is going to put it on as a prevention. If it is in the grocery stores, I support him putting it on as a prevention, but it is an admission on his part that there is a real danger.

I want to take this opportunity to express a very real objection to a comment that was made by the minister when he was in Windsor about a week ago. According to the Windsor Star, he said store owners would be less likely to sell alcohol to minors than would employees of Brewers' Retail, who are not subject to the fine and penalties included in the bill.

I resent that maligning of the workers in Brewers' Retail. Is the minister suggesting they do not police sales well? In fact, last year of 380,000 people they thought were under age or inebriated, they turned away half. Yet the minister is maligning them by saying they are not doing as good a job as the clerks in the stores would do. That is a disgraceful thing to say about people who are doing excellent jobs of policing at present.

This bill may well be a con job on the independent grocers too. There is reason to believe supermarkets will get into beer and wine sales as well, as they did in Quebec after a long period of time. Steinberg found a way of getting into it.

When the minister says in the regulations he lays down in his statement in the House that independent franchisers will be able to sell, he must know that half of IGA stores are franchise stores. Are all the IGA stores going to be able to sell in this province? He must know that many of the Dominion Stores were sold to Mr. Grocer. They are independent franchisers. Are they going to be able to sell it?

Is he going to be able to say to those that are supermarkets that they can sell but the other supermarkets cannot sell? It is a can of worms. He cannot regulate that. It will be no time at all until all the supermarkets will be selling it, and if it is going into the grocery stores, that may not be unreasonable. Let us not kid ourselves that it is only going to be the comer stores that are going to be selling this.

Mr. Sargent: The member is against small business.

Mr. Swart: I am not against small business, but it is not going to be possible to confine this to small business. They will not get the benefit that the minister would like them to believe they are going to get and has led them to believe they are going to get.

The silliest part of the whole proposal has to be the passing of the buck to local government to make the determination of whether there is going to be beer and wine in their own municipalities. I know that was a political decision too. The minister thought that was part of the price of getting the member for York East (Ms. Hart) elected. That was the first time the issue was raised; so he jumped on it and helped to get her elected in York East. It had nothing to do with the issue, nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with political motivation.

17:00

Doing that negates all the so-called advantages the minister likes to list, particularly of convenience. We know very well that with the present opinion of the municipalities, the bulk of the municipalities in this province will either have resolutions passed by their council in opposition to it or there will be a plebiscite.

The province will probably end up with maybe one third or one half of the municipalities permitting the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores; likely, they will be mostly urban municipalities. The minister talks about this great convenience for somebody who has to drive 20 miles from a rural municipality to go to the Brewers' Warehousing to get his beer, but he will still have to do it.

We will have the silly situation of stores across the street from one another, one being able to sell beer and wine in the store and the other not being able to sell them. We will simply have an impossible situation. In addition, the municipal politicians, being politicians as we all are -- perhaps making decisions to a much lesser degree on the impact of what it means to me than does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- may say, "We better put it to the public in a vote." A lot of them will do that.

Does the minister realize what it costs to have a vote in the municipalities? It costs at least $1 per capita to have a vote. If the city of Welland has a vote, where the council is opposed to this, it will cost $45,000 to the city.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Not during a regular election, it will not.

Mr. Swart: The minister says, "Have it at the time of the election." He is saying, in effect, he wants the people to wait for two years.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member wants them to wait for ever.

Mr. Swart: That is right. But the minister is saying: "This is good for Ontario. We are doing it for the benefit of the people of Ontario." He is the one who is saying that, and now he is reneging on it.

An hon. member: On a point of order, with all due respect, sir --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member is not in his seat. He is on a seat but he is not in his seat.

I regret the inconvenience to the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Pouliot: I will take full responsibility for that. We will make it a pas de deux on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a point of view.

Mr. Swart: I can understand the minister getting rather agitated on this. A person who knows he is in the right and knows he is doing good for the province is quite calm about it, but anybody who has such great doubt about it, obviously, gets a little bit agitated. I can appreciate that and I will forgive him for doing it.

There are just two or three other items I want to mention before I conclude. One is the loss of good-paying jobs, and I referred to it already. There is no question that if jobs are lost in Brewers' Warehousing or in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the jobs that replace them in the corner stores will not pay the same kind of wages. I see the minister busily writing. I know there will be jobs created as well, but those good jobs, those union jobs, to a very large extent will be gone.

