Journal des débats 1989-févr-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

They are: Tim Lambert, president of Local 676 of the Canadian Auto Workers; Gary Cook, business agent of both locals of the United Electrical Workers; John Slinger, lawyer with the McQuesten Legal and Community Services Clinic; Vern Lepine of my own local, 5328, of the United Steelworkers of America; Rodney Bezo, Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers International Union; Laurie King, Local 6868 of the Steelworkers; Herb MacDonald, workers’ adviser, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers; Edward Crook, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and Robert Kinnear, chairperson of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union southwestern Ontario council.

What these people have in common is that they are victims of the broken promises of this Liberal government, the broken promises of a more open government and input into decisions made by this government. All of these people represent just some of the 44 organizations that will be denied their day in court, their ability to make a presentation before the standing committee on resources development looking at Bill 162 in the province.

The ones I have read are large organizations, prominent organizations very much involved in this whole field. There are 37 others I could have listed that will not have their day in court as a result of the refusal, by a six-to-three vote of the Liberal members on that committee, to allow everybody to have a hearing on Bill 162.

SIMCOE COUNTY ATHLETES

Mr. McLean: My statement concerns two groups of Simcoe county athletes who will be competing in major events in March. On behalf of my colleague the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) and myself, best wishes.

The first is a 16-member ski team, including athletes, coaches and team doctor, from Colling-wood Collegiate Institute that will be competing in the International Sports Federation world alpine skiing championships in Ostersund, Sweden from March 3 to 10.

This major international event is open to 14-and 15-year-old boys and girls who will be competing against hundreds of high school students from other skiing nations. This will be the first time Canada will be represented at this significant international event.

The second group is the Russ Howard curling team from Penetanguishene. Skip Russ Howard, vice Glen Howard, second Tim Belcourt, lead Kent Carstairs and fifth man Larry Merkley will represent Ontario at the Labatt’s Brier Canadian men’s curling championship in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, from March 5 to 12. The Howard team recently won their third Ontario provincial men’s curling championship in four years and continue to demonstrate that they certainly are masters of the ice.

I am sure that we all wish the Collingwood Collegiate Institute ski team and the Russ Howard rink success in their respective events. They truly are worthy representatives of Ontario. I would also like to thank the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) for the gifts that he has donated to the curlers.

STELCO INC.

Ms. Collins: I am pleased to inform the House that Stelco sent out letters last week offering approximately 270 of its former employees full-time, permanent employment at its Hilton works plant in Hamilton. With the completion of this task, the company will have offered full-time jobs to all of its laid-off workers who have retained recall rights. For the first time in many years, Stelco’s recall list will be blank.

This is a milestone achievement. As members know, the early years of this decade were not easy for Stelco and its employees. Thousands of workers were laid off and the entire Hamilton economy suffered tremendously. After the last layoff in the spring of 1985, however, the company made a commitment to undertake a five-year productivity enhancement and employment stabilization program involving the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in new modernized production facilities, a pledge of no further layoffs and a promise to do its best to offer full-time employment by 1990 to all of its former workers with recall rights.

Stelco has honoured these commitments. This recall announcement marks the end of a difficult transition period for Stelco and the Hamilton community alike. From this experience, both have emerged better able to compete in a rapidly changing global marketplace. I congratulate the management and the employees of Stelco on their success in forging this competitive renewal and making possible the latest employment recall.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: When the Liberal government referred Bill 30 and Bill 94 to committee, the instructions from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) were that everyone who wanted to speak on the extension of funding to Catholic schools and to the ban on extra billing would be heard. Why is that principle not good enough for the people who are affected by Bill 162? I guess there were no walls and there were no barriers during minority government, but during majority government the Liberals want to use the muzzle on citizens across the province.

I would like to read some of the names of people in Windsor who will not be heard because the Liberals have applied the muzzle on Bill 162: Gary Hewton; Robert Gallant; Mickey Bertrand, Local 89, Canadian Auto Workers; Ray Dupuis, Local 200, CAW; Bruce Boyd, Local 195, CAW; Harry Warner, Local 127, CAW; Mickey Warner, Local 82, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Jerry McCorkell, financial secretary, Local 27, CUPE; Robert Jenner, plant chairman, Local 89, CAW; Ron Seguin, president of CAW Local 616; Randy Hope, president of CAW Local 1941; Don Stewart, private citizen; Nick Dzudz, Local 1973, CAW; Robert Maroon, Local 1415, Amalgamated Transit Union.

I could read the rest of the list. It would take us all afternoon if we went through the hundreds of people whom the Liberal Party is muzzling on Bill 162.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: In recent weeks, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) has repeatedly failed to act as an advocate for the seniors of this province.

When the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board recommended major rate increases for seniors, effectively penalizing some of the best drivers in Ontario, the minister sat idly by and told seniors that increases would be marginal. Later, when this claim turned out to be totally off base, she told seniors that the announced rates were purely speculative; that seniors should imitate her and wait for the insurance companies to announce their rates.

The seniors of this province have indicated that they are more concerned than the minister is: concerned that they will lose their 20 per cent discount and concerned that many of them will face significant increases.

This weekend Joyce King, past president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, echoed the sentiments of many seniors. Mrs. King pointed out that more than 50 per cent of seniors are living below the poverty line, and indicated that her own rates could rise by 60 per cent. When asked about the minister, Mrs. King stated: “I don’t like her attitude. I don’t think she is advocating for seniors, which should be her role in government.”

Mrs. King is absolutely right. On the issue of auto insurance rates for seniors, the minister has simply not stood up for the best interests of senior citizens in this province. Regrettably, she has failed her first major test, and failed it badly.

1340

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Neumann: I would like to commend two groups which have worked with the government of Ontario to meet housing needs in Brantford. With funding assistance from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the St. Leonard’s Society of Brant recently opened its Albion Street residence for resourceless youth. Space is provided for up to nine young people who have no other place to live.

I recently had the opportunity to tour the residence along with my colleague the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon), and it was heart-warming to see how much these teenagers enjoyed having a place of their own. I might add that it should also be noted that the neighbours have welcomed them with open arms and even provided them with books for their library. The not-in-my-backyard syndrome has been noticeably absent on Albion Street. Obviously, the board and staff of St. Leonard’s Society have done an excellent job.

The Sisters of St. Joseph will soon be opening Bethany House, an emergency crisis centre for women and children. This project has been several years in the planning and will meet a pressing need in our community. I have worked with the sisters since this project was first proposed in 1986 and have been inspired by their energy and their commitment to Brantford.

There are other housing needs in our community which still need to be addressed, but at a recent meeting which I sponsored for local agencies interested in housing along with my colleague the member for York Mills, it soon became clear that there are many projects being planned which will do just that. Working together with the government of Ontario, these groups will help us to meet the different housing needs in our community.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr. Neumann: Obviously, results can be achieved by working hard together.

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: The Ministry of Correctional Services’ annual report features the building of the head office in North Bay. Perhaps this is indicative of the politics of empire building of the ministry. Perhaps more appropriate would be the overemphasis of this ministry on incarceration, the lack of treatment of psychiatric inmates, the problems of understaffing and overcrowding and the lack of programming generally within this ministry.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEACHER EDUCATION / FORMATION DES ENSEIGNANTS

Hon. Mr. Ward: Today, I am releasing two reports which provide the foundation for the long-term revitalization of teacher education in Ontario.

The first report contains the recommendations of the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee. The committee’s 33 recommendations pivot around the creation of an Ontario Council for Teacher Education. Today, I am pleased to announce the establishment of this council, which will advise the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and myself on ways of shaping a quality teacher education process to benefit both teachers and students.

To ensure appropriate and responsive French-language representation, each group of stake-holders will include at least one francophone. In addition, a French-language subcommittee will advise the council. The council will also benefit from the advice of a subcommittee comprising representatives of parent groups.

The council will be in place and operating before the beginning of the 1989-90 school year. It will be made up of 16 members representing four major stakeholders in teacher education: universities, teachers, school boards and government.

The executive director of the council will be Frank Clifford, who served as chairman of the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee. Mr. Clifford brings to his new assignment 35 years of experience as an educator, including 10 years in the field of teacher education.

The report also recommended that all matters relating to teacher education in Ontario be the responsibility of a single ministry. I am pleased to announce today that a new branch, the centre for teacher education, will be created within the Ministry of Education and will combine the current responsibilities of my ministry’s professional development branch with those of the teacher education section of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

The centre will provide a new focus for policy development and policy implementation in the field of teacher education. Its mandate will include liaison with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and with the faculties of education at Ontario’s universities.

Both the council and the centre will be guided by an important principle emphasized in the steering committee report, that teacher education should be viewed as a continuum which begins in the undergraduate years and spans the full extent of a teacher’s career.

It is my intention to direct the council to advise on the implementation of key recommendations of the steering committee. In addition, one of the key tasks of the council is to serve as a central co-ordinating body in my ministry’s management of the long-term supply and demand of teachers in Ontario. Our understanding of this phenomenon has been placed in a new and more accurate perspective by the findings of the second report I am releasing today.

The report, by Professor Laverne Smith of York University, was commissioned by the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee to investigate teacher supply-and-demand projections in Ontario.

After a pattern of steadily declining student populations, Ontario is now beginning to feel the effects of the “baby boomerang” as the children of baby-boomers enter our schools. With the sudden upturn in student enrolment, we are facing a strong need for more teachers.

As Professor Smith concludes: “It would appear that, at this moment, Ontario does not have a teacher shortage but it has a teacher shortage in its infancy. Without intervention, this shortage will become increasingly serious within the next few years and is likely to become full blown by the mid- 1990s.”

The effects of this increased demand for teachers have been complemented by an increased number of teacher retirements; by measures to improve the quality of education, including the preparation time for teachers; by the popularity of certain programs, notably French as both a first and second language, and by the accessing of teachers to the three-year early-retirement window.

These factors must be addressed in the long-term management of teacher supply and demand. Our new council, drawing together the key partners in teacher education, will merge the effective management of teacher supply with an improved focus on the needs of the profession. In addition, the council will recommend means of responding to the need for teachers in specific high-demand subjects, such as French-language programs, mathematics, science and technological studies at the secondary level.

I would like to conclude by briefly addressing the widely discussed shortage of teachers in Ontario this coming September.

The scope of this problem remains at this time unclear, because a few key pieces of the puzzle are still missing. We will not know until May 31 how many teachers will use the early-retirement window and we will not know final secondary school subject enrolment until students make their final selections over the next few weeks. We do know, however, that the demand will be the greatest in a handful of subject areas, in the availability of supply teachers and in high-growth boards.

With the benefit of Professor Smith’s recommendations, my ministry is developing a series of potential responses to increase our teacher supply in the short term.

A total of 4,435 students are currently enrolled in Ontario faculties of education, an increase of some 13 per cent above last year. Some 290 students are enrolled in the two French-language faculties. I am working with my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities to ensure significant enrolment increases at the faculties this fall.

While this large supply of teachers will fill a considerable portion of the anticipated need, several growth-area boards are also addressing their demands by hiring from applications already on file. However, it is already clear that we cannot expect to meet all the demands this fall through our faculties of education alone.

In this context, my ministry is processing nearly 1,500 applications for letters of eligibility from out-of-province teachers, a 60 per cent increase over last year.

In addition, my ministry is currently exploring the viability of the following options for augmenting the short-term teacher supply:

Removing, for a limited period, impediments in provincial legislation which restrict our retired teachers from returning to teaching to offer their expertise for a few extra years, particularly in a supply-teaching role.

Encouraging retired teachers to participate in more short-term teaching assignments. Currently, retired teachers are restricted to a maximum of 20 days of work per year, a limit which could possibly be relaxed.

Attracting the estimated 5,000 teacher graduates from the past five years not hired by school boards. Boards might consider offering these potential teachers salary enhancements for their related work experience in specialized areas, such as technical education.

Other possible measures to assist boards include the adoption of a common hiring date, a central registry of teacher personnel and the formation of a new database to help determine our needs in specific subject areas, such as French immersion, science and math.

The supply and demand of teachers in Ontario, both in the short and long term, call for careful, responsible management. We must ensure that the availability of quality teaching professionals tracks the expectations for excellence we place upon our system of education. It is essential that our decisions be pertinent, well planned and workable. Our short-term proposals and long-term answers will fulfil these requirements.

1350

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I also welcome the final report of the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee.

I was pleased to hear the report confirm that the present system, which prepares students for their chosen vocation of teaching, produces good results.

I also welcome the proposal by the committee for the creation of the Ontario Council on Teacher Education.

Our teacher education institutions have increased enrolments by 20 per cent over the last three years. However, there continues to be a demand for teachers in certain regions of this province and in several specific subject areas.

Last year when I approved the establishment of the program adjustment envelope we identified teacher education as one of our priorities. We have just earmarked $5.1 million over four years from this fund for teacher pre-service enrolments. Of that, $2.2 million will be allocated to our teacher education institutions this year.

This funding will enable these institutions to increase their teacher pre-service enrolments in September by an additional 385 places. That will bring total enrolments to 4,820.

Demand for teachers is particularly high in several of our major urban centres. Through increase of enrolments at the University of Ottawa, Queen’s University, the University of Windsor and York University, we hope to ease these regional needs.

En outre, un grand nombre de ces nouveaux étudiants s’inscriront à des programmes d’étude qui répondent à des besoins pressants, notamment dans l’enseignement du français langue maternelle et du français langue seconde, et dans l’enseignement des mathématiques et des sciences au secondaire.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) outlined the establishment of a distinct teacher education branch in his ministry. Program responsibility for teacher education will now be more closely linked to the development of policy for elementary and secondary schools.

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities will maintain its liaison activities and its role of providing funding for teacher education programs at our universities. As well, we will be able to share our opinions and concerns related to teacher education as a regular member of the OCTE.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I rise today to table the independent investigators’ report on cardiac surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital and to inform members of the steps my ministry will take in response to the report’s recommendations.

The investigating team was asked to report on the scheduling of heart surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital and to identify other factors affecting the management of cardiac surgery cases. I want to thank the investigators, two of whom are in the gallery today -- Vickie Kaminski and Dr. William Sibbald -- for the thoroughness of their report and the quality of their recommendations.

The report identifies factors specifically affecting surgery at St. Michael’s, as well as factors that have had an impact on the delivery of cardiac surgery services across the province. The report notes: “St. Michael’s Hospital has a long-standing and distinguished reputation for the care it has provided to its patients. The hospital has made a clear and focused commitment to patients with all types of cardiac disease.”

I am pleased to report that St. Michael’s has agreed to take immediate action in response to the investigators’ findings. Ministry staff will be working with the hospital to ensure that needed changes are implemented, the number one priority being an effective scheduling system for surgery.

The report clearly demonstrates that the problems we are encountering in providing cardiac surgery are complex and cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources. The recommendations directly involve all participants in the system -- hospitals, doctors, nurses, administrators, support staff, the Ministry of Health and the public we serve.

I agree with the overall thrust of the recommendations and I am moving to implement them as quickly as possible.

I am today announcing a six-point plan of action consisting of further development, evaluation and expansion of the Metro Toronto cardiovascular triage and registry program to other parts of the province; development of standardized guidelines and definitions for assessing urgent, elective and emergency cases; development of a public education program on cardiac disease and treatment; review of staffing requirements; improved communication within and among hospitals providing cardiac care, and establishment of appropriate performance targets for each of the cardiac surgery centres.

This will be implemented by a multidisciplinary provincial working group for cardiovascular services. I am directing ministry staff to meet as soon as possible with board chairmen, chief executive officers and chiefs of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery of the nine cardiac surgery centres, as well as the deans of medicine, to discuss steps needed to implement many of the report’s recommendations. As the report makes clear, hospitals are accountable for the management of hospital resources and patient services.

I have also asked the ministry’s cardiovascular co-ordinator to seek the expert advice of cardiovascular surgeons on issues requiring immediate action, including the introduction of a system to refer patients to the hospital that can provide the necessary care in the most appropriate manner.