I have no doubt that if this bill were to pass, one of its results would be the raising of the drinking age to 21. The minister will feel obligated to show the great public out there that he is concerned about the consumption of alcohol, particularly by the young. One would hear him speaking in the cabinet: "We have to make some moves now. A lot of people think we are opening up the access and there is going to be additional consumption. We have to make some moves now to show we are on the side of those who think we have to cut down the consumption." For that political reason -- the facts do not prove the young are any worse -- he will be raising the drinking age to 21.

I want to deal with the final issue very quickly. The minister must recognize that if this legislation passes, there is no turning back. If the government has legislation on the books and 15,000 or 20,000 small grocery stores across the province able to accomplish this, they become dependent on this income. Regardless of what happens, there is no turning back.

They have found that to be so in the United States. I have a quote from the police chief in a major city in Washington. I have forgotten the name of the city, but I can dig it out. He makes the following comments: "Why did we ever proceed with this, with the problems we are having? Seventy-seven per cent of our time is spent on policing the problems associated with alcohol."

If the minister was sincere in wanting to do this only for the sake of greater convenience for people, there are other much more satisfactory ways it could have been handled. There are more agency stores in the parts of the province where people have to go some distances to get alcohol. He might have considered having licensed outlets available to sell it. That would have been preferable to this. That is another consideration. There are all kinds of alternatives that would have been much more satisfactory than this ill-thought-out proposal he is putting before us at present.

I was raised on a farm and I am proud of it. I remember on one occasion when I was just a boy, a horse salesman came around to try to sell a horse to my father. My father needed one, so he took a pretty good look at this horse. In those days, horse salesmen were not considered the most reputable people in our society. My father felt the legs of the horse to see whether there was arthritis or rheumatism. He looked at its teeth, since one can tell the age by looking at its teeth. He brushed the horse down to feel its coat and then he gave it a slap on the backside. It jumped off and went right into the side of the barn. I remember my father saying to that salesman: "That horse is blind. You tried to cheat me." The salesman said, "That horse isn't blind; he just doesn't give a damn."

I suggest the same is true of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I do not think he is blind; I am not even sure he does not give a damn about this situation. It has everything to do with something else. It has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with the issue. I suggest that he if wants to do a real service to the people of this province, instead of proceeding with Bill 134 and the companion bill, Bill 135, he ought to drop it now and dissolve the whole issue.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I listened with great interest to the member for Welland-Thorold and his talk about anger, concern and flippancy and that this was some issue that came full-blown out of some casual remark made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson). During his impassioned plea, which I could not help thinking was the most cynical statement I have heard in this House since I have been here, he started to quote all these authorities and said: "Is there one authority that you can give me that has ever been in favour of this bill? Name one."

17:10

Mr. Swart: I did not say that at all.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What did the member say?

Mr. Swart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Hansard will show that was not what I asked at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the time for the member's response.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to quote what I consider to be the most reliable authority we have heard this afternoon, the member himself. This is from the member in a debate that was held on exactly the same issue. It is not something that is flippant and it is not something that is new. It is something that was debated at great length in this house. On May 3, 1984, this is what the member for Welland-Thorold said: "On this issue, as on most issues which come before this House, one has to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages and the harms, if any, that can be caused by enacting such legislation. It is obvious, as the member who initiated the bill has pointed out, that the benefits are very substantial."

He not only said they were substantial, but he went on to say, "There is no question it is a popular and very beneficial move."

Mr. Reycraft: In the early part of his remarks, the member for Welland-Thorold referred to the increase in consumption in Quebec after the sale of wine was permitted in grocery stores in 1978. I would be interested if in his final comments he will indicate to us the source of the information that describes the increase in consumption in Quebec. Also, I would be interested in knowing whether he has compared that increase to any increase that might have taken place in this province in the same period of time.

Mr. Ashe: I am very pleased to note that the member for Welland-Thorold is one who can see the light of day and change his opinion over time. I never thought it might be possible. My query to him is that he give us some rationalization for his seeing the light in the past two years or so.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like the member for Welland-Thorold to comment on some of the remarks that have been made. I am a little perturbed, to be polite about it. The member for Welland-Thorold on this occasion, as we all have on other occasions, participated in a debate on the subject. We have all said on many occasions that there is a good side and a bad side to this and that it is a judgement call.

I am a little taken aback that the minister would rise in his place to do a cheap shot on a member who has been here and who has paid his dues for some time. When the minister has offered the people of Ontario that much service, he may do that. Until he does, I do not think it behooves a minister of the crown to stand in his place and do cheap shots. That is what the back bench is for. The minister should have his staff give his backbenchers these little flunky notes and let them read them. This is their day in the sunshine.

There is not much question that this afternoon we are debating a bill that the minister knows full well will be defeated. It is a good question as to why we are bothering to debate the bill. I do not object for a moment to spending an afternoon on it, but I hope we do not set aside the business of Ontario for the next month to debate a bill we all know will be defeated.

It seems to me that is not only stupidity but that it is also is silliness. If he has a good argument for the process he is proposing in this bill, let us hear it, but let us back off the cheap shots. If that is the best he can do with his well paid staff people -- he has every right in the world to have them -- he should just forget about it. If he has nothing more concrete, positive and sensible to offer to this debate, this whole exercise this afternoon, and maybe for the next few days, will truly be a sad waste of everybody's time and effort.

Mr. Ward: I want to reiterate that we are all aware of the arguments for and against this legislation, and they are worth repeating. Despite the objections of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I want to reiterate some of the statements that have been made by others in this House, because I think it gets to the very crux of the issue. I will quote:

"However, I have done enough investigation on my own, particularly with the statistics that come from Quebec, which shows there is nothing to indicate selling wine in grocery stores will increase the consumption of alcohol generally. The general information is that it would likely decrease the net consumption of alcohol.

"Because of that, there should be nobody in this House who would vote against this bill we have before us today. I think we should stop advertising alcoholic beverages if we want to reduce consumption of them. With this bill that would permit wine to be sold in grocery stores, I suggest it gives us the best of both worlds. It helps out our own farmers and helps out the wine industry, and will reduce the consumption of alcohol. "

Those were the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold the last time this bill was debated. I think they speak for themselves.

Mr. Offer: I detected at one point that the member for Welland-Thorold spoke disparagingly in so many ways with respect to the students of this province. There are many programs that are now being undertaken by the students in Ontario exemplifying a responsibility with respect to alcohol use. For instance, there are certain programs in many of the university campuses around the province. There are designated driver programs that are now being instituted, all designed to promote responsible alcohol use. The member for Welland-Thorold would do well to take a lead from the students of this province with respect to the responsibility they are exemplifying.

Mr. Swart: I am quite surprised by the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I thought he would have known that when the bill was debated before, it was with regard to wine in the grocery stores, not beer and wine. That is a very substantial difference to the present bill that is before us. A tremendous increase in the consumption of alcohol takes place when we have beer in the grocery stores as well.

I am more conscious now of the fact that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regulations will prevent us from making domestic wine available. Although wine in grocery stores might have some detrimental effects if it were there, they would probably be outweighed if we could have only domestic wine. However, that is not the bill we are talking about. I am surprised the minister did not know that.

I was asked for the figures with regard to the increase in Quebec. I will provide them to the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft). I have them in my files. I think the member was referring to the 28.9 per cent.

I want to say very emphatically that in no way was I casting any reflection on the students of this province. I am casting a reflection on the way the government proposes to treat those students and use them as guinea pigs in this whole issue of beer and wine in the grocery stores.

M. Poirier: J'ai l'honneur d'appuyer le projet de loi 134 qui permettrait la vente de bières et de vins canadiens par les dépanneurs indépendants de l'Ontario.

Premièrement, je voudrais commencer par féliciter le gouvernement libéral de l'Ontario. Il s'est respecté en passant de l'avant pour s'assurer de mettre en oeuvre une de ses promesses électorales qu'il a faite lors de la dernière campagne électorale.

Je voudrais féliciter également mon collègue, le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce, qui a fait l'excellent travail de traduire le travail, la promesse du gouvernement libéral en une réalité qui est réalisable et réaliste à l'échelle de l'Ontario.

À titre de député de Prescott-Russell, Monsieur le Président, je peux vous en dire quelque chose. Chez moi, dans ma circonscription, dans l'Est de l'Ontario, j'ai reçu un appui massif de la part de la population. Bien sûr, il y avait des gens qui étaient inquiets, mais ça s'est réglé. Chez nous, c'est un dossier clé, populaire, parce que les gens ont compris ce que ça voulait dire.