The report identifies difficulties in some hospitals in staffing cardiac and critical care services. As members know, I recently announced regulatory changes to increase the role of nurses in hospital decision-making. I will continue to work with nurses to seek solutions to nursing issues.

As the report notes, our system of cardiovascular services is strong and provides excellent patient care. In the words of the report, “We commend the participants in Ontario’s health care system (physicians, hospital nursing, administrative and perfusion staff of hospitals and Ministry of Health officials) for the current strengths of the province’s cardiovascular program which has benefited many in this province.”

A number of initiatives are already under way to increase the availability of cardiac surgery. I believe that taking action on the recommendations of this report will lead to greater integration of services and better co-operation among centres to strengthen our provincial care network.

I would once again like to thank the investigators named in the report: Mrs. Vickie Kaminski, lead investigator, assistant executive director of nursing, Sudbury Memorial Hospital; Dr. William Sibbald, co-ordinator of critical care/trauma unit, Victoria Hospital Corp., clinical professor of medicine, University of Western Ontario; and Elizabeth M. Davis, RSM, executive director, St. Clare’s Mercy Hospital, St. John’s, Newfoundland.

RESPONSES

TEACHER EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) on teacher shortages, in which he has told us that the Titanic is not sinking, and even if it is he has a rubber patch ready to place on the sinking ship. He then enumerates a number of ludicrous suggestions, most of which indicate there is going to be an enormous problem.

The minister still claims there will not be a major shortage this fall. I would like to bring him a little reality therapy, if I might.

The Teachers’ Superannuation Commission predicts that 4,000 teacher retirements will take place this year. There are only 4,000 graduates from the schools of education this year alone, so all the retirements are going to take up that number of graduates. We also know the minister’s own plans for lowering class sizes in grades 1 and 2 are going to take up to 4,000 new teachers; at least 1,000 teachers per year. So there is an extra 1,000 teachers we need above what is already there.

We already know as well, of course, that the system is expanding and that we can identify enormous growth areas of Ontario in terms of programs and numbers of students. If you were to survey just the 20 boards around Metropolitan Toronto alone, you could find that they are going to be hiring 4,000 new teachers themselves this year. If you take out the retirement figures from that group, you are talking of approximately 3,000 additional teachers in the system above those we are graduating in Ontario at this point.

What this means is that either we are going to be doing an enormous amount of offshore hiring, letters of permission and that kind of thing, which we had back in the 1960s because of the terrible planning of the government, or programs like lowering class size are going to have to be cut, or programs like French classes in Ontario, which are desired by the population, are not going to be able to be followed.

1400

If I take just four boards in Metropolitan Toronto -- the Metropolitan Separate School Board, the York Region Board of Education, the Toronto Board of Education, elementary panel only, and the Scarborough Board of Education -- they need 1,100 new teachers on top of those who will be retiring.

What we have is a minister who has no clue about just how severe this problem is going to be, who then suggests to us that he is going to have an early retirement plan for people, which we approved in Bill 30, and now he is going to make it easier for those teachers to come back into the system. Does he not understand what he has to do? They should all retire now and all come back in and double-dip. It is a ludicrous suggestion by a government that is out of touch with the problems that are out there.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. Revile: The astounding statement today of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) demands the sternest possible response. What she has done is to absolutely incorrectly characterize what this report says with all sorts of self-serving claptrap that just does not wash.

What this report says is that her stewardship of the health care system in this province is utterly bankrupt. What this report says is that there are not enough resources. What this report says is that the Ministry of Health has done nothing meaningful to deal with the absolutely critical shortage of qualified personnel to care for people who have heart problems in this province.

I can hardly contain myself, as members can probably tell. It is amazing to me that the spin doctors have found something good to say about the contents of this report. That simply is not what the report says.

The report goes on and on about the undercapacity of this minister’s system. It goes on and on about her failure to deal with the nursing crisis as she continues to hide behind a scarcely believable reliance on and praise of the collective bargaining system, which of course anybody who knows anything in this province does not suspect this government of being capable of. It does not indicate that this government has taken meaningful action, in terms of the nursing shortage, which is clearly developed in this report in an absolutely damning way.

I am amazed the minister had enough nerve to stand up today and deliver that foolish speech she made and I think it is time for her to resign.

TEACHER EDUCATION

Mr. Harris: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward).

I would like to congratulate Professor Laverne Smith of York University, who commissioned a report pleading, I would suggest, with this government to look at the knee-jerk type of short-term policies in conflict with one another that have contributed to and exacerbated the very serious teacher shortage problem that we have.

The report highlights and points out the exact contrast to the minister’s statement. He says, “The supply and demand of teachers in Ontario, both in the short and long term, call for careful, responsible management.” That is what the minister says. That is clearly not what has taken place over the past three years.

He also says, “It is essential that our decisions be pertinent, well planned and workable.” When we have a teacher shortage, a severe problem, in conjunction with an early window retirement program to get more out, how does that make sense? That is the one agenda item I see in the speech which the minister wants to share with the New Democratic Party, saying that was part of the accord. I suppose he is trying to shift some of the blame over there.

The minister is the government and he is the one who has made these silly decisions.

In 1968-69 I attended the faculty of education in North Bay. There were 600 students. Today, with this tremendous shortage, there are about 210. We have been pleading with the Minister of Education, with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and with the Premier (Mr. Peterson), year after year, that there is a severe problem. There are about 900 to 1,000 applications and all the minister will let in is 200 to an institution that at one time, when I attended it, handled 600.

At the same time, the minister announces, ad hoc, “We are going to reduce class size,” with no consultation with educators as to whether that will lead to double or triple grading and more problems than are there, with no understanding of the fact that he does not have enough teachers in the classrooms now to meet the existing supply and demand.

It has been an ad hoc, knee-jerk reaction throughout. The only person who shows any sign of understanding is Professor Smith. I hope, since the minister would not listen to us and would not listen to the professionals in the past three years, maybe he will listen to him and salvage something in the future.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to the statement made today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). The Minister of Health has been telling us in this Legislature for the last several months that the number of heart surgery procedures done in Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr. Black: More surgery isn’t better health.

Mr. Eves: Every time I have brought up these statistics, she has disputed them. Maybe she would like to refer to page 26 of this report, which confirms what we on this side of the House have been saying for months and she has been denying.

The number of cases she is doing has steadfastly decreased from 1985 to now: 2,709; 2,687; 2,612; 2,558. She is going in the wrong direction. She is doing less and less, not more and more. Despite the fact she tells the public she is doing more and more, she is doing less.

“Shortage of Qualified Personnel.” I refer the minister to page 68 of the report. “What is less well enunciated is a plan to solve the critical shortage of nurses.” That plan rests with the minister in her initiative as Minister of Health in this province.

“This step has been taken primarily in response to tighter budgetary controls although there are also concerns for quality of care and continuity of care.” This is talking about hospitals being able to use agencies to hire nurses. They cannot do so because of the budgetary restraints the minister has placed on hospitals. It is identified right here on page 68 of her own report.

“A reduction in cardiovascular surgery residency training positions, together with an expansion of cardiovascular surgical resources, have led to this problem.” They are talking about trained medical assistance for cardiovascular surgeons. Her predecessor announced a reduction of residency positions in Ontario. I have asked her about it in this House several times and she has stood up and defended the position and the policy of the government. This report is very critical of the government, on page 68 and other pages.

I ask the minister to read the summary. I do not know how she can possibly get the interpretation out of this report that she read in the House. On page 74, in the summary section, it says, “At the same time we recognize that there are problems with resources and personnel in Ontario, especially in Toronto, which require immediate attention” -- not studies, but immediate attention -- “if the cardiovascular program is to restore its balance... if Ontario does not devise a system to monitor and manage change --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr. Eves: -- “the province’s health care system will go from crisis” --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time has lapsed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. The two statements that were made today by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) I think point to a broader and deeper underlying problem at the heart of the Premier’s government; that is, we have here two instances, very clear cases, where he is sitting on top of major crises and simply panicking in response.

Can the Premier explain the extraordinary paralysis at the heart of this government which would have produced the two kinds of statements we have seen today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is the most outrageous question I have heard in this House in the last four years. If the member wants to talk about paralysis, they are so paralysed that they cannot even ask a decent question today. They have been sitting here wasting the time of this Legislature. Talk about a paralysed opposition. Mr. Speaker, if you were us sitting here, you would be bored too looking at these people.

Mr. B. Rae: We had two examples today of the paralysis. Let’s go over it. He promised pension indexing; he has done nothing on pension indexing. He promised to move on hours of work; he has done nothing on hours of work. He promised to deal with the Thomson report; he has done nothing with the Thomson report. He promised to deal with the day care crisis; he has people lined up outside the door on day care.

He promised to deal with the question of care at home for senior citizens, and we have a system which has been described by every major homemakers’ organization in the province as in complete disarray. He is sitting on reports. He has reports, piled high up in his office, on every major problem of public policy in this province, and he has not moved to deal with these questions. My simple question is, why has he not dealt with any of these problems?

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I, with great respect to my friend opposite, reject his analysis of this situation, as I do his analysis of every other situation. I say with some pride, to my friend opposite, that this government is regarded as a leader across this country and across North America -- I say that with some pride -- in the environment, occupational health and safety, the health care system and education technology. I say to the member that if he cannot think of a better question than that, he is going to have the same problem as Ed Broadbent.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier’s smile gives away the sincerity of his answer to the question. He knows perfectly well the problem that he is facing. We have the problem of frail elderly in our institutions. He is sitting on three reports, which he has had for years now, on the question of what he is going to do. He has reports on pension indexing, which he has completely and totally failed to move on. He has reports on hours of work, which he has totally failed to move on.

He has reports on early retirement, which he has completely failed to move on. The list goes on and on. We have a Nursing Homes Act, which was supposed to force nursing home owners to disclose their finances. He has not even introduced any of the regulations dealing with changes, which he made back in 1987.

I want to ask the Premier again, can he explain the extraordinary paralysis at the heart of his regime, of his administration, when it comes to every major area of public policy in this province -- every one?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I guess reality is in the eye of the beholder. I remember a time when my friend opposite thought he won the last election, and he was only brought back to reality by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). I say to my friend that his analysis has been wrong on every occasion so far, and it continues to be so.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health, dealing with a report which was made today. There is an extraordinary discrepancy between the report and the statement that the minister made. I would ask the minister, if she has the report in front of her, to turn to page 68. Does she have the report there? She does not even have the report in front of her. She has the statement, but she does not have the report.

Hon. Mr. Scott: What is this, some kind of class? You would think we were at Oxford. Turn to page 68, give me a break.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Cue cards.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I would ask the minister to turn to page 68. I do not know whether she has read the report; I hope she has. She says on page 2 of her statement that the problems are complex and cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources. Page 68 deals with the question of the shortage of qualified personnel.

I wonder if the minister can possibly square the statement that she makes, when she says it cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources, when the report says this clearly: “Four major studies have been undertaken in response to the shortage of nurses” -- I am quoting from the report -- “The problems are well enunciated in these studies” -- in these four studies, which the minister is aware of -- “The conclusions of these studies are consistent. What is less well enunciated is a plan to solve the critical shortage.”

This report talks about a critical shortage of nurses. I want to ask the minister, what is her plan to solve this critical shortage of nurses? Let her tell us, enunciate it now for us.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the report also notes how important it is for us to recognize that the services in Ontario are strong, and that this report builds on a fundamentally strong system and will, as these recommendations are implemented, make a good system and good services even better.

I would say to him that he is aware of a number of initiatives which have recently been undertaken in the area of dealing with the whole nursing issue in this province. We have had occasions and numerous opportunities in this House to discuss them.

I can tell the member that we are working co-operatively with all of the nursing associations: those representing the nurses in their union; those representing the other professional points of view, as well as with the hospitals. The new regulations which we have just announced and brought in I believe will go a long way as we encourage nurses to participate more strongly in hospital decision-making processes, to in fact resolve those quality-of-working-life issues which are affecting the profession in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: I was listening for and waiting to hear a plan from the minister. I do not think any of us heard a plan today --

Mr. Farnan: There is no plan.

Mr. B. Rae: -- because there obviously is not one. I want to say to the minister, when she says that the problems cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources, perhaps she would like to look at the next sentence to the one I have just finished reading which says: “Compounding the provincial shortage, there has been a discontinuance of the use of agency/registry nurses in some hospitals which have traditionally used these nurses for as high as 10 to 15 per cent of their total nursing staff. This step has been taken primarily in response to tighter budgetary controls...”

I wonder if the minister can tell us: If budgetary controls are cited specifically in the report as one of the reasons why hospitals are not going to agencies, how can she stand up in her place and say that underfunding and a lack of resources are not problems when it comes to solving these critical shortages? The words “critical shortage” are not used by me alone; they are used now by this report which the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you; the question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition will know that hospitals that are run by boards of trustees and professional administrators are responsible and accountable for the policies that they establish for their hospitals regarding hiring practices and policies.

I would say to him as well that if he wants to have a quote on the resource allocation, on page 71 the investigators say: “We have identified a major shortage in the utilization of resources intended for cardiovascular surgery in Toronto. There is no question that the Ministry of Health has provided additional funding through the budgetary system for increased services.”

Mr. Reville: Turn the page and read what it says on page 72.

Mrs. Grier: They did not give her that page.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe the answers. First of all, I could not believe the statement, because it was such an inadequate reflection of the seriousness of the report.

We have a report which was commissioned to deal primarily with a problem which the minister incorrectly identified as being unique to St. Michael’s Hospital. The committee looked at the situation at St. Mike’s and said: “Look, you haven’t got a problem at St. Mike’s, you have a problem right through the system. It is endemic to the system; it is part of the system and it is a problem of a system which is not well-planned, well-managed or well-financed,” and that is obvious from what is being said in this report.

I wonder, given the direct criticism of the ministry which is contained in these documents of the administration of a very important aspect of our health care system in this province, can the minister tell us why she should not resign?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, in response, I think it is very appropriate to say to the Leader of the Opposition how pleased I have been with the response from the hospitals providing cardiovascular care in this province, and particularly from the chairman of the board of St. Michael’s Hospital.

Mr. Dilworth said, “It is vital that we do all that we can, all that is possible, to ensure that patients with the most critical needs have those needs met as quickly as possible.”

He also went on to state, “All nine Ontario hospitals will look carefully at the process of prioritizing the allocation of resources for critical care, as well as issues concerning cardiac surgery waiting lists.”

We know that what is at issue, in this issue and in others, is the need for hospitals to work together; to work together with the ministry to make sure that resources are allocated in such a way as to make sure that those who are in most urgent need receive that on a priority basis. I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am pleased with the response from the board chairman; from the hospitals; from administrators; from doctors and from nurses in their willingness to work together with the ministry, as we make a good system even better in the future.

1420

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health as well. During statements I pointed out the findings on page 26 of the report to the minister. They conclusively state that there are fewer and fewer heart surgery cases being performed in Metropolitan Toronto every year, that they have consistently decreased from 1985 through to 1988.

On page 68 of the report, as I and the leader of the official opposition have pointed out, it says, “What is less well enunciated is a plan to solve the critical shortage” in nursing. Then they go on to say, as we pointed out to the minister during statements, that “This step has been taken primarily in response to tighter budgetary controls,” which the minister and her government introduced, “although there are also concerns for quality of care and continuity of care.”

Does the minister disagree with any of those statements this report has made, that there are fewer procedures being performed every year, that she has no well-enunciated plan to solve the nursing shortage in the province --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Eves: -- and that the monetary and budgetary policy of her ministry, which she imposed on the hospitals in this province, has led to this shortage?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked the question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: If the critic for the third party is going to quote from the report, I will do so as well. On page 42, and I think this is very important, it says, “As waiting lists, waiting times and cancellations increased, more attention focused on individual patients by the politicians in the Legislative Assembly and by the media.”