17:20

Le 22 mars 1984, mon collègue, l'ancien député de Prescott-Russell dans cette auguste Assemblée, Don Boudria, en tant que simple député, présentait le projet de loi 8 qui visait ce que nous visons aujourd'hui, c'est-à-dire la vente de bières et de vins canadiens dans les dépanneurs indépendants de l'Ontario. Évidemment, nous savons très bien ce qu'en a fait l'ancien gouvernement conservateur qui n'est plus au pouvoir. Nous savons quel accueil il a réservé à ce projet de loi, disant que l'Ontario n'était pas prêt, évidemment, à ce genre d'évolution naturelle qu'ont connue plusieurs de nos voisins.

Comme je le disais tantôt, ce dossier-ci, c'est un dossier populaire clé. Toutefois, il y a encore beaucoup de mythes et de rumeurs qui persistent, et malheureusement, il y a des gens qui continuent à vouloir repousser ceci. Il y a eu le célèbre dossier de la perte d'emplois, de l'augmentation de la consommation à un tel point que l'Ontario ferait face à un taux d'alcoolisme effarant.

Je comprends et j'accepte qu'il y a eu des gens, au début, qui étaient inquiets de ce que voulait tout dire ce projet de loi, sa portée, ses conséquences. C'est normal; on peut s'inquiéter, au tout début, lorsqu'un gouvernement présente un projet de loi -- mais lors des premiers contacts, pas après qu'autant d'information a été offerte à tous les consommateurs et toutes les consommatrices qui ont bien voulu se renseigner.

Il n'y a plus de raison, maintenant, aujourd'hui. Si on en veut, j'ai entendu mes deux collègues, le député de Leeds (M. Runciman) et le député de Welland-Thorold (M. Swan), nous lancer par-dessus la tête mille et une statistiques, à gauche et à droite, démontrant ceci, démontrant cela. Moi, je peux leur en montrer autant qui démontrent que nos voisins qui l'ont déjà essayé n'ont pas regretté leur décision.

The interesting part is that for many years the great riding of Prescott-Russell, the region of Ottawa-Carleton and the entire Ottawa Valley have, in effect, been living with the benefits of what this government is proposing for the whole of Ontario. There has been only one catch. We have been able to buy our beer and wine in grocery stores, but we had to cross the river to go to Quebec to do it, to the great joy of the Quebec merchants, of course. I have read in the newspaper they want to fight this bill because it might be the demise of the Quebec independent store owners across the Ottawa River.

I challenge anybody to come to Prescott-Russell, Ottawa-Carleton or the Ottawa Valley to find out if the Ontarians who have had this chance to buy beer and wine in the grocery stores across the river seven days a week are so different from the rest of Ontario. We are not. Then why should we not normalize the situation so the small, independent, Ontario store owners can get the economic benefit? Why not?

I like the phrase "liberalization of the law" because it translates to where Ontario and its consumers are at in 1986. This is not 1886; it is 1986. We have been living this. I have had much correspondence, many letters and visits from the small merchants and consumers of Prescott-Russell. They are saying, "If we could buy our wine and beer in our very own corner store as opposed to having to cross the bridge to go to Quebec to do it, what would it change for us?" I answer, "Nothing, except the Ontario economy would get the benefit of what we are already doing in the Ottawa Valley."

Even in the great riding of Leeds, did the member for Leeds not say in 1981 that a lot of the people from his area cross over to the United States to buy their beer and wine? Are we going to say to the people of Leeds and any other riding close to the United States, the Quebec border or any other international border that they are different from the rest of Ontarians? Are we lesser Ontarians? Do we take our baths in alcohol? Do we ingurgitate industrial quantities of alcohol because we might be` close to the Quebec or American border? Of course not.

The enjoyment of consumption of fine Ontario wines and beer, including the beer from the microbreweries, can be had in moderation. We do not need to take a bath in alcohol. This policy will help the grape growers, the fine wine producers and the beer makers, including the microbrewers of Ontario. It will give the consumer greater access to his or her choice.

There is a very big difference between consumption and abuse. They are two different dossiers, and a lot of people have tried to confuse them. In the vast majority, the consumers of Ontario know the difference. If any members make allegations that the majority of Ontarians cannot make that distinction, it will be a sad statement on their part.

I have worked hard for many years to help develop the economics of Prescott-Russell. We have helped create the Prescott-Russell Economic Development Committee and the Prescott and Russell Tourism Association. We know that if a government is the least bit serious about helping the local economy, it must help the small, independent grocery-business owners. They can spread the wealth and benefits so that the Ontario economy can be helped on a small scale. If we are serious, it is behind the small, independent business owner that we will do this.

We can answer many of the real fears expressed by Ontarians; I think we have addressed them. For the opposition members to claim that this government did not do a serious study of all the benefits and the downsides of this is ludicrous.

Mr. Wildman: What are the downsides from the government's point of view?

Mr. Poirier: It has been very honest. It has been very complete. The government has consulted with the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation. We know 46 of the 50 states and the provinces to the east and west of us have gone in this direction. I am convinced that making Canadian beer and wine available in the small, independent grocery stores will not hamper and change the pattern of consumption in Ontario.

So far, we have listened to some doomsday merchants of false fears. They are definitely not independent merchants; they seem to be having a chain reaction to this. Regardless, this government said before it became the government that it would make this change, and the people across Ontario are telling me they have respect for this government because it is carrying out its promises. That is one way the government can earn the respect of Ontarians. They are ready for this. We in Prescott-Russell have shown it can be done, and I am certain it can be done across Ontario just as easily.

Nous avons reçu un appui très intéressant de part et d'autre, de la Fédération canadienne de l'entreprise indépendante et de la Fédération canadienne des épiciers indépendants. C'est clair: ces gens-là ont compris le besoin, la capacité de la société actuelle en Ontario de pouvoir gérer et consommer d'une façon raisonnable, et ce gouvernement-ci est prêt à voir à ce que l'application de la loi se fasse d'une façon claire, nette, précise et très sérieuse.

17:30

Les épiciers et les dépanneurs indépendants sont aussi bien capables de surveiller l'application de la loi à la lettre que tous les honorables travailleurs dans les magasins d'alcools et les magasins de bières de l'Ontario, pour qui j'ai un immense respect et qui font un excellent travail.

Mon collègue l'a bien dit: ensemble, on est capable d'y voir et j'invite tous mes collègues de l'Assemblée législative à appuyer un des projets de loi les plus raisonnables de ce gouvernement-ci, qui ne l'a pas pris à la légère. Personnellement, je ne le prends pas à la légère et j'ai l'appui massif des électeurs et électrices de Prescott-Russell. Donc, à bon entendeur, salut, Monsieur le Président. Je vous remercie et je remercie mes collègues.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to make one brief comment. I listened with interest to my friend from the Ottawa Valley and I am concerned about the situation facing entrepreneurs who are in areas bordering on the United States. However, it seems to me the problems being faced with regard to the sale of alcohol are much greater for the tavern owners than for the retailers, and there is nothing in this bill that will respond to that.

As the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) indicated, as a northerner, I am very concerned that this kind of legislation will bring an end to something it took us many years to achieve in the north, that is, one-price beer.

Not too many years ago we used to pay about five cents more per pint than they did in southern Ontario, and it was only by government edict that this was changed. Would that the government would do the same for milk and gasoline, but I digress. If this government is really interested in keeping its promises, why on earth does it not do something about the price of gasoline in the north and leave the price of beer alone?

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, vous comprendrez bien que c'est assez difficile, quand on parle pendant quelques minutes seulement, d'essayer de répondre à un discours aussi rempli de préjugés, si passionné. Mais quand même, il l'a choisi parce que ça lui plaisait, parce que ça faisait son affaire -- je parle ici, bien sûr, du député de Prescott-Russell (M. Poirier) -- de parler de la différence des prix qui existent entre le Nord et le Sud de l'Ontario.

Il faut quand même se rendre compte que l'exemple du projet de loi, qui est sans doute voué à un échec certain parce qu'encore une fois, la voix de la raison et le nombre des membres de l'opposition combinés donneront son destin au projet de loi, un projet de loi si néfaste qu'il est voué à l'échec, et on en fera une certitude très bientôt.

Mais qu'on me permette, dans la minute qui me reste, de souligner, au profit du député de Prescott-Russell, ce qui se produit dans la province de Québec, parce que ce qu'on a fait ici, c'est ni plus ni moins que de copier ce qui se produit chez les petits grossistes, les petits dépanneurs, les petites épiceries de la province de Québec.