Mr. Eves: The time for ministerial statements expired.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This is extremely important. “A lack of knowledge of the functioning of the health care system sometimes leads politicians and reporters to assume conclusions which are not fully accurate.”

Mr. Eves: The lack of responsibility and initiative by the Minister of Health leads to dangerous consequences.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said on numerous occasions that the member opposite does not listen. He does not want to hear this. He assumes conclusions which are not fully accurate. That is right here in the report. I would say to him that the bottom line under this section on page 43 says, “We believe that the public and the Legislature must allow hospitals, physicians and the Ministry of Health to work together to constructively address such issues in a reasonable and collaborative fashion.” That is what we are doing.

Mr. Eves: For a year the minister stood in her place and told us there was no nursing shortage in Ontario. Now it is outlined here in black and white and she wants to read from a different page.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Eves: What about the issue of residency positions, seeing as how we did not get an answer to the one about nursing shortages? It says, “A reduction in cardiovascular surgery residency training positions, together with an expansion of surgical resources, have led to this problem.” Does she disagree with that statement?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would point out to the member opposite, if he will listen for just a moment, that Sudbury Memorial Hospital has a very fine cardiovascular surgery program and has no residents. They have staffed their program with well-trained nurses and other staff.

Mr. Eves: So you disagree with this conclusion? We don’t need residency physicians?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I can say to him it is very important that we factually and accurately present a picture to this public, which watches the proceedings in this Legislature, that is fully accurate as we proceed to, as I said before, build on the foundation of a fine health care system in Ontario, and as we criticize it responsibly make a commitment to make it even better.

Mr. Eves: This is almost unbelievable. These are facts found by an investigation that the minister appointed, and she refuses to acknowledge any of them. Is she tired of page 68? We will turn to page 71. How about the cardiovascular surgery unit at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, which the minister said would be open, and I quote, “almost immediately”? Almost immediately was about eight months ago, and we now find out we will be lucky if it is rolling by the fall of 1989.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: Let’s turn to page 74 if she does not like that page. This is the summary. She should be able to read that. Maybe it is the only part of the report she has read. “If Ontario does not devise a system to monitor and manage change, the province’s health care system will go from crisis to crisis,” as the minister has been doing, “and public confidence will continue to be eroded.” Does the minister agree with that statement or not, yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In the numerous discussions we have had in this House during estimates, during question period and at every opportunity, we have talked about how important it is for us to work together co-operatively and collaboratively, not only as we manage change but as we plan for the future. I would say to the member that in the implementation of these recommendations, we believe that by encouraging hospitals to work together co-operatively with the ministry, we will build the kind of network that will result in improved quality in patient care right across this province.

Mr. Eves: People are dying on the waiting list.

Mr. Speaker: We will wait for the member for Parry Sound.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier, and I hope he likes this question. He has not liked any other questions that have been asked so far this afternoon, so I will try to give him one that will not bore him and that he may want to respond to.

I am sure the Premier is well aware of the fact that there is a very substantial and very significant difference in funding between municipal homes for the aged and the nursing homes in Ontario. He is also aware, I am sure, of the court case which is presently under way with respect to this particular question.

Is the Premier prepared to step in and attempt to overcome the difference in funding between these two providers of health care in this province or, alternatively, is the Premier simply going to wait until the court case strings out? It may take some long period of time before a resolution is seen to this particular problem. What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend points to an anomaly in the system that we inherited from his administration.

Mr. Brandt: Well, do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are doing a lot of things about a lot of the problems they have created, I am telling my friend; and if he stands up here on the road to Damascus and recants all of the things that they did and the messes we have to clean up, I am happy to admit that we are in court because of their policies on that matter.

I say to my friend that it is probably not appropriate to comment, the matter being in court.

Mr. Brandt: Perhaps that kind of response had some validity six months or a year after the Premier took office. Fully four years after he has sat in that seat as Premier of this province, he has a responsibility to clear up a funding differential that fully amounts to 33 per cent difference between how some of our senior citizens are being treated in homes for the aged and how some of our senior citizens are being treated in nursing homes.

Can the Premier justify having some senior citizens being given more money in one facility and other senior citizens being given less money in another facility? Can his government justify that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me ask him -- and I compliment my honourable friend on his temerity -- how does he justify it, because he created the system? We are trying to get out of the mess that his government caused. How does he have the temerity to stand up in this House and ask the question? It absolutely amazes me how utterly shameless my friends opposite are when they stand up to accuse us in this phoney tone of moral rectitude of not solving in a short space of time their problems that they created over the years.

He should be embarrassed to stand up, but I want to say this: He looks very handsome with his new tan, and welcome back.

Mr. Brandt: When one talks about temerity and puffing oneself up in talking about a former government that was in place some four years ago, he cannot justify an entire series of programs which are crumbling under his administration. He can take some action to correct a problem which is very serious and which had to be taken to court in order to get his government to move on it.

He has problems with health; he has problems with housing; he has problems with virtually every ministry in his entire government. Here is one problem we can give him a solution to: Treat all senior citizens in this province equally. That is what we are asking for.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know if that is a question, but again I ask my friend how he can summon up all this unction and moral rectitude and tell us and lecture us when he did the exact opposite when he was in a position to do something about it. What accounts for sanctimony? Maybe it is going over to that side of the House. Maybe that is what causes the whole situation, I have no idea.

But I want to tell my friend that when he looks at the record of this government in a whole range of areas, when we are dealing with the highest-growth economy in the industrialized world, when we are putting in changes of programs in the environment and in health care, we are determined to make sure that our system remains affordable and accessible for all, that we are going to make sure that we do not run into the problems.

We solved the great problems that they created, be it pension deficits, be it unfunded liabilities. They stuck every problem on the back burner and we have to deal with them now. And I will tell him this: we are dealing with them.

Their idea is the politics of avoidance; our idea is to wrestle with these problems. They did not care about the future; we do. That is why I say to my tanned friend opposite that he is going to be sitting there for another four years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait if you want to waste time. New question, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The House just sort of fell into the credibility gap, that was the difficulty, I think.

1430

TEACHERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding his problems with teacher shortages. I can understand and have some sympathy for his problems given that they are not all his but that one of the gang of four left him with the lack of planning that has put us in this preposterous situation.

I would just like to ask the minister if he still wishes to stick by his indication that this is only a problem in certain areas when he knows now from the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission that retirements alone across Ontario will take at least all the graduates that we have. There are communities like Ottawa with 120 retirements and London with 128 retirements. London, I point out to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), does not have one supply teacher right now in either math or sciences.

Will the minister tell me how it is that we got to this position where we are going to be thousands of teachers short this fall?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do have to say to my friend the member for Scarborough West that although I do recognize that there are indeed some short-term problems in terms of the situation of teacher supply, I believe that we are responding in a very orderly, manageable and responsible way.

The member talks of this situation as being some sort of insurmountable problem. I do not believe it to be so. As a matter of fact, if he wants to use some figures and some examples in terms of needs, he should recognize that last year alone there were over 6,000 new entrants to the teaching profession in Ontario.

He talks of the need of certain boards, and I will give him some examples. The Halton Board of Education, for instance, will require 152 teachers next year and has 961 applications on file. The Durham Board of Education, which will require 360 teachers next year, has 1,075 applications on file.

I would point out to my friend that we do believe that the situation is easily manageable. We will not sacrifice quality in the teaching profession just to respond to the member and others who have their fingers poised over the panic button.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I know from time to time it is important for a minister to posture as an ostrich with his head in the sand.

The question again is around shortages. I would like to ask the minister this with regard to their reduction of class size. The Premier in the last election promised in the first year, in 1987-88, that he would reduce class size to 20:1. Then the government moved it, because that would have taken 4,000 teachers, over to a three-year to four-year period, about 1,000 teachers per year required.

Is he now going to have to curtail that promise even further than he already has or is he going to pretend today that that is not going to get touched by this either?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am glad the member has raised that particular issue. He will know that I stood in this House well over a year ago and pointed out that after extensive consultation with both school boards and teaching professionals in this province, we had come through with an orderly and manageable process to achieve what I believe to be perhaps one of the most worthwhile initiatives undertaken in elementary education in this province in many, many years.

The member will also know that we established targets and we established a phased-in implementation process. He will know by now that not only did we meet the target of the first year, we exceeded our goal in reducing class sizes in the elementary grades. We substantially enhanced elementary school programs and brought forward a number of initiatives. The member knows full well that not only are we meeting that commitment, we are exceeding it.

HOUSING FIRST PROGRAM

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Minister of Housing, relating to the Housing First policy between the minister and her counterpart the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). Under this program, announced with great fanfare last spring, the first priority for the use and disposal of government land is for the creation of more housing for low- and moderate-income earners.

Many are wondering where the minister was when the Ontario government recently sold land in Cambridge, where the housing crunch is little better than it is in Toronto and where the vacancy rate according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. figures for 1989 is actually worse than Toronto. I would like to ask her specifically why 185 acres of provincial land were sold last week, for industrial use only, at close to one quarter of the market value.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite will know, because I have explained our policy in the House before, that the Housing First policy identifies land which is surplus to government use and indicates that its first purpose will be housing if it is appropriate to housing use. That decision is made by the government, in particular by the Ministry of Government Services, and our commitment is that, on all the surplus lands that are so identified, 35 per cent of the units that are built -- and that is a floor, not a ceiling -- are meant to be affordable, meaning to reach the needs of low- and moderate-income people.

I cannot comment on a specific piece of land at this point, but I think that the member should know we have already announced eight pieces of land, many of them in Metropolitan Toronto, to be treated in this way. There will be more announcements coming. We are looking at all the land that is available to us and, as I understand it, the land that the member is talking about was zoned for industrial purposes and is meant to be used that way.

Mr. Harris: It appears to me, other than a little comment from the minister who whispered in her ear, that the minister did not know anything about this. This is not the name of the game or the policy that she announced for government land.

It is my clear understanding that industrial land in the Cambridge area is not in short supply, but there is obviously a serious housing shortage in that area, a problem more severe by the numbers than there is here in Metropolitan Toronto. It appears to me as though the policy of the government should read: development first; housing second, third, fourth, if at all.

According to the industry commissioner’s office in the city of Cambridge, market value for the piece of land is between $16 million and $24 million; yet this government let it go for a whopping $4.4 million. Even if the minister intends to take profits, as she said at some time, and commit them to housing, it makes no sense to sell it for 25 per cent of the market value.

I would like to ask the minister again how she can reconcile this with her stated objective, that it is Housing First when she disposes of government land.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our policy is extremely clear, and I find it difficult to understand why the member opposite has not so far managed to grasp it. Let me try again. The policy says that our land which is appropriate for housing will be used for that purpose. This land is zoned industrial. The details about the way in which government treats land are, of course, the responsibility of the Ministry of Government Services.

We have been using the land in the province that is appropriate for housing for the purpose of housing. I have initiated discussions with the new federal Minister of Housing, to see if he can urge his federal colleagues to make land that the federal government owns available for the same purposes and in similar ways.

The member opposite is very exercised about this issue, and I invite him to add his voice, as one that is very influential with the members of his party in Ottawa, in exactly the same aim as mine, which is to increase the supply of housing out there and the amount of land that is available for that purpose.

1440

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

Mr. Morin: I have a question for the Minister of Health. A few weeks ago, a number of concerned teenagers from Orleans in Gloucester staged a three-day protest to emphasize their need for a drop-in centre and a crisis hotline for the troubled teens in the community. The problems facing these teenagers include pregnancies, troubles at home and at school, and drug addiction.

My question to the minister is, what is the Ministry of Health doing to meet the needs of the teenagers of Orleans?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to acknowledge the member’s interest in this issue. He has spoken to me about it. As the House will know, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced a doubling of funding for addiction programs in recognition of the need to increase access to these important services in the province.

Since last spring, my ministry has funded 37 new or expanded drug and alcohol counselling and education programs for young people, three of which are in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I can tell the member that the Orleans program which he referred to was not a recommendation by the district health council in Ottawa.

Mr. Morin: Federal health statistics show that there are at least 7,000 teenagers in the Ottawa-Carleton area who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. In view of the fact that it costs the Ontario health insurance plan $23,000 to send a child to a for-profit clinic in the United States, an approximate expenditure of $15 million in 1988, would the minister consider redirecting those funds towards building a much-needed rehabilitation centre in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the member that in fact funding decisions are based on prioritization by district health councils. In Ontario, long-term care is available at a number of locations: Stonehenge in Guelph, Alwood in Carleton Place, the Donwood Institute in Toronto, Brentwood in Windsor and the l’Arc-en-ciel in Opasatika.

Although some may require long-term inpatient treatment, recent research has shown that for the majority of patients, outpatient and community-based programs are very effective. For the member’s information, we currently fund 24 community mental health and addiction programs in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I can assure the member, who has a real dedication in this area, that we will continue to review existing programs and, as resources are available, continue to make improvements.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Phillip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing: 3380 South Millway is a 100-unit town home complex in Mississauga. Although technically registered as a condominium, it has been a rental project for seven years. A few days ago, the tenants were surprised to discover that an open house was being held and their units were being sold. Only 20 of the 100 families are in a position to purchase their units, so 80 families are in fact facing eviction as those units are sold.

Can the minister tell the House why she is not prepared to close the loophole in her own Rental Housing Protection Act so that tenants like the 80 families in Mississauga will not face eviction?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I know the member opposite is referring to the Rental Housing Protection Act, and the concern he has raised is one that I think is worth raising. The important thing to say here is that in this province we treat the ownership of a condominium in the same way that we treat the ownership of any other residence. What that means is that someone who buys a house or a home of any sort, whether it is standing on a lot all by itself or is a town house, an attached house or a condominium, has the right to rent that property to someone else if he or she chooses, and also has the right to move into that property himself or herself if he or she chooses.

We believe that is a reasonable position to take, and that is the point of view we have taken on this matter. We have, however, taken significant measures to protect people in rental accommodation in a variety of other ways in our new version of the Rental Housing Protection Act, which the member opposite well knows. I believe it is important to treat ownership of housing in the same way, no matter what physical form it takes.

Mr. Philip: The minister will know that this has not been owned by individual home owners who are going to try to move back but rather by one or two developers who have owned the property for a period of seven years.

The minister has recently announced, for the third time, her Homes Now program, which she claims will create 30,000 new rental units over a five-year period of time. Does the minister not realize that she is losing the battle when she is using tax money to bring about new rental accommodation while, by her own admission, some three times the number of units she claims she will be creating can in fact disappear because she refuses to plug this loophole in her own act? Why is she not prepared to put in that plug in that act?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows very well that tenants of all sorts in this province are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act.

He should also know that in the new version of the Rental Housing Protection Act, which we are bringing forward and which he will have an opportunity to comment on further, we are saying the only way a tenant may be asked to leave the accommodation he is in is if the person who buys the apartment himself wishes to move in. So it is only if someone wishes to move into his own unit that this could possibly happen.

I think that is a reasonable way to handle this. I believe what we have done makes sense. We have also increased the protection for tenants in rental accommodation all over the province in a variety of ways which the member well knows.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. Eves: I have another question for the Minister of Health. This report is dated February 15, 1989. How come the minister is introducing it in the House on February 28?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Following receipt of the report, I read it carefully and I would recommend it to the member. I met with the investigating team to discuss personally its findings. The report makes recommendations not only for the Ministry of Health and St. Michael’s Hospital, but for hospitals and surgeons. Collectively and collaboratively, we have been discussing how to implement the recommendations of the report as we take the kind of action to ensure that we move positively and confidently into the future.

Mr. Eves: I find it passing strange that a report that has so many serious recommendations to make to the Minister of Health, a report which she did not have a copy of -- I had to send her a copy during the first question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) on this matter -- I do not know why she would sit on this report for two weeks.

What type of action is the minister going to take in response to all the critical comments and conclusions that this report comes to? If she wants to deal with the summary section again, on page 74, it says, “At the same time, we recognize that there are problems with resources and personnel in Ontario, especially in Toronto, which require immediate attention if the cardiovascular program is to restore its balance.”

If the minister has read this report for two weeks and met with the people who made it, as she suggests she has, why is there no specific plan of action, no concrete steps that she is going to take to deal with these problems immediately, other than more and more studies? The problems have been identified. What action is she going to take?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In my statement to the House I outlined a six-point plan of action. I sent the member a copy of the statement, but I will pleased to say to him again that the six-point plan of action consists of the following:

Further development, evaluation and expansion of the Metropolitan Toronto cardiovascular triage and registry program; development of standardized guidelines and definitions for assessing urgent elective and emergency cases; development of a public education program on cardiac disease and treatment; reviewing of staffing requirements; improved communication within and among hospitals providing cardiac care, and establishment of the appropriate performance targets for each of the cardiac surgery centres.

This plan will be implemented by a multidisciplinary provincial working group for cardiovascular services.

We have already contacted the nine hospitals in this province providing this service, and I am pleased to tell the member that they are all very positive in their response and their desire to work with the ministry in a co-operative mode. The board chairmen, the chief executive officers, chiefs of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery and teams of medicine have agreed willingly to come forward to implement these recommendations.

FRANCHISES

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week, I received a very disturbing letter from a Toronto-based Volkswagen-Audi dealership. Volkswagen Canada has abruptly cancelled the Audi franchise of this company with very severe consequences for the continued operation of the 75-person enterprise.

This experience, in my opinion, points out a serious problem in our current legislation. It appears that franchise business relationships can be cancelled at a moment’s notice, without recourse.

May I ask the minister whether this information is correct, and if so whether he is aware of other cases where this situation has led to significant job loss?

1450

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member’s information is correct. We have a situation where some 30 Volkswagen dealerships have been affected by this termination of the Audi dealership franchise. They will retain their Volkswagen dealership franchise.

My ministry officials met with the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada earlier this month, I believe it was on February 8. As a result of that meeting, we have asked for specific information from the federation and are waiting until that information is provided; then we expect to have meetings with Volkswagen Canada.

I can say to the honourable member that on our first reading of the franchise agreement it appears Volkswagen Canada has acted within the terms of the agreement, but certainly in terms of the job loss in the specific instance my friend refers to and generally throughout the 30 dealerships, we view the action as being most unfortunate.

Mr. Daigeler: I would like to ask whether the minister shares my interest in making, in a general way, franchise relationships more predictable. I think what is to be regretted here is the very short notice that has been given and the fact there does not seem to be any recourse. I would like to ask whether this matter is under study by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have had some discussions with the federation on this issue for some period of time. I say to my friend that we have looked towards other jurisdictions, both in this country and in the United States. In most other jurisdictions, similar franchising legislation is really lacking. In the short term, we have suggested to the federation that it sit down with both domestic manufacturers and importers and try to negotiate fair and equitable agreements, without the kind of short-term cancellation notice my colleague refers to.

In the longer term, rather than looking at specific legislative action in this industry, we are looking at the whole issue of franchising, not just in the automotive industry but across the spectrum of industry. That is part of the consumer review that is now under way.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you. I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson); he was not here yesterday, he left halfway through question period today and he will not be here for the next two days.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

PROPOSED OBSERVATORY

Mr. Laughren: I will direct my question to the government House leader. If he can find his way back into the chamber and remove the growth from his seat, I have a question for him.

On January 26, I had a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) concerning the development of a neutrino observatory in Sudbury at the Creighton mine. On January 26, the Premier indicated that he had not been briefed about it but that he would bring himself up to speed and refer it to the Premier’s Council on high technology. I am wondering if the government House leader, who is the Minister of Mines, can bring us up to date and give us a status report on the request for about $7 million over four years, which would kick-start that very important scientific project.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I will ignore the opening salvo because I would not want to unduly excite my friends in the official opposition, lest I be accused of a personal attack in responding to that particular observation.

I can tell my friend that I have been briefed on a number of occasions, not the least of the briefings coming from some of my own constituents who have been involved in the project to which the honourable member makes reference. My colleagues the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) have indicated interest in and support for this particular undertaking in the Sudbury area.

We are looking at the interests of both the private sector and the government of Canada. Quite frankly, we are looking at our options. We are concerned that at this point in time we do not have, as I understand it -- again, I will check the information on this -- but the federal people, as I remember, have not yet finally committed themselves. Certainly we are interested, but we want to know more about what is specifically intended and what the benefits are going to be in terms of the province.

We have made a commitment, as the honour-able member knows, to research and development. The Premier’s Council on high technology has made specific funding available in this connection. We are looking at what particular benefits would flow to the province and what the support from other levels of government and the private sector is going to be.

Mr. Laughren: I am concerned about the government’s response on this matter, because it truly is an important scientific project and it is not a lot of money for the province to kick in. As well, the technology fund has very much underspent what it was allocated this year.

When the Premier’s group was in Sudbury last week, the regional chairman asked the director of research for the technology fund about the project and he said, “I really do not know anything about it.” I wonder why the government -- the Minister of Northern Development, the Premier or the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- has not been in touch with the Premier’s technology people to bring them up to speed on this to see if we can get this project approved, because it is not going to go anywhere unless the province intervenes and gives the start-up money to it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let’s be clear that we have been looking at that proposal. We are interested in knowing what the benefits to the province of Ontario are going to be. We are going to analyse that. We can assure the honourable member that we are looking at the particular proposal. We are aware of his interest and the interest of the honourable member for Sudbury.

I can tell him we are carefully analysing the proposal, but we want to know, before we commit funding, what the short-term, intermediate and long-term benefits to the province are going to be. We are responsible in the way in which we manage the finances of this province and we want to make a very careful analysis before we make that commitment.

BINGO HALLS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recently there has been a proliferation of privately operated, profit-making bingo halls in Ontario. In many areas, including my own constituency, these private operations are threatening to drive bingos run by charities out of business. In some cases, this is being achieved through questionable practices such as guaranteed nightly transfers of fixed sums of money to charities, regardless of revenues. In effect, some private bingos are temporarily operating at a loss to attract groups and drive bingos run by charities out of business. What specific plans does the minister have to address this serious problem?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can say to the honourable member that there has been growth in the proliferation of the number of bingo halls. I am going from memory, but I think we are now in the range of some 200 -- it may be slightly above that -- in terms of the number of halls in the province. The honourable member has indicated that as a result of the proliferation in his area not all the halls are able to turn a proper profit.

I certainly hope and expect that any entrepreneur who is getting into the business will understand the rules we now have under the orders in council, which require 20 per cent of the profit to be turned over to the charities involved and limit the amount of the take the hall owner can take to 15 per cent.

This matter is under thorough review. When that review is complete, I expect we will announce appropriate action.

Mr. Runciman: Last week the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said he would not allow casinos into Ontario because he did not think they would lead to good lifestyles. Why is the minister permitting profit-making bingo halls to spring up all over this province when these halls dramatically increase the number of bingo games people play and have a detrimental impact on many charities?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are taking a look at what has been, I say quite candidly, a significant growth in the number of bingo halls. But for my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville to suggest this government is allowing them to spring up all over the province indicates to me he is unaware of the policies that have been in place for a good number of years in this province, and those policies have not changed.

There was at one point an unofficial moratorium on the number of bingo halls, but that moratorium is no longer in effect. Certainly, the order in council under which we are working does not limit in any way the number of halls, other than in terms of being private enterprises whether those halls can get a return on their investment.

The honourable member has raised the issue of how many is enough. In an effort to ensure that the charities are getting a reasonable return, and also to ensure that all charities can have an opportunity to be involved in what is a very profitable enterprise for them, we are very carefully reviewing the policies that have been in place over a number of years.

1500

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the next questioner, I know members would want me to draw their attention to a visitor in the lower east gallery, Murray Gaunt, a former member of this House.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Kanter: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I recently received a notice at my door, as did many of my constituents, announcing the opening of Medvisit Doctors Housecall Service, a service that provides doctors for house calls but that excludes serious or life-threatening emergencies. I understand the Scott Task Force on the Use and Provision of Medical Services has expressed some concerns about the quality of care provided by such services. I am wondering if the minister could advise whether she has any plans to monitor or regulate services like this.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This is a very important question. The Scott task force attempted to differentiate between walk-in clinics, radio-dispatched house call services and after-hours clinics that are owned and operated by community physicians, and those that are operated by corporations and employ physicians. The task force raised questions about the possible duplication of services, the continuity of care and the standards of practice, all of which are quality-of-care issues.

They suggested an evaluation be done jointly by the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on the function of these services. I have already spoken to the college of physicians and surgeons and discussions are under way as to what kind of evaluation could be done.

Mr. Kanter: While this evaluation is under way, I wonder if she could clarify the fee schedule that applies to such services. As I understand it, doctors making house calls after hours are paid a premium. Does this premium apply to the nonemergency type of house call provided by services such as Medvisit?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The fact of the matter is that premiums are paid for after-hours calls that are deemed medically necessary. However, these services are advertised as services available for longer hours and only for nonemergencies. The member is quite correct: The calls are therefore made within what would be considered normal business hours of the service and do not qualify for the premium as identified by the member.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the Minister of Labour can tell us if he is aware of the strike that has been on now for several weeks at Orenda engines, a division of Hawker Siddeley in Mississauga, where some 320 workers have been faced with a company that has been intransigent in terms of bargaining and that is now using strikebreakers to continue the operation, including an armoured bus with Plexiglas and shields up to bring scabs into the plant. It also sees air force personnel running the picket line at a very rapid rate of speed.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am aware of it. I would not want to comment on any of the allegations the good member for Hamilton East has made, but I will tell him that the parties in that dispute reconvened for a third session of mediation on February 16. Unfortunately, no real progress was made, or was reported to me in any event by officials within my ministry; but obviously we are prepared to meet again and sit down with the parties just as soon as they are ready for a next round of mediation.

Mr. Mackenzie: If he has had a report from the mediators, he will know the company’s position hardened in terms of the demands it has made on the workers, including having skilled tradesmen work on assembly where they have had no training at all in putting together aircraft engines.

I wonder if the minister will take a look at the violence and threat of violence that is now taking place on this particular picket line and if he will consider legislation in the province, which we have long asked for, that would outlaw strikebreakers in a legal strike situation.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The issue of violence on the picket line obviously is a serious one, but I think in all candour my friend from Hamilton East would acknowledge that where there are those sorts of allegations, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Ministry of Labour to respond, that those sorts of allegations ought to be dealt with in the appropriate venues.

Of course, when we are talking about violence that is of a criminal nature, that venue would be the criminal courts; and when we are talking about issues directly relating to the ongoing process of bargaining, whether it is a matter of bargaining in bad faith or trying to affect negotiations, the appropriate venue would of course be the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

With respect to the member’s suggestion that the government consider legislation of the sort he suggested, if my memory serves me the member has a bill in Orders and Notices speaking to that subject. Obviously, those sorts of matters are undergoing an ongoing review within the Ministry of Labour. Just in order to respond to this question, I will look again at the bill my friend the member for Hamilton East has in Orders and Notices, if indeed he does have one.

MINISTRY PUBLICATION

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. He has cut back on the firefighting crews, the conservation officers are underpaid, the fish-stocking program is down and now we have this magazine, which is a good magazine put out by his ministry: Landmarks. This is going to be the last edition. Why is he cutting back on this magazine?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Finally, after all this time and a few days before we leave these wonderful chambers, the member asks a reasonable question. The fact of the matter is that his preamble has no substance whatsoever. Things were never better in the province relating to hunting and fishing. Notwithstanding 40 years of neglect by the Conservative government, we have fish stocks and game like never before, and I am proud to say it has been under the good management of this government.

To answer specifically the member’s question, that particular magazine was started under the aegis of his government. It said that in a reasonable length of time it would be self-sufficient. Last year, it cost $300,000 for the people of this province to send out this nice magazine that the Conservatives decided was appropriate but should be self-sufficient at some point in time. That did not happen. I am saving the taxpayers of this province $300,000 out of pocket, plus whatever else the cost was.

Mr. Pollock: What is the minister going to cut out next?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As many seats as we can over there.

Mr. Speaker: I guess that completes oral questions and responses. I cannot believe it.

PETITIONS

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Runciman: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 75 persons in the riding represented by the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), a member of the government party, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Tatham: I have a petition from the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, District 37, signed by 747 members:

“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:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by myself.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 59 persons in the riding represented by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), a government member, which reads in part as follows:

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

1510

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

Ms. Hart: I have a petition signed by 698 members of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario Inc.

“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:

“Given the continuing pressures for increased funding for hospitals, the provincial government should change the laws governing the Ontario Lottery Corp. regarding the allocation of profit so that at least 50 per cent of all provincial lottery profits be allocated to hospitals and the health care system.”

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 23 persons and a number of others who are from the ridings of York North and York Centre, government members’ ridings, which reads in part as follows:

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by me.

Mr. Speaker: I just have a question. Was that to the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Mr. Cousens: Yes, it was.

I have another one that I can read that is very similar. “To the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order.

Mr. Cousens: It is signed by 30 persons and a number of others who are from the riding of St. George-St. David, so you can see that it is properly placed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree.

Mr. Cousens: It is also from a government member, and I have been asked to present them for him.

It reads in part as follows --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Cousens: This is another one --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but was that for the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Mr. Cousens: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I am saying it is possible that is out of order then.

Mr. Cousens: No, I would not think so, Mr. Speaker.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Cousens: I have another petition:

“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:

“Given that the present population of Brother André high school in Markham consists of 1,500 students and is at capacity; and

“That the projected enrolment for September 1990 is approximately 2,700, with the majority of increased enrolment at the grades 9 and 10 level; and

“That the potential overcrowding will have serious repercussions for students and teachers alike;

“The Ministry of Education, in consultation with the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, move immediately to approve a new high school for occupancy in September 1991 in Milliken Mills that will include initially grades 9 and 10 and therefore alleviate potential intolerable conditions at Brother André high school.”

This petition is signed by approximately 65 residents of Markham, Unionville and Thornhill.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have another petition:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the dramatic growth rate in York region has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process, and given that serious allegations have been made regarding the integrity of this process in York region, we strongly urge the provincial government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process and land development practices of York region.”

It is duly signed by myself.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a another petition:

“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:

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This is duly signed by myself and constituents, but also approximately 23 residents from other neighbouring ridings.

Miss Roberts: I have a petition as well, very similar to the one that my honourable friend opposite just read.

“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:

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is in proper form and signed by myself, as required.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Harris: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 47 persons from my riding, which reads in part as follows:

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

It is signed, as I said, by 47 persons from Nipissing and myself.

I have one other. This one comes from the city of Sudbury, the extended care nursing home, and it contains 152 signatures. I believe that is in the riding of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell).

I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 152 persons in the riding represented by the member for Sudbury, a government member, which reads in part as follows:

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

That is signed by 92 residents of Ontario and I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- oh, the member for Hamilton East has another one.

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

That is signed by 10 citizens of Ontario and I have affixed my name to it as well.

I have a further petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

This is signed by 30 residents from places as diverse as Sault Ste. Marie and Cambridge, Ontario. I sign my name to the petition.

1520

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Villeneuve: I have two similar petitions. In the interest of time, I will read only one. However, they are both addressed in a similar fashion. I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 45 persons in the riding represented by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), a government member, and a similar petition from 15 persons in the riding I represent, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. They are identical, so I will read only one.

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services, according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair, and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

I have signed both petitions and I respectfully submit them.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 27 persons from Palmerston and area, which reads as follows:

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

I support this petition and have signed my name to it. I also have a petition from Waterloo expressing the same concerns and I have also endorsed that petition.