Dans la région de Montréal, une caisse de 24 bières est $16.25, tandis qu'à Sept-Îles, elle est $13.75. La circonscription que je représente est de 1,100 milles de long sur 700 milles de large, 114,000 milles carrés, et constitue 29 pour cent du territoire ontarien. Enfin, un produit où on n'a pas discriminé contre les gens du Nord. On ne se plaint jamais de l'accessibilité; on ne se plaint jamais de l'uniformité des prix en ce qui concerne la bière.

Au point de vue de la moralité de la chose, nous croyons que ce sera néfaste pour nos jeunes que de leur offrir un produit qui n'est ni plus ni moins qu'un appel à la table du péché. Ce sont des gens comme ça qui sont coupables; ce sont des gens comme ça qui ne seront pas visés, parce qu'encore une fois, le projet de loi est voué à l'échec.

M. Poirier: Il y a deux points à souligner. Premièrement, on a soulevé la possibilité de ventes aux jeunes. Je dois répondre que ceux qui sont en âge légal de pouvoir acheter et consommer de l'alcool, de la bière, du vin, présentement, pourront le faire soit dans un magasin d'alcools ou dans un magasin de bières, soit chez un dépanneur indépendant, un petit indépendant. Donc, où est la différence? On est en âge légal ou on ne l'est pas.

L'autre point: les consommateurs qui sont habitués à se rendre chez le dépanneur comprennent qu'il y a un prix à payer pour la facilité d'avoir accès au dépanneur, et si ça se traduit, au choix du propriétaire du dépanneur d'augmenter ses prix au-delà de ceux établis à l'échelle de l'Ontario, il sera libre de le faire. S'il veut vendre sa bière et son vin aux mêmes prix que dans les magasins d'alcools et de bières, il sera libre de le faire.

Donc, voilà la réponse. Moi, quand je me rends chez le dépanneur, je suis prêt à payer le prix pour la facilité d'accès. Donc, la réponse est très claire. Je ne partage pas les inquiétudes que mes deux honorables collègues ont avancées et je crois pleinement en le projet de loi 134.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am opposed to the legislation. I intend to speak against it and also to vote against it for many reasons. I will try to express some of them in my talk today.

I will start with the latest report from the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation and quote Dr. Joan Marshman, president: "Research clearly shows that the number of problems resulting from alcohol consumption in the community is directly related to alcohol availability. We know that this is affected by the real price of alcoholic beverages, hours and conditions of sale and the number of outlets, and these factors are controlled by the Ontario Liquor Licence Act and the minister."

We all have a responsibility to represent our constituents and to try to express their views on issues such as this. I respect the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier) for expressing his views on behalf of his constituents and I share some of the concerns he expresses in relation to the Quebec border and the American border. I also share the concerns expressed by some of the other members in relation to the problems that hotel and tavern owners have with competition at the present time and in relation to the future problems they will have if corner milk stores are allowed to sell alcohol.

I refer to my constituents and my concern for this legislation. I feel it will have a detrimental effect on the social and family life of the good people I have the honour to represent in Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. I will make reference to four surveys in four distinct parts of this province.

In the questionnaire I sent out some time ago, I asked the question: "Should the province of Ontario permit the sale of beer and wine in grocery or convenience stores?" In reply, I received 547 saying yes, 952 saying no and 72 undecided out of a total of 1,571, which is fairly high for a questionnaire. They were nearly two to one opposed to the sale of beer and wine in grocery or convenience stores. That was in Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

In his riding, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) asked the question, "Would you favour expanding the sale of beer and wine through corner stores only?" It was yes, nine per cent; no, 91 per cent. He went on to ask, "Do you favour selling it in all retail grocery stores?" It was yes, 25 per cent; no, 75 per cent. That was nine to one and three to one.

In the city of Toronto in her riding, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) asked the question, "Should alcoholic beverages be sold at the local grocery stores?" It was yes, 32 per cent; no, 64 per cent; no opinion, 3.4 per cent. Again, it was two to one opposed to the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores.

17:40

Further, CFPL-TV London did a survey: "Do you favour the sale of beer and wine at the corner store?" The response was: yes, 213 calls, 27.5 per cent; no, 561 calls, 72.5 per cent; total, 774 calls. By the way, the individuals had to pay 50 cents to register their opinion, and they were opposed nearly three to one to the sale of beer and wine. Thus, it depends on the part of the province one comes from whether people are in favour of or opposed to the sale of beer and wine.