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 33 persons in a riding represented by a government member, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), which reads as follows:

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

I have signed this myself. I have another petition which reads the same. It is signed by people from the Peterborough area.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Allen: I have two petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, totalling 20 names in all, from the Kitchener-Guelph region, which read as follows:

I have affixed my signature to these petitions and I certainly agree with the contents.

EXTENDED CARE

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 105 persons from my riding, which reads in part as follows:

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOBACCO SALE REGULATION ACT

Mr. Allen moved first reading of Bill 221, An Act to regulate the Sale of Tobacco.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Allen: This bill responds to the salient fact that tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada. Because there is little onset of smoking among adults, it is important to have legislation that postpones effectively that decision among minors until they are, in fact, adults.

Surveys tell us that at present approximately 90 per cent of retailers do sell tobacco to minors, even though such sales are illegal.

Mr. Speaker: And what does the bill say?

Mr. Allen: What the bill says is that it would increase the maximum fine. First of all, it would repeal the Minors’ Protection Act. It would increase the maximum fine for selling tobacco to persons under 18 from $50 to $5,000, the current maximum being $50 in the Minors’ Protection Act.

The bill differs from the bill introduced by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) in that it would require tobacco retailers to obtain a tobacco sales licence in order to sell the product. Further, regulations under the bill would be able to provide that all vending machines be located in areas inaccessible to minors.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Hart moved, on behalf of Hon. R. F. Nixon, second reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

Ms. Hart: Members will know that Bill 119 is the result of an announcement made by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in the 1986-87 budget that the government intended to change the emphasis in allocation of Ontario Lottery Corp. funds, expanding them to include hospital services and, at that time, general expenditures. This was done to reflect the priority that this government puts on health care. At the same time, the Treasurer indicated that he and the government were totally committed to continuing and improving their financial support for culture and recreation.

That support continues to be true today and the proof is in the pudding. Since this government came into office, its spending on recreation and culture has increased substantially every year. I would also point out that the ministries responsible to those client groups have not been limited to lottery moneys.

The Ministry of Culture and Communications, for example, got 85 per cent of its funding on the culture side from nonlotteiy sources in the last two years. Special funding has been announced this year: the Ballet Opera House, $65 million, plus the land; and film incentives, $34.3 million over two years. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has received $2.8 million a year for sports safety initiatives and $3.2 million for older adult initiatives. Those are all nonlottery moneys.

1530

It must also be said that changing demographics and opportunities resulting from new technology are all placing increasing pressure on the health care system. It is interesting to note that we spend $40 million a day on health care and $5.5 billion for hospitals in this year’s budget alone. All of us want the best-quality health care and access to that care. If we compare the $360-million notional surplus from the provincial lotteries to the daily cost of operating our hospitals, it would be swallowed up very quickly. We think we are doing the right thing by putting any unallocated lottery money in that direction.

Having said that, I would point out that a significant change in Bill 119 from its predecessor, Bill 38, which died on Orders and Notices, is that Bill 119 makes it very clear that fitness, sport, recreation, cultural activities and the Trillium Foundation have first call on any provincial lottery profits in the fiscal year. This is significant because it preserves and confirms the primacy of those activities. They get their allocations first. Only what is left over goes to the operation of hospitals.

Since 1986, when this proposal was first aired, the Treasurer and all the affected ministries have had many opportunities to discuss it with those most affected by it. One of the questions that comes up again and again is, “Why don’t you guarantee a level of funding?” Our response to that, as it would be from any government, is:

“We don’t guarantee any other programs, for example, funding for education, municipalities, the justice system. It would be inappropriate to do so.” Parliamentary practice is for the Legislature to approve the funding levels for each and every program through the annual estimates debates. I suppose it might be said also that there are no guarantees that people will continue to buy lottery tickets.

In conclusion, I would say that Bill 119 confirms and reaffirms this government’s and the Treasurer’s commitment to culture and recreation. It gives them first call on any lottery moneys raised in the fiscal year. At the same time, it reflects the realities of today, that health care is a spending priority of this government, as it should be, given the increased pressure on it, by dedicating any unallocated dollars to the operation of hospitals. Somebody has to pay for health care, and most people would agree that it is this government’s responsibility to ensure that that occurs.

I look forward to participating with the other members in the debate.

Mr. Laughren: Just a question to the parliamentary assistant, whom I welcome to the debate this afternoon. I am pleased to see her carrying this bill on behalf of the Treasurer. I was hoping she would tell us about the surplus, which I notice she referred to as a notional surplus. I could almost see the capitalized letters for “notional.” Before the debate begins, I would be interested in knowing just what the surplus is in the fund.

Mrs. Marland: I wondered if the parliamentary assistant could elaborate in her response. When she says that all of us want quality health care and then goes on to say that there is no guarantee that people will continue to buy lottery tickets, how does her government plan to ensure that we will have quality health care if it is at the whim of people buying lottery tickets? Is that how we are going to budget quality health care in the future of this province?

I would respectfully suggest that, if it is, we certainly have far more to worry about in the future of health care than we already know we have to worry about and the concerns that have been addressed by my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the Health critic for the Progressive Conservatives, who has intensively, for at least the last three months, been asking the Health minister very serious questions about where the solutions are going to come from for the funding of health care programs today in this province and the fact that we have so many areas of underfunding.

I hope that the parliamentary assistant is not suggesting in her speech that everything is going to pivot on people faced with buying enough lottery tickets in order to be secure in the knowledge that the hospitals will be there, the nurses will be there, the qualifications and the trained people will be high enough to do the work that needs to be done in serving the public in terms of giving health service, or that capital equipment and capital building -- l mean, how much of this is going to now be funded from the lotteries? It would be interesting to have that answer.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to thank my colleague the member for York East (Ms. Hart) for her very excellent and quite brief distillation of the essence of this very important legislation, which I want to say that I very strongly support, because we as a government, as the honourable member has said so eloquently, have established a very good level of support for culture and recreation across the province.

My friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) and other members of this assembly know only too well of the very substantial work that has been done by my friends, first the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) when he was the minister and now the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil). They have travelled the province doing good works in the area of culture and recreation.

But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I go back to my constituency in the great east of this province, people say to me: “We understand the government’s commitment to health care. We understand that there can be no greater priority for any government in our society today than to maintain a good and strong level of support for the operations of our public hospitals and all of those other matters that are part of a quality health care commitment.”

I repeat that I am personally very strongly committed to Bill 119, because while I think we have to maintain a very strong commitment to culture and recreation, as our friend the member for York East said, we also have to make plain that the commitment this government has to hospitals and health care is a very, very top priority.

I cannot wait to hear my friends in the opposition stand, when they have the opportunity to speak to the second reading in full debate, to hear where they stand on this matter. We have heard a great deal of criticism from the opposition about inadequate funding for hospitals.

This legislation, so ably advanced by my friend from York East, puts the government position plainly before the assembly. It is a position strongly supported, I believe, by the people of Ontario and certainly the people of Renfrew North. I am very anxious to hear the support from our friends opposite.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members have questions or comments or would like to distil essence? If not, would the parliamentary assistant wish to reply?

Ms. Hart: Yes. My friend the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) asks about lotteries being the primary source of health care funding, our hospital funding. Clearly, given the numbers, $5.5 billion for hospitals this year, $40 million a day for the health care system, even if we used the entire lottery revenues, which are projected to be $455 million for 1988-89, it would be ludicrous to suggest that that would be the primary funding source for health care.

It is clear from the language of Bill 119 that the primary objective is to fund cultural and recreational activities. They have first call on the money, along with the Trillium Foundation. Then, if there are moneys left over, this government has chosen to channel those funds to the operation of hospitals, and very properly so, given this government’s stated priority for health care.

1540

My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked me about the notional surplus. The current numbers are $369 million from the Ontario games and $932 million from the interprovincial games. As my friend opposite knows, those notional surpluses have been built up over a number of years since the early 1970s when these games were initiated.

Never, even in the first year of lottery revenues coming in, were they fully or even half allocated to the objects set out in the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. It was never anticipated that the revenues would be so high and it would not be fiscally responsible, given the pressures on the health care system, to dedicate those --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: I do indeed want to engage in a debate on Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. The parliamentary assistant, in her opening remarks, certainly did not get to the heart of the issue and the debate that has swirled around this bill. She made it sound as though it was beyond her comprehension how anyone could not support Bill 119.

Of course, the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), in his remarks expressed great interest in watching the opposition somehow try to justify any opposition they might have to the bill. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I am opposed to Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, because I think it is a bad bill.

What the government members have not said -- they referred to it rather obliquely -- is why the previous incarnation of this bill, Bill 38 as I recall its number, was dropped. It was dropped in a minority parliament because there was massive opposition to the bill all across Ontario. The two opposition parties combined had a majority in this assembly, and they were simply going to vote against it. We could not have had this legislation in a minority parliament. The government had to have a majority in order to bring this bill in.

Mr. McGuigan: Tyranny of the minority.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Essex-Kent is living in a time warp. It is the tyranny of the majority that we are dealing with here. Later on in my remarks I will lay before the member some of the groups and the municipalities -- I am trying to remember. I think his area is opposed to this bill, so perhaps he is concerned about their tyranny as well.

The debate around Bill 119 is a debate of some substance. It concerns the whole question of whether or not funds from lotteries are just another source of government revenue to be parcelled out by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) and the Treasurer in consultation with the ministers. Are lottery funds simply another source of revenue? I think that is a fair question. There are those of us who do not believe that.

As a matter of fact, I do not think that the parliamentary assistant and the Treasurer believe that it is simply another source of money or it would not be designated in the funds in this bill, because this bill designates the funds from lottery profits to culture, recreation, sports, fitness, the Trillium Foundation, which gives out money to charities, and to the operation of hospitals. So the government does not see this as simply another source of revenue.

Just by the nature of the beast, the government has said, or admitted if you will, that this is not an ordinary source of money. It is not like a tax on alcohol or on cigarettes which flows into the consolidated revenue fund. Whether people approve of smoking or drinking is not the point. The point is that it is money that comes into the consolidated revenue fund, and the government in its wisdom parcels it out. That is the way the system is. But something is different about lottery funds or the government would not be designating these profits. So the government acknowledges the fact that lottery funds are different from ordinary tax revenues.

Once we have disposed of that question of whether lottery funds are an ordinary source of tax revenue or whether they are different, then we can get on with the question of what we actually do and how we actually designate the funds. Most of us know that lottery funds tend to be highly volatile as a source of revenue, and I do not think that we need to use the example of Ontario; there are other jurisdictions.

I believe my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), who has an abiding interest in this legislation and will be in later to speak, will lay before the members some examples of how volatile lottery funds can be. That perhaps is one reason why people feel that they should not be spent on essential services, such as health or education.

Since 1975, when the original Ontario Lottery Corporation Act was passed, the funds have gone into sports and recreation and, of course, fitness. There was no question at all, and it was built right into the bill that the use of the funds was to be restricted.

I was reading through some of the debates from 1975, and one of the quotes was the following:

“…I do believe that it is bad practice to earmark any revenues.…in a system of responsible government, where the ministry spends the money from the consolidated revenue fund as it sees fit, and then stands the public test, as from time to time they are required to do.”

There is a member who does not believe that funds should be earmarked, either to hospitals, to sports, to fitness or to recreation. That is just one member, but that member, who said that in 1975, is today the Treasurer.

There were other quotes -- just a couple. I will not read them all. One member said:

“…lotteries, of course, are no substitute for taxes....because I don’t believe it’s an equitable way to extract funds from people. And I hope that lotteries, if sponsored by the government, would not be interrelated with the actual tax base.”

That was the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), the present Speaker of the House.

There was, I believe, one other quote:

“The principle of lotteries….rests quite easily with me, as long as the funds are being used for the delivery of marginal services and not essential services in the province. That’s the responsibility of taxation.”

I was surprised, when I read that, to realize that I had said that, back in 1975. The government has not convinced me that I should see the error of my ways, because that really is --

Mr. McGuigan: We still have hope.

Mr. Laughren: They still have hope. I am glad the member for Essex-Kent does.

In 1975, when the Ontario Lottery Corp. was formed as a result of the act, we had only three lotteries: Wintario in 1975, Lottario in 1978 and the Instant cash lottery in 1984.

Under section 9 of that act, the funds were very precisely allocated. Section 9 of that 1975 act said the following -- it is very brief:

“The net profits of the corporation after provision for prizes and the payment of expenses of operations shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund at such times and in such manner as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct, to be available for the promotion and development of physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities and facilities therefor.”

I would like to make an important point right now, and then come back to it later. That was a major part of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act in 1975, and it stated very specifically what the whole proceeds of the corporation would be for. As a matter of fact, I would appreciate very much if the Speaker would seriously consider the propriety of this act, considering that, in my view, it is contrary to the principle of the act back to 1975.

If a private member were to move an amendment to an existing piece of legislation that was contrary to the principle of the legislation, that member would be ruled out of order by the Speaker. In my view, this particular amendment should be ruled out of order because it is contrary to the principle of that bill back in 1975.

1550

What we really need is an entirely new bill, an entirely new piece of legislation for Ontario, because what the government is doing now is contrary to the principle of the very act it is trying to amend. It seems to me that is very strange.

In those days, in 1975, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation got all the money and parcelled it out. Now it is split among three ministries, as I understand it: the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the Ministry of Culture and Communications and the Ministry of Citizenship. That is how the funds are divvied up now, by those three ministries.

In 1976, an important event occurred, and that was the development of the interprovincial lotteries in which the Canadian government got involved and we had lotteries all across Canada. There was Super Loto, Lotto 6/49 and the Provincial. Then an arrangement was made whereby the federal government got out of lotteries and the provinces paid it so much money every year -- I believe they still do -- and in return the federal government stays out of the lottery business and the provincial governments have the field.

The reason that is important is that at that time the government of the day -- it was not this government, of course -- said that those three interprovincial lotteries, Super Loto, Lotto 6/49 and the Provincial, do not fall under section 9 of the act to which I referred a few minutes ago, which restricted the use of the funds. The interpretation of the government was that because these are not part of the Ontario Lottery Corp. profits, any profits from those extraprovincial lotteries are not restricted by section 9, which said it had to be spent on culture, sports, fitness and recreation.

That is an important distinction to make, because as events unfolded and years went by, that was found to be a judgement in error. I do not think anyone intended to play any game with it, but I think it was determined that it was not the proper thing to have done. Nevertheless, the government did it and it disbursed the funds from those lotteries as it saw fit, through a trust that was set up for the disposal of those funds. A lot of it was put into health and health research-related activities and funding for the Trillium Foundation.

Then there was an order in council in 1986 which did away with the trust and put the money directly into the consolidated revenue fund. There has been a history of changes in the way in which governments handled lottery money. Over the years, a lot of money from lotteries in Ontario has not gone into culture and recreation. A lot of it, because it was not from the provincial funds but from the extraprovincial funds, did not get spent on culture and recreation anyway. So a lot of money in the lotteries has never been spent on that.

Now I believe, and I stand to be corrected, about two thirds of the profits of the lottery tickets sold in Ontario come from the extraprovincial -- the Super Loto, Lotto 6/49 and the Provincial -- which means that the bulk of lottery revenues now in the province does not even come from Wintario and so forth. Also, there has been a change in the way in which people buy lottery tickets.

Then in 1987 the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) told the Treasurer that the money that came from the extraprovincial lotteries should have been included under section 9 of the previous act -- the act that we still live under today -- and that those extraprovincial funds really should have been restricted, just the way they were from Wintario and from the Ontario Lottery Corp.

So the Attorney General said to the Treasurer, “You know, you’ve been doing this the wrong way, not intentionally, of course, but you’ve been doing it the wrong way and the same restrictions that applied under the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act of 1975 should have applied to those extraprovincial or interprovincial lottery gains.”

At that point, this government had to stop dead in its tracks and say: “Hold the phone. We can’t continue to put this money out there and treat it as though it wasn’t part of the whole restrictions under section 9 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.” That is the reason, of course, we have this bill: to legitimize what has been going on for so long.

We are talking about big money. The parliamentary assistant talked about money totalling megabucks, and she is quite right. I have a letter from the Treasurer dated December 7, 1988. I was trying to determine from the Treasurer how much money we are talking about, because once the Attorney General made his ruling, then the government could no longer continue to spend the money; it had to set it aside or spend it all on culture and recreation. This is what the Treasurer said:

“You also ask for the unspent balance from both Ontario and interprovincial lotteries. As at March 31, 1988, the cumulative unspent balance was $369 million for the Ontario games and $932 million for the interprovincial games. Under Bill 119, proceeds from both Ontario and the interprovincial games would be used for those purposes specified in the bill.”

We are talking about a huge amount of money in terms of culture and recreation. In terms of the hospital budgets of the province, perhaps it does not seem to be as much, but I will want to know from the parliamentary assistant, who presumably will speak at the end of the debate, just what her intentions are and whether or not they are honourable concerning the --

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, the parliamentary assistant thinks it is a switch for me to be demanding honourable intentions from her.

Anyway, I want to determine just what the intentions of the government are concerning those moneys in excess of $1 billion. I do not think the parliamentary assistant is going to tell me that the money is not there any more. She has the laws that must be obeyed, and the Attorney General’s ruling must be obeyed that that money could not be spent on purposes other than those restricted by section 9 of the 1975 Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

To get to the bill before us today, I think it is terribly important that we read the words very carefully in this bill, because I can tell members that the groups out there in Ontario -- the municipalities and all the cultural and recreational and sports groups out there -- have read it very carefully, I suspect in some cases more carefully than members of this assembly.

This is what the bill says:

“The net profits of the corporation” -- after expenses and so forth -- “may direct, to be available for appropriation by the Legislature,

“(a) for the promotion and development of physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities and facilities therefor; and

“(b) for the activities of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.”

I really want to put some emphasis on that, because what the bill is saying is that the profits from the lottery funds “may direct, to be available for appropriation by the Legislature.” It does not say it must, it says “may.”

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: That is not true. Just wait a minute and I will show you where the word “shall” comes in.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t be ridiculous.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will address his remarks through the Speaker, of course.

Mr. Laughren: I am trying, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps the heckling could be directed through you too.

The Deputy Speaker: The heckling can actually stop. Only one member at a time can speak.

1600

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to be repetitive in this regard, because I think it is terribly important.

“The net profits of the corporation after provision for prizes and the payment of expenses of operations shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund” -- there is the word “shall;” it must all go in there -- “at such times and in such manner as the Lieutenant Governor in Council,” which means the cabinet, “may direct to be available for appropriation by the Legislature.

It all has to go in there. But it may be available for appropriation by the Legislature for the promotion of physical fitness, culture and so forth as well as “for the activities of the Ontario Trillium Foundation,” which provides funds for charities across the province, “and the net profits of the corporation paid into the consolidated revenue fund in a fiscal year of Ontario and not so appropriated in the fiscal year shall be applied to, and accounted for in the public accounts of Ontario as part of, the money appropriated by the Legislature in the fiscal year for the operation of hospitals.”

Let me re-emphasize that. What this bill is saying and what this government wants to do is take all the profits of the lotteries and pay them into the consolidated revenue fund, which is that whole pool of money that comes just like every other tax in the province comes and is paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Once it is in there, the cabinet “in such manner...may direct to be available for appropriation by the Legislature.”

We know it has to go into the consolidated revenue fund. Then it may be directed to culture and recreation, but what is not directed for culture and recreation shall go for the operation of hospitals.

You do not have to have a paranoid mentality to see what is possible with this bill.

Mr. Faubert: It helps.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Scarborough Ellesmere says it helps to be paranoid. Even paranoids have enemies.

What this bill is clearly doing is saying all the money goes into the consolidated revenue fund. Some of it may be directed to culture and recreation, but the balance shall go to hospitals. That is what it is saying.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Does that include mental hospitals?

Mr. Laughren: All hospitals. What has that got to do with it, what kind of hospital? All hospitals.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You’re talking about paranoia.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, I see.

The bill says that money must go to hospitals, but it does not say that any money must go to culture and recreation, sports and fitness and so forth. That is what it says.

If government members wonder why the groups across Ontario, a lot of them volunteer organizations, are so upset about this bill, that is why. Members should not take my word for it. They can see my comments as the rantings of a partisan opposition member if they like. That does not bother me. But they should listen to those nonpartisan, volunteer groups across Ontario that are telling them the same thing. That is the problem. I assume that this bill will be going out to committee for hearings, and when that happens, they are going to hear, in much starker terms than I am giving, the reasons those groups are so worried about this bill.

The other thing the bill will do is it says that as of April 1, 1988, almost a year ago, all of the surplus must go to the operation of hospitals. That includes the surplus from the interprovincial games and the Ontario games. I think the parliamentary assistant said the total was $369 million from the Ontario games and $932 million from the interprovincial games. I do not think she said $932 million is the total, but I do not want to misquote her on that.

Ms. Hart: No, you’re right.

Mr. Laughren: It is in excess of $1 billion. All of that money, all of that accumulated surplus -- and I can give figures that show it is higher than that today, because that is as of April 1, 1988. It is higher than that today; it is about $1.6 billion today, if my arithmetic is correct. All of that money must go to the operation of hospitals, not to culture and recreation, for which it was originally intended.

Members can say, “Well, are you against money for hospitals and health care in the province of Ontario?” I have not heard any member say that. I think most members know better than to suggest that because someone is opposed to this bill, he is therefore opposed to a decent health care system in the province or more money for the health care system in general. I do not think any members would accuse us of that.

What needs to be very clear to members of the government is just how strongly groups out there in Ontario feel about this bill. One of our main objections is that there is no minimum guarantee whatsoever for culture and recreation. The parliamentary assistant said that some people have objections because there is no minimum guarantee for culture and recreation and that we never do that. I would point out to the parliamentary assistant that they never designate funds either.

But there is something different about lottery funds. They already admit to that by designating them. They should not use the argument that we cannot provide any guarantees because we never do that; because I would say back to them, “Does that mean they cannot designate funds, because they never do it?”

Lottery funds are a different source of money. The government and the parliamentary assistant should understand that they cannot have it both ways in this debate. If they have established the fact that lottery funds are different and that is why they designate them, then there is no reason why they cannot, as well, establish minimums for those organizations and groups that have come to depend on lottery profits to fund their organizations.

I found it particularly offensive -- as a matter of fact, the government House leader implied it, I think, perhaps because his remarks were not prepared; perhaps that is the reason this was a big boost for health care funds. The last time I checked, recreation, fitness and sports were all part of the health care system. I think that preventive health care, which is one of those things that this government seems to have forgotten all about, needs to be properly supported. And what better way to do it than through these lottery funds?

Sports, culture, recreational sports, physical fitness are all part of the global health care picture in the province. Yet this government is pretending that if you do not spend it on hospitals, it is not part of the health care system. What an institutionalized straitjacket they have got themselves in vis-à-vis health care. Health care does not begin and end in hospitals. Sickness may, perhaps, but not health care. I think that is where they are wrong again. We are talking about a global picture of health care.

I wanted to go over a couple of the numbers. If I am incorrect in these, I hope the parliamentary assistant will correct me, because I am sure she has access to the books better than I have. I think these are the funds.

The surplus from the provincial funds to March 31, 1988, was $369 million. That was almost a year ago. The surplus in the provincial funds for 1989 was about $54 million; that is an estimate. The surplus from the interprovincial funds as of March 31, 1988, was $932 million. I think that is correct because it is the number that the parliamentary assistant used.

I think the estimated surplus from those interprovincial games for this year, 1988-89 -- to March 31, 1989 -- is going to be almost $300 million. It works out to about $299 million. If we add up all the accumulated surpluses, it comes to a $1,654,000,000 surplus in lottery funds. If I am out a bit, I will accept the correction from the parliamentary assistant, give or take several million, probably.

What is bothering me is that there is this huge surplus built up in terms of lotteries and lottery profits, and we have this government saying, despite the fact that this money was collected with one thing in mind -- sports, culture, recreation; and according to the Attorney General, that was the correct interpretation for all the money -- that retroactively, we are now going to stand that on its head and say that we will decide to funnel off as much as we please to hospitals rather than adequately funding the culture and recreation groups out there in the province of Ontario. I think that is wrong in principle. It is acceptable under the law, but I do not think that it is morally acceptable.

1610

We know that while this surplus has been building up, it is not because suddenly lottery profits took a surge. As a matter of fact, lottery profits are down this year; they were down last year and they are down again this year. I think that they were around $500 million and dropped to $470 million. The latest number I saw was that they are going to be down around $455 million for this year, so lottery profits are not rising.

Historically, we know that lottery games tend to have a relatively short life. They will go longer, but they are really successful for about five years for each game; then new games need to be introduced and that is exactly what the Ontario Lottery Corp. has been doing.

We have all this money built up in the pool and it was all collected for one reason. Now, retroactively, it is going to be spent for these different purposes.

The surplus that gets built up each year has been rising in the province. Whether the sales of lotteries are rising or profits are rising, the accumulated surplus every year is rising. When I look back 10 years ago, in 1978 the accumulated surplus at the end of the year was $85 million. In 1988 the accumulated surplus was $369 million. That is the number the parliamentary assistant used herself.

There has been a real increase in the unspent provincial funds and during that period of time, the growth of expenditures has decreased while the accumulated surplus has increased somewhat dramatically as well.

From 1986 to 1988 in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation only 47 per cent of the capital grant applications were funded; and of the total amount of money applied for, only 44 per cent was granted. In 1988, in Tourism and Recreation -- we are talking now about capital grants -- only $28 million in capital grants was approved, which was 43 per cent of the amount applied for.

It is not as though the government is accumulating surplus because there is not a purpose for the money. What is really happening is that the government has decided to turn down or reject all sorts of applications for funds, because it does not have a proper health care funding plan in Ontario. The government has decided that it is going to scratch, claw and steal from the Ontario Lottery Corp.’s accumulated profits every nickel and dime it can get, to put into the health care sector -- without proper taxing -- what is available to it in the province, for properly funding the health care system.

When we have reached the point in Ontario where the government requires games of chance to fund an essential service like health care, it is some kind of comment on its game plan for the delivery of health care in Ontario. The government is really bankrupt in that regard.

There is a great deal of suspicion in Ontario about funding for health care. The government should understand that.

The standing committee on government agencies -- which is an all-party committee -- from its report on agencies, boards and commissions, dated 1987, had this to say about the previous bill, which dealt with lottery funding as well: “Lottery proceeds are not a guaranteed source of revenue for the government. The moneys thus generated are therefore dedicated to projects not normally eligible for government funding.”

That was the way the three-party standing committee felt in 1986, which of course included members from the Liberal caucus; that is what they said back in 1986. It said that if the government is going to use lottery funds -- fine. Nobody is trying to pretend that there is something evil about lottery funds, but simply that it is a different kind of revenue and should be treated differently.

Once again, from the 1987 report on lotteries:

“The committee expressed its concerns that the proposed amendment could lead to a reduction in the amount of money now provided for physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural facilities. The committee believes that the removal of the clause dedicating lottery profits to certain kinds of projects may lead to increased competition for these funds and that the groups which previously received lottery monies will now be given a lower priority.”

Amen. That is how they felt in 1987; that is what we feel today; that is what those volunteer groups and agencies all across the province feel today.

Guess whom they will be competing against. Will they be competing against other culture and recreation groups? No; they will be competing against the hospitals in Ontario. So the government has set up some kind of silly David-and-Goliath scenario where the volunteer agencies and groups out there are going to have to be saying, “Do not give that money to the hospitals; we want it.” That is some kind of leadership in the whole field of culture, recreation, sports and fitness. It is not an appropriate stance for the government.

I could quote for a long time from that report.

So members know who is opposed to this bill, perhaps I should give them a few examples of who thinks this bill is wrong. It is not just this political party that believes this bill is wrong. The following people think this bill is wrong:

The Canadian Actors’ Equity Association, the Canadian Periodical Publishers’ Association, the Estonian Arts Centre, the National Multicultural Theatre Association, the Ontario Arenas Association Inc., the Ontario Association of Art Galleries, the Older Adult Centres’ Association of Ontario, the Ontario Crafts Council, the Ontario Library Association, the Ontario Museum Association, the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association, the Ontario Research Council on Leisure, the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario, the Society of Directors of Municipal Recreation of Ontario, and Sport Ontario.

It goes on and on. I will not go through the whole list. Just to give one quote from the alliance -- there is an alliance formed out there to fight Bill 119, an alliance of these groups -- “Section 1 of the bill does not guarantee any level of allocation to culture, recreation, sports and fitness nor does it define an equitable process by which the lottery funds will be distributed, except to say that the Lieutenant Governor in Council, i.e. the cabinet, will make the final decision with regard to the distribution of lottery funds.” That is what it says.

It goes on to say: “Lotteries have been generating more revenue than the government has been allocating. The alliance believes that many outstanding needs exist in the areas. The provincial government is artificially creating unspent funds by continuing to ignore the needs of Ontario’s culture, recreation, sports and fitness communities in order to divert funds to cover hospital operations.”

Finally: “The bill blatantly ignores the government’s legal liability and moral responsibility to use the surplus funds accumulated over the past 12 years for their originally legislated purpose, to support culture, recreation, sports and fitness as outlined in section 9 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act 1975.”

That is what the alliance thinks of what the government is about. Surely nobody would accuse that group of being opposed to a properly funded health care system in the province of Ontario.

Let me use an example, if I might, of the whole question of this money going into hospitals. This was a letter from the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario last September. I think this really sums it up much better than I could have:

“Pitting parks, recreation, sport and culture against hospitals for funding dollars is a classic David-and-Goliath analogy. The budget for the Ministry of Health in 1988 is $11 billion, or in more simple terms, $1.25 million an hour. The 1988 Ontario budget statement identifies $41.2 million available for recreation, sport and culture for capital conservation, capital construction and Wintario development grants, which are financed through the Ontario Lottery Corp. If all this $41.2 million was taken away from the field of recreation and transferred to the Ministry of Health, which is responsible for hospitals, every last penny would be exhausted within a time frame of 33 hours. In other words, based on the spending rate of $1.25 million per hour, the Ministry of Health would totally exhaust the 1988 budget allocation to recreation and culture in a day and a half.”

It is not as though robbing culture and recreation is going to very much enrich the Ministry of Health budget. We are truly talking David and Goliath. For the government to say, “We need all this money to help fund hospitals because the opposition is demanding more hospital funding,” is really stupid. That is not the proper argument because if you took all the money from culture and recreation, every last penny, the Ministry of Health budget would go through it in a day and a half. We are not talking about a situation in which the funding of health care is dependent upon culture and recreation funds. That is the last thing we are talking about.

1620

So I hope we will lay to rest the silly argument that government members sometimes put that we would be starving the operation of hospitals if we do not allocate this money to hospitals. If the government were really serious about it, they could have said at least, “We are determined to take some of this money into the health care system, particularly that accumulated budget, our surplus of $1.6 billion,” to use my numbers and about $1 billion to use the parliamentary assistant’s numbers. If the government said, “We are going to take some of that money and put it in the health care system because it has accumulated,” fine. There would be no fuss, but that is not what it is doing.

We are talking about an ongoing process here. We are not talking about accumulated funds that it wants to get rid of for the moment and put it into the health care system and then get on with proper funding of culture and recreation groups. That is not what we are talking about.

If the government had brought in a bill that said, “Those accumulated profits, whatever their amount, are going to go in as an injection into the hospital system and then we will get on with funding culture and recreation properly,” fine. I, for one, would not have objected to that, but that is not what the government has done. That is why we and others are saying to the government -- if it is serious about not doing away or cutting back on culture and recreation funding, then put it in the bill.