I have had numerous letters, phone calls and personal conversations with hundreds of my constituents. Some support the legislation. Some support the idea that changes are needed in our present liquor licensing. The vast majority, however, do not support the proposal that beer and wine should be sold in grocery stores, and some feel the liquor laws are too liberal now. Many teachers, ministers, priests and police officers have expressed their deep concern that this type of legislation might become law.

I would like to mention the legal challenges that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario issues each year to its customers. There are something like 414,000 challenges each year to customers of the LCBO, most asking for age and identification, and some based on the apparent ability to consume more alcohol if they do sell it. They turn thousands away every year because they do not feel they meet adequate tests of who will be allowed to be served alcohol.

My brother-in-law was the manager of a liquor store in a small town. He has told me of numerous incidents where young people have tried to buy alcohol or have had older people try to buy it for them. It is the experience in small towns that they realize who the culprits are and they are able to avoid serving them, but that is something that will not occur if we remove the control from the LCBO.

There is no profit motive for employees at the LCBO. They receive the same wages whether they sell a bottle of booze or not. It will not be the same if it is put into grocery stores. It is not that the retailer will make that much money on the sale of a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine, but if a customer comes up to him with $30, $40 or $50 worth of groceries and a couple of packs of beer and says he wants both items or neither, we will find that in some cases there will be quite a degree of temptation for a grocer to sell the whole package. Maybe not, but my problem would be that with so many thousands of retailers selling, there has to be the odd case where this will happen.

I have a concern with the number of outlets in a town. The town of Fergus is in my riding. There are at least a dozen stores that should be able to qualify to sell beer and wine. Are we going to license a dozen stores in a small community of 6,000 or 7,000 people? What about the likes of Zehrs, which sent in a letter asking the minister to give consideration to allowing beer and wine to be sold in all grocery stores, not just a select few? This creates a problem that the minister will have to address. Who will receive licences in the smaller communities or, indeed, in any community? Who will be denied the licences? Who will make the decisions? What pressures are we exerting on the corner stores that do not wish to sell beer and wine?

Many of the small retail grocery stores in my riding have told me they do not want to have the opportunity to sell beer and wine, but they are concerned about the competition if some of their competitors start to sell it. They have a very narrow margin of profit as it is. If they do not enter into an agreement to sell beer and wine and their competitors do, then they are at a disadvantage. They will be forced into a situation in which they are not interested in becoming involved at present.

Many economic implications would arise if alcohol were made available in grocery stores. There is the problem of the legal age of 18, with young people dispensing alcohol. Under this age, they would be prohibited from selling beer and wine in the corner stores or the grocery stores. This would affect their employment. It is easy for the minister to say it would not be a problem. I guess if one has enough employees it would not be a problem, but in many of the small rural communities where there are family-operated stores, it could be a problem.

Many of the stores have only one or two employees. Usually, they are family operated and a mother and father and a couple of the younger teenagers run the store. At noon hours and times when parents are away, the younger people have to look after the store. If a customer walks into a store, buys some groceries and picks up a bottle of wine, and then a retailer has to refuse to sell it because he or she is under age, this will create a problem. Customers will be very dissatisfied with this type of operation and will likely go to the larger store that can accommodate them.

I see the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is nodding his head in agreement and I am sure that having several small communities in his riding, places such as Wingham, he senses the concerns I am raising.

What about peer pressure? A young person of 19 years of age could have a problem if several 18-year-old colleagues want to buy some beer and wine. It is going to be extremely difficult for that individual to refuse to sell it to his younger colleagues. This again is a problem that LCBO employees do not have.

Under Bill 134, stores would be allowed to sell only six-packs of beer and certain Ontario wines. This is not going to satisfy the beer drinkers or the wine connoisseurs. Wine drinkers will want a better selection than the few wines that the average store will be able to carry. Beer drinkers will not relish the idea of paying higher prices for six-packs of beer. If they are heavy beer drinkers they will go for the 24-packs and buy them at the LCBO or the Brewers' Retail.

I would be concerned that convenience stores would serve a useful purpose for some for reasons that I do not consider would be of benefit to our society. These stores would provide a six-pack for the driver who has left the local pub and wants a beer or two on the way home. They would also provide access to underage drinkers, and the clerks of these stores would not have the expertise, training or knowledge efficiently to screen out these young people as LCBO employees would have, as I have mentioned.