Say that there will be no decline, say that it will be indexed, say there will be some kind of guarantees for funding or say that a certain proportion is to go in. Say something. The way it is now, the government is saying that culture and recreation may get some money, but hospitals absolutely will. That is a very strange decision for the government to have made.

I would remind members that the purpose of the original bill was culture and recreation and now this bill really says the purpose is hospital operations. If culture and recreation are lucky enough to get any, so be it. That is what the government is really saying because it says that hospitals shall get it and culture and recreation may get it. I think that is why people out there are so concerned. It says that all of the accumulated funds must be allocated to hospitals.

I know that other members wish to speak. I do not wish to speak much longer, but I did want to tell the members some of the municipalities that are opposed to this bill. I will try to give the regional or upper-tier governments that are opposed to it: Blind River, Bruce Mines, Elliot Lake, Thessalon, Sault Ste. Marie, a whole bunch of communities in Bruce county, Cochrane, Timmins, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Moosonee, Brock, Uxbridge, Whitby, Oshawa, Port Stanley, Rodney, St. Thomas.

In Essex county -- I am glad the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) was here -- they are opposed to it. Frontenac county is opposed to it, as are Kingston, Durham, Hanover, Owen Sound, Haldimand, Haliburton, Oakville, Burlington, Milton, Ancaster, Dundas, Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Goderich, Wingham, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Ignace, Dryden, Kent county, Dover, Dresden, Wallaceburg, Lambton county, Lanark county, Leeds and Grenville, Lennox and Addington, Manitoulin and Metropolitan Toronto, including Etobicoke, East York, North York, the city of Toronto and Scarborough.

Also opposed are London, Parkhill, Strathroy, Muskoka Lakes, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Port Colborne, Thorold, North Bay, Temagami, Cobourg, Ottawa-Carleton, Ottawa, Powassan, Caledon, Mississauga, Stratford, Caledonia, Prince Edward county, Fort Frances, Renfrew county, Arnprior, Deep River, Killaloe, Bruce Mines, Coldwater, Cornwall, the regional municipality of Sudbury and the area municipalities there, Thunder Bay, Timiskaming, Wellington, Waterloo, York.

I could list a lot more. The opposition to this bill is extremely widespread. But I think I do not need to spend a lot of time on that, because I believe that when this bill goes out to committee -- and I assume that this bill will be going out to committee and that the Conservative opposition will also support us as we attempt to make sure that this bill is debated widely in Ontario. There is no reason why it should not go out to committee to allow all those groups to express their view that this bill is wrong. If this government does not believe me or does not believe other speakers who are here this afternoon, perhaps it will listen to the groups as they make appearances before some committee of this assembly.

I do very much hope that there is no resistance on the part of the government to holding public hearings, because it is terribly important that groups all across Ontario be allowed to say to the government what they think of this bill. If there is nothing to worry about, then what a beautiful opportunity for the government to reassure all those organizations across the province that it is not ill-intentioned but that, on the contrary, it really is trying to do something useful.

The government really has nothing to worry about. If the parliamentary assistant’s intentions are honourable and the intentions of the Treasurer are honourable, then they have nothing to worry about. They can quite willingly agree to send this out to committee -- we can send it out anyway, I suppose, but it would be very nice to see this done with a lot of co-operation -- to allow people of Ontario to have their say on a very fundamental change in the way that lottery funds are allocated all across this province.

Ms. Hart: I feel compelled to respond to my friend opposite about the honourableness of my intentions. Of course, the member for Nickel Belt will know that my intentions are usually honourable, and certainly the Treasurer’s intentions in this case are upstanding and honourable.

I would like to correct an impression that my friend indicated he has, and that is that this notional surplus is in a sock somewhere waiting for someone to dig into the sock and pull out the gold. I hate to disabuse my friend of that notion, but unfortunately, there is no sock. This notional surplus, as over a number of years, and as my friend also knows, there was never any intention that this amount of money -- and it is a big amount of money, as he mentioned; his figures are correct -- would be spent on culture and recreation.

As my friend knows, the atmosphere in Ontario was very different in the early 1970s than it is now. Lotteries were considered to be a form of gambling, that was not necessarily the way to raise money, and that is why culture and recreation were set up as the reason for the lotteries and the moneys were to be spent on those purposes; but today we are talking 1989 and 80 per cent of Ontarians now think lotteries are a good way to raise money and a good way to raise money specially for priorities of the government.

1630

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there other comments or questions? Does the member for Nickel Belt wish to reply?

Mr. Laughren: I guess what the parliamentary assistant is telling me is that when the Treasurer said to me in his letter of December 7, “As of March 31, 1988, the cumulative unspent balance was $369 million for the Ontario games and $932 million for the interprovincial games,” he did not really mean that. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer uses the term “cumulative unspent balance.” When he said it was “unspent”, what did he really mean? Did he mean it was spent?

I am confused because to me “unspent” means that you did not spend it and that therefore it is truly a surplus. I stand to be corrected, but in the world I live in, if I have unspent money in my pocket it means it is mine.

Mr. McGuigan: Not if you owe the bank money.

Mr. Laughren: No, he says that he has it there, that it is surplus, unspent money of that amount, The parliamentary assistant says my numbers are correct. When I now ante it up, it comes to about $1.6 billion, so I am wondering if at some point the parliamentary assistant could clarify that question.

Mrs. Marland: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on Bill 119, the Ontario Lottery Corporation Amendment Act. I must confess to a certain déjà vu, in a sense, in joining this debate, having been very actively involved in the fight against Bill 38 a few years ago. In that case, in a minority government situation, we were successful in blocking the bill and in persuading the Treasurer, at least temporarily, of the error of his ways. If nothing else, Bill 119 is a tribute to the Treasurer’s perseverance. Having failed to win on Bill 38, he has now presented us with Bill 119, which while substantively different in a number of respects from its predecessor, raises many of the same concerns.

I think members might be interested to learn that the Treasurer’s opposition to earmarking or dedicating lottery revenues predates the introduction of Bill 38 in May 1986. Before coming to the House, I had the opportunity to briefly review the Treasurer’s remarks on second reading of Bill 191, the bill that established the lottery corporation as a crown agency a little more than 14 years ago.

During that debate the Treasurer, who of course then served the people of Ontario in a different capacity from the position he now holds, made clear his opposition in principle to the concept of dedicated revenues. If consistency and perseverance were the sole requirements of good policy, then Bill 119 would be a sterling piece of legislation. However, that is not the case.

I want to spend some time this afternoon to put before the Treasurer and this House some of the reasons why we and a large number of groups and municipalities in Ontario are concerned about Bill 119. When I say “we,” I want to emphasize the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus in this Legislature.

I want to suggest to the Treasurer some ways in which this bill might be improved, some options he might want to look at to address the legitimate concerns of Ontario’s sports, fitness, recreation and cultural communities that Bill 119 constitutes a double disfranchisement of their right of access to lottery funds.

Further, I want to discuss some of the ways in which lottery funds could be used to provide additional new funds for the province’s health-care system, ways that are more creative and substantive than the type of accounting legerdemain provided for under Bill 119.

I believe that when the Treasurer introduced this bill he said he expected to get some 1,500 protest letters. No doubt he has received them. He may also be aware that nearly 200 Ontario municipalities have expressed their support for a Toronto city council resolution opposing this bill. He will know that in response to this bill, the sports, fitness, recreation and cultural groups formed an umbrella organization called the Alliance to Protect Culture, Recreation, Sports and Fitness in Ontario.

The groups that have formed this alliance are to be commended. They have to be congratulated for their volunteer efforts, their time and their dedication, for none of which are any of them being paid, in the interest of the protection of those member groups for the future of this province.

This level of mobilization should in itself be sufficient to signal to the government that Bill 119 deserves a hard second look. I think when you look at how these groups have come together in a very diverse way, considering that traditionally culture and art have been apart from sports, fitness and recreation, it must say something. This government, if it were a caring, listening government, would hear what they are saying. These groups have been highly motivated to come together in this alliance and have held numbers of public meetings, some of which I have been fortunate to participate in. They are dedicating thousands of hours to ensuring the protection of the needs of those groups.

It is our opinion this bill deserves a second look because it is deficient in a number of important respects. First, the bill does not provide any guarantee to the sports, fitness, recreation and cultural communities that their access to lottery funds, as provided for under section 9 of the act, will not be diminished over time. Unlike Bill 38, Bill 119 will not eliminate the section 9 provision making lottery profits available for appropriation for the promotion and development of sport, recreational and cultural activities, but it does expand the section to make the Ontario Trillium Foundation eligible for funding under the act.

Bill 119 will also put these groups in direct competition with Ontario hospitals for lottery dollars by providing that any net profits not appropriated for section 9 purposes “shall be applied to, and accounted for in the public accounts of Ontario as part of, the money appropriated by the Legislature in the fiscal year for the operation of hospitals.” These provisions appear to me to set up a lottery funds shell game in which there are no real winners, but potentially very real losers, those being our sports and cultural groups.

1640

As I read it, Bill 119 certainly does not mean that as a result of its enactment Ontario hospitals will receive one additional new dollar relative to the amount of operating funding they would receive as part of the normal expenditure allocation process. All the bill allows the government to do is to say that of the $5 billion or $6 billion in operating transfers, a certain amount comes from lottery profits. There is nothing to prevent the government from netting off the lottery appropriation against inflows from other revenue sources, leaving the hospitals with no net increase in funding. From my point of view, the bill is not designed to increase, on a net basis, the hospital operating transfer.

Further, in reviewing the bill, we should not forget that the government already has broad discretionary powers with regard to the allocation of lottery profits. This year, an estimated $455 million in lottery profits will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Of that total, only $156 million, or 34.3 per cent, will be generated by the Ontario games, the proceeds of which are to be available for appropriation for the support of section 9 activities.

The remainder of the lottery pot, about $300 million, is paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund without any specific dedication attached to its expenditure. The government already has the ability to spend the lion’s share of lottery profits on whatever programs and activities it deems necessary. I do not know what that $300 million will be spent on this year, but it will most certainly be spent, and no doubt some of it will end up in that $5.5 billion hospital operating transfer.

While the bill will not do anything for our hospitals, it could potentially damage the position of our sports, recreational, fitness and cultural groups. As the budget of the Treasurer of last spring noted, “If health care costs continue to escalate at rates experienced in the recent past, other social and economic priorities will be placed at risk.”

The concern out there among these groups is that they will be the first to be caught in the spending squeeze. This concern is magnified by the fact that tax-based funding for recreational programs in particular, as noted in the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario’s submission to the Treasurer, has been either discontinued or flat-lined in recent years.

I appreciate that the Treasurer has said this bill will not result in a funding cut for these groups, and no doubt the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation have been out and about saying similar soothing things.

However, what they are essentially saying is, “Trust us,” since there is no guarantee section 9 appropriations will not be reduced and there is no guarantee of a minimum funding level for sports, recreation, fitness and cultural groups.

I want to draw the Treasurer’s attention to a Toronto Star editorial of October last which asked, in relation to this bill: “What happens to funding of sports, recreation and cultural activities? Will funding be maintained?” It went on to state: “There is no guarantee, and that is the problem. That is why sport and cultural groups are up in arms. They fear that commitments will be broken and long-established programs will fall victim to a hungry health care system.”

The editorial then notes: “Nixon says this won’t happen, but the matter is too important for trust alone. The Treasurer should amend his bill so that it guarantees continued funding of lottery profits for sports, recreation and culture.” That is good advice. Some form of minimum revenue guarantee should be provided for these groups to protect them against the possibility their lottery funding will dry up.

Members of the House would no doubt want the opportunity to examine options for providing such a revenue guarantee, which could take a number of forms. For instance, the section 9 share of profits could be determined on a per capita basis, so that in any given fiscal year the amount of net profits available for appropriation for the support of sports, fitness, recreation and cultural activities would be an amount equivalent to, say, $18 per capita, or the guarantee could take the form of a fixed percentage of total lottery profits. In any event, the question of the revenue guarantee is, as noted, too important a matter to be left to trust alone and should be included in the statute.

A second concern I have with this bill centres on its proposal with regard to the appropriation of lottery funds for hospital operating transfers. As I have already indicated, the bill’s provisions on this point strike me as being a bit of a shell game, a nice way for the government to clean up its accounts while taking credit for flowing lottery money into the health care system.

If the government wants to direct lottery dollars into the health care system, why not do it in such a way that will meaningfully augment the financial resources available to the system, instead of simply tidying up the government’s accounts?

For example, if, after it provides for a revenue guarantee for sports, fitness and recreational and cultural activities, the government wants to appropriate excess lottery profits for health care purposes, then why does it not establish a special lottery projects account in the Ministry of Health to be accounted for in the public accounts, which could be used to finance a new medical technologies acquisition program, to supplement programs to attract medical specialists and doctors to northern Ontario or to start up a professional staff renewal program for Ontario hospitals?

Why does it not set up a special account so that the people of Ontario can clearly see what the lottery profits are being applied to, instead of using them to play games with the operating transfer?

I cannot leave this issue without pointing out to the members that up until 1986, proceeds from the interprovincial games paid into the consolidated revenue fund were used to support health and environmentally related health research, hospital capital projects and equipment acquisition, senior citizens’ housing and the Ontario Trillium Foundation. That was prior to 1986.

Those dedicated uses were, however, revoked in 1986 by the very same government that now proposes to use Ontario games proceeds to finance operating transfers for hospitals. In any case, we should not be so deluded as to think that lottery funds provide the answer to spending pressures in the health care system. It would take the Ministry of Health less than two weeks to spend every single cent of the $455 million in lottery profits paid into the consolidated revenue fund this year, and it would spend the total proceeds from the Ontario games in about four and one half days.

I know other members want to participate in this debate, so I will make only a few brief remarks on Bill 119’s provisions with regard to the unexpended lottery profits. The bill provides that this unallocated surplus, currently estimated at $369 million, will in the fiscal year in which the bill comes into effect, “be applied to and accounted for in the Public Accounts of Ontario as part of the money appropriated by the Legislature for the operation of hospitals.”

1650

I confess that I have been unable to find this $369 million accounted for anywhere in the public accounts. Treasury staff members have assured me that they do not have $369 million sitting in a vault in the Frost Building. I am quite sure the Treasurer will tell us that he does not have $369 million in a strong-box in the trunk of his car or salted away in the safe at Earl’s Shell station. As far as I have been able to determine, that $369 million has been long spent. With this bill, we will be able to say what it has been spent on; specifically, the operation of hospitals in either this or the next fiscal year. This does not mean, were we to pass this bill today, that hospital administrators would wake up tomorrow with an additional $369 million in their budgets. It just means that we can get it off the books.

The sports, recreational and cultural groups claim that this provision of the bill constitutes a retroactive expropriation of the unallocated surplus. They have recommended that this $369 million be deemed to establish a trust fund, the annual interest on which would be used to finance new programs designed to reduce demands on the health care system. I think these groups, which have a lot at stake in this bill, should have the opportunity to make their case to a committee of this House in order that the trust fund option could be fully explored.

We, the Progressive Conservative caucus of this Legislature, cannot support this bill as it stands. Fairness requires that, at minimum, some form of revenue guarantee be provided for our sports, fitness, recreation and cultural groups, which are very dependent on lottery funding and which, as all members recognize, make a very significant contribution to the quality of life in our communities.

Mr. Haggerty: You are against hospitals, are you? Against health care?

Mrs. Marland: For the sake of the member for Niagara South, who has just interjected, I would like to remind him that there is a very important factor that is being lost in this entire debate by the Liberal government members, and that is the subject of preventive medicine. I respectfully suggest that physical fitness and recreation itself are two areas that are the actual practice of preventive medicine.

Also, participation in arts, other forms of culture, crafts, no matter what it is, can be a psychological escape from stress and other problems that living in 1989 provides for people. There again, because those opportunities exist for the people in Ontario today, we are actually practising preventive medicine. How much better that we talk about preventive medicine so that people eventually reduce the requirement for health care.