I have had some complaints about some of the LCBO employees selling alcohol to young people who are under the legal drinking age. I remember an instance in one of my communities of a young lad celebrating his 16th birthday. He went down to the liquor store and bought a bottle of alcohol, celebrated over the lunch hour and passed out in school in the afternoon. The teacher was a little perplexed. If this can happen now, what will happen under the new liberal laws?

I would like to turn now to the government's cop-out in not having the courage to make the legislation province-wide. It is now sloughing off the responsibility of deciding whether the sale of beer and wine should be permitted in local corner stores. It is sloughing it off to the municipal councils. The government should take the heat and not pass it off to some other level of government.

17:50

On September 2, I issued the following press release, which I would like to read into the record:

"On June 5, 1986, I wrote to all the municipal councils in Wellington-Dufferin-Peel requesting their comments on the government's proposal to delegate to the municipalities the responsibility of deciding whether or not the sale of beer and wine should be permitted in their local corner stores.

"I received replies from 20 of the 21 municipalities. Of these, 16 are opposed to the proposal, three are in favour and one is undecided until it receives further information, which I assume will come from the tabling of the legislation."

As the minister well knows, at the recent convention of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the membership voted overwhelmingly against the proposal.

Having served several months on the all-party select committee on highway safety of a few years ago, there is no question in my mind that increasing the availability of alcohol would defeat the purpose of legislation against impaired driving. It would also make it difficult to rationalize the objectives of the present and past governments to crack down on this serious social problem.

Very few people besides the Liberal government members believe increased consumption will not lead to increased social problems, especially in the area of drinking and driving and increased fatalities, especially in the younger generation. The government believes it will be creating thousands of jobs. They can only be through increased sales and more consumption of alcohol and, therefore, more social problems.

I would like to read into the record two letters that highlight my concerns. One is in reply to a questionnaire that was sent out. It is from a lady who says:

"I have worked in hospitals. One of them was Homewood Sanitorium in Guelph. Many bright young people I went to school with were in these facilities because of the availability of alcohol and the peer pressure to go along with what they thought was just having a good time.

"Their lives may be permanently affected. It appears that alcohol abuse gets worse with each generation. What one generation allows in moderation, the next generation allows in excess. Why then should we make it so acceptable and available to anyone, and how will this issue improve living conditions for Ontarians?"

The second letter is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations from the Rev. Rutledge, pastor of Queensway Cathedral. He states that he is deeply disturbed that the government is promoting legislation to allow the sale of beer in comer stores. He writes:

"As the pastor of a congregation of 2,000-plus people, I see at first hand the heartache and misery that beer and alcohol cause. In the light of the following 1980 statistics by the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation, how can you intelligently consider making beer more easily available?"

He goes on to say that one in 10 deaths is linked to alcohol, 2,200 of them by cirrhosis of the liver; 5,554 by car accidents, falls, burns, drownings and suicides; and 10,300 from causes ranging from heart attacks to other problems.

He also cites the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services pamphlet entitled, Drinking and Driving -- It is Criminal, which states that 30 per cent of the serious injuries and 50 per cent of the deaths that result from motor vehicle accidents are related to drunk driving.

Alcohol is present in 33 per cent of murders, 38 per cent of attempted murders, 54 per cent of homicides, 39 per cent of rapes, 42 per cent of sexual abuses, 61 per cent of criminal assaults and 25 per cent of attempted suicides.

He goes on to say: "Considering the above, on what basis does the government want to make beer and alcohol more accessible? The purpose or function of good government is to support and pass legislation which contributes to the public good. Legislation to make beer and alcohol more accessible does not serve this purpose. I implore you to reconsider. My mother was killed in a traffic accident, when I was a teenager, by a drunken driver in another car." This is a direct quotation from the Rev. Rutledge.

I urge the minister to reconsider his decision and to give consideration to the many concerns expressed by my constituents and those of this province who do not want to see beer and wine in the corner grocery stores.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent of the House to revert to committee reports to hear a New Democratic Party report.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to reports by committees?

Agreed to.

Mr. Allen: I would not exactly call it an NDP report. It came from a very balanced committee which gave at least some attention to this bill.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Allen from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 129, An Act to amalgamate Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

28 octobre 1986