We would like to see measures to ensure that excess lottery funds are used to increase the financial resources available to our health care system in a substantive and creative way.

We, as Progressive Conservatives, would like to see if we in this House could provide for a more fair disposition of the so-called unallocated surplus. We also believe that preventive medicine is an important aspect which must not be overlooked.

Before members vote this bill into law, we must ensure that we are fully aware of its implications for our municipalities and for all those organizations which rely on lottery funding.

One aspect that has not been addressed is the very important aspect of groups coming together within a community to fund-raise matching funds based on their eligibility for lottery funding. The kind of bonding and purpose that gives to our thousands of community groups around this province must not be lost in this debate. The oneness of sharing to contribute to the betterment of standards and the quality of life for other people in this province is an admirable course and commitment of time by thousands of individuals.

A committee of this Legislature provides us with the best mechanism for both educating ourselves with regard to the implications of the bill and for possibly improving it.

We as Progressive Conservatives look forward to the public’s being invited to make comments and suggestions on how to improve this bill to protect the necessary funding for sports, fitness, recreation and culture, while sharing the profits for the provision of health care.

I look forward to an opportunity to comment on questions that other members of the House may have generated by my comments this afternoon.

Ms. Hart: My friend the member for Mississauga South referred to an editorial. I could refer to many from papers as diverse as the Toronto Sun and the Burlington Spectator, but I particularly want to draw her attention to one in the Hamilton Spectator last summer, where it directs the Treasurer to proceed with necessary legislation, whatever the criticisms.

It says: “Criticism of the legislation, however, appears to be exaggerated. Bill 119 would allow moneys from Wintario and Lottario tickets, which have been exclusively dedicated for physical fitness, sports, recreation and culture, to be used for hospitals and the Trillium Foundation, which helps social service organizations.

“The principle of the bill is not new. In fact, hospitals and the Trillium Foundation already receive the lion’s share of funding from the interprovincial lotteries, such as Lotto 6/49 and the Provincial, which flows into the consolidated revenue fund like personal income tax. The money helped to fund Ontario’s $850-million hospital capital expansion program.

“It would be wrong to think Ontario was abandoning fitness, recreation and culture. The bill specifies that recreation, culture and the Trillium Foundation will be given first priority when proceeds of the provincial lotteries are divided. Hospitals will only receive money when there is a surplus. In fact, Ontario allocated some $96 million for culture and recreation in 1986, and is spending $97 million for that purpose this year.”

It goes on in the last paragraph: “On balance, we believe the majority of Ontario residents support Mr. Nixon in his attempt to provide more money for the most essential of all public services in Ontario. Let the bill proceed.”

Mrs. Marland: I must say I do agree with one statement that the parliamentary assistant has just made, and that is where she said the majority of Ontario residents support the Treasure’s allocating more money for health care in this province, or words to that effect.

1700

There is no single individual in the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario who would disagree with that. What we are disagreeing with in this bill is the lack of guarantee in any case of how much money will go to be allocated for hospital funding. Furthermore, what guarantee is there to the existing groups? What is so wrong about the bill is that it really is a nothing bill in terms of guarantee. As soon as money flows into the consolidated revenue fund, as the Hamilton Spectator says, God alone knows where that money goes.

The fact is, what we are looking for in our party is a guarantee that what has been a good thing will continue in terms of physical fitness, culture, recreation and sport in this province. What will help health care is a guarantee. There are no guarantees in this bill, because of the way it is written. We are simply allowing money to flow into a vehicle; namely, the consolidated revenue fund. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for the public or us, as members of this Legislature, to interpret where exactly that money goes.

There is no question that there is a need for additional health care funding in this province. Lord knows, we cry that every day in this House. What we want is to be sure that it will be there, that it will be guaranteed and that it will not be only at the whim of a Treasurer with a lottery fund.

Ms. Bryden: I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill 119, because I have been interested in the subject of lotteries and the allocation of lottery funds for over 10 years.

Yesterday we talked about a tax grab, the biggest tax grab in Ontario’s history, the $1 billion being brought in under the retail sales tax increase. It is a hit-and-run increase which will hurt the poor, single parents and those on fixed incomes like seniors and disabled persons. It was not even hinted at in the 1987 election campaign and it appears to be the Treasurer’s idea of a fair tax system.

Today, we are looking at another tax grab by the provincial Treasurer. Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, may not appear to be a tax bill. However, lottery purchases are really a voluntary tax. We instituted lotteries in this province in 1975, largely to keep the money that was going out of the province and out of the country to other sweepstakes and lotteries.

Those who buy lottery tickets do so because they like the excitement of a draw and also because they feel that part of the proceeds, that part not paid out in prizes, goes to worthy causes of which they approve.

I recognize there are many in this province who do not entirely approve of having and using lotteries in this province, church groups and other individuals who feel that they cater to the growth of gambling opportunities in the province. We all know there is such a thing as a gambling addiction and it does cause real social problems for some individuals. There are also many who question the lottery corporation’s vigorous promotion of more and more different kinds of lotteries.

The corporation was set up principally to organize lotteries and administer them, but was it set up to increase the demand for gambling with all its attendant social evils? That has seldom been debated in this House. I am not going to debate it today, because I want to talk about what the provincial Treasurer is planning to do with the proceeds from the lotteries we have.

The government’s main responsibility in the lottery field is to designate where the proceeds that are not paid out in prizes will go. In the initial bill in 1974, it said that the proceeds “may…be available” -- may be available -- “for the promotion and development of physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities and facilities therefor.” There was no other area to which the lottery funds could go, but it was a very big area and a very important area in our provincial development of good health, good recreation and good cultural activities. It filled a very real need, because all of these activities were greatly underfunded, and lottery funds became an important source for many small groups scattered throughout the communities in this province. It became a source of help for individuals participating in these fields with very little support.

In 1986, the provincial Treasurer made his first attempt at grabbing these lottery proceeds. He introduced Bill 38, which simply struck out the designation in the original bill. That meant that the lottery corporation was set up to run lotteries, period, and he and the cabinet would have the complete power to dispense that money in any way they saw fit. There was no guarantee that any of it would go to the designated recreational and cultural fields mentioned in the original act.

In principle, I think most of us are opposed to earmarked funds, because it does limit the Legislature’s power to deal with the entire revenue coming into the province. However, there seems to be an argument for earmarked funds in the case of lottery proceeds and that was what the original bill attempted to do. It carved out a large area of recreational and cultural needs and facilities that were neglected and earmarked the proceeds for that.

The present attempt by the Treasurer to change the allocation of the funds in Bill 119 is a very serious matter. Bill 38 aroused huge protests from thousands of Ontario residents who counted on lottery funding. It also revealed the provincial Treasurer as a despot who thought that he and his cabinet had a divine right to dispense lottery proceeds.

I was shocked to see that the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon), whom I had watched as Leader of the Opposition in the Ontario Legislature long before the change of government in 1985, was no longer a believer in a basic democratic principle, and that principle is that the power of the purse must be controlled by the Legislature, not by the provincial Treasurer and the cabinet. The allocation of lottery funds is a power of the purse.

We in the New Democratic Party opposed Bill 38, the first attempt by the Treasurer, and we were glad that the hue and cry about the Treasurer’s proposal was so great that the government let the bill die in 1987 before the provincial election.

Now I am shocked that the Treasurer is not cured of his lottery-grab ambitions. He has brought in this new bill, Bill 119, since the Liberals got a majority in September 1987.

It is a sneaky attempt to do what he wanted to do in 1986. Members will recall that “No taxation without representation” was a slogan in the reform days in England. Under this bill, the people of Ontario will have no say in the allocation of lottery taxation -- which it really is -- nor would any other resident who does not buy lottery tickets have any control over those funds that come into the provincial Treasury.

1710

Bill 119, as previous speakers have pointed out, has no guarantee in it that any funds will go to culture and recreation groups. It only says they may go to those groups, but they may also go to the Ontario Trillium Foundation, or if they do not go to any of those things at all, according to the largess of the Treasurer and the cabinet, they will all go to hospital operating costs.

The Treasurer is trying to win public acceptance for his tax grab, his lottery proceeds grab by saying any unexpended funds will go to the operation of hospitals. If he chooses to give nothing to recreation and culture or to the Trillium Foundation, then all of them will go to hospital operating costs and all those other needs will be left out in the cold.

We all recognize our hospitals are underfunded. We all know about beds being closed. We all know about surgery being delayed. We all know about the lack of money to pay nurses adequately. We know our hospitals are in trouble, but that is not going to be solved by earmarking all or a great majority of the lottery funds for the operating costs of hospitals.

It is the Treasurer’s responsibility to see that the needs of hospitals and all other needs in this province are met in his budget in a fair allocation of funds. It is fiscally irresponsible on the Treasurer’s part to propose that the operating costs of any ministry should be met through lottery proceeds. They are unpredictable, they are not very great and they may lead to the cutting back of other allocations that were given previously to hospitals, or to any other ministry, because these particular funds are expected to take their place.

This procedure the Treasurer is proposing takes away the Legislature’s opportunity to decide what the allocation of budgetary funds is for each ministry in total. If it can be done for hospitals, if certain tax revenues can be earmarked for operating costs, it could be done for any other ministry and we would then have budgetary chaos. Legislative control of the purse will be gone.

Hospital needs will not be met by passing this bill. They will be met by proper budgeting, by assessing their needs and by dividing the budgetary revenue total.

I recognize that capital costs for hospitals are another matter. Many worthwhile projects have been delayed due to shortages of government capital, with so many demands for school buildings, transportation improvements and new infrastructure. I think the government might consider setting up some sort of fund outside the lottery corporation to provide for donations and contributions to capital costs for hospitals, because that is a very great need. We should not be delaying the building of new hospitals and new institutions generally, schools and transportation. We should be gathering together the capital needs and having some sort of assessment of which are the most important.

This can be done by setting up a capital fund and an administration in which the public would have more say on our capital needs. I do not think this attempt by the Treasurer to grab whatever hospital money he can get out of the lottery proceeds is a sensible solution to our hospital and other capital costs.

We already give a lot of help to the capital costs of hospitals and to hospital research through the proceeds of the three lotteries that are interprovincial and are not covered by the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act of 1974. The lottery corporation operates six lotteries and the three that are covered by that act are Lottario, Wintario and the instant games. These accounted for only about one third of the lottery proceeds of $455 million in 1987-88.

The other two thirds are really under the control of the joint interprovincial lotteries, which have their own allocation rules, and quite a few of their allocations do go to hospitals, particularly to capital costs. I do not think any of them go to operating costs of hospitals or of any other ministries across the country.

We are failing to look at the possibilities of helping hospitals through working with the other provinces on those funds that are not under the lottery act, but we do not help the hospitals by taking away the lottery funds that are allocated for sports, recreation and culture and leaving them with no guarantee they will get any funds.

If we defeat this bill, the sports, recreational and cultural activities will have a guarantee that they will continue to get all the proceeds of the three lotteries that are under provincial control. If we defeat this bill, we will also be defeating the Treasurer’s proposal to put all the unallocated lottery funds that are now in the revenue pot into hospital operating costs.

This is straight robbery of funds that belong to cultural and recreational organizations and facilities, which were granted the original proceeds that have been left unexpended, unallocated by the provincial government. They have been hoarded by the provincial government so it might be able, at some later date -- if the Treasurer gets his way -- to grab the unallocated and unexpended funds. This is exactly what he is doing in this bill, which is another reason for defeating it.

I might say that I also question his concept that some of the lottery funds should be allocated to the Ontario Trillium Foundation. That is being done at present and I am not sure whether it is justified by the legislation. It is true that the Trillium Foundation makes a great many grants in the cultural and sports field, but it also makes grants in the social welfare field.

It is true we have great needs in those areas, but I question the procedure of allowing a semi-autonomous corporation, operated by an autonomous board of directors, to decide who will get grants in the social welfare field. It seems to me there must be a democratic organization -- not a private corporation, a private group of businessmen -- making those decisions as to who will get a share of the lottery funds and whether they are justified under the legislation.

I think we should have a special granting body to review applications in the social welfare field, but it should be made up of citizens who would perhaps be appointed by the Legislature. We should advertise for participants who want to serve on the board of directors, as many of the municipalities do when they have a semiautonomous board they wish to set up. I do not think it should be the private preserve of a group of wealthy businessmen to make the decisions.

1720

I think that possibly, when it was set up, the hope was that those businessmen would bring in some more of their own donations, and consolidate them in the same groups that were applying for lottery funds.

I certainly would encourage corporate donations and contributions. I think they should be greatly increasing their contributions from the small percentage they now give of their total profits. But I think the administration of any government funds that are given to social welfare programs should be by a government-appointed allocation body with public participation and with public representation on the board, so that there can be no question then whether the funds are the will of the people, shall we say.

I urge the Treasurer to redeem his reputation of being a democratic, fair-minded Treasurer who looks after the preservation of our rights in controlling the purse by withdrawing this very improper legislation. I think he should consider that he should also not have any power to deal with the unallocated funds, but should make them available to all the designated groups that have been starved, I should say, for the last few years.

I know there are many, many cultural organizations that are just barely able to keep going, especially with the rising costs of all the business of putting on plays or putting on sports events. So many sports and cultural groups spend half their time raising funds. I think the Treasurer could do these groups a great favour and make himself much more popular if he released all those unexpended funds to the initial purposes of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

Perhaps there are some that could go to some hospital capital funding. That would be preferable until we set up the investment fund I am suggesting, which would be operated as a provincial determinant of where investment funds should be allocated. It should not be left just to the lottery proceeds to decide which capital costs for hospitals will go ahead.

I urge the members on the other side to consider why Bill 38 was withdrawn and I hope the Treasurer will suddenly realize that Bill 119 is even more objectionable to the vast majority of the people in this province. This is what I am hearing in the kinds of letters and calls I am getting. I think it is time they had a change of thought over there, if they believe in democratic procedures.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions and comments on the member’s statement?

Ms. Hart: I take exception to one of the comments made by my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). I look at it from two perspectives. My friend indicated this was a hit-and-run increase that hurt the poor the most, if my writing was fast enough. My concern about those remarks is really a twofold concern.

First of all, it assumes that the recreation and cultural needs of the economically disadvantaged will not continue to be met and be enhanced, as they have been over the course of this government. The Treasurer has undertaken that the funding will continue to culture and recreation, fitness and sport and the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

The ministers responsible -- the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Minister of Culture and Communications and the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) -- have all made similar undertakings, and these people do not make those undertakings lightly. I submit to my friend that these undertakings are not made just at whim. It is the considered view of this government that the funding will be continued at acceptable levels.

The other thing I take exception to, although it was not said in these words, was the implication that lotteries are a tax on the poor. In fact, in recent studies conducted by the Ontario Lottery Corp., there was no substantiation for that generally held view. It was found that people at all income levels buy lottery tickets.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to comment or ask questions? If not, does the member wish to respond?

Ms. Bryden: I referred to the retail sales tax as the hit-and-run tax grab, but I refer to this as another kind of tax grab, when the government goes after the lottery funds as well. I think the two of them are very bad things on the record of the Treasurer as a democratic Treasurer, which we had thought he was from his early days in this House. He seems to have changed since he moved across the floor.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate?

Mr. Wiseman: I am pleased to take part in this debate. I would rather the bill were not here and I did not have to take part in this.

I am saddened in different ways. One way is that this government saw fit to help our health care system through lottery funds with the last budget of the Treasurer, when he took the largest tax grab of any Treasurer in history. Along with the tax grab, he had good sales, so he got eight per cent of many more dollars’ worth of sales than the previous year, as well as the gasoline tax, the cigarette tax, the alcohol tax and so on.

We all know that a few years ago, the sales tax brought in about $500 million. Now it brings in about $1 billion. We see, and businessmen have talked to me, that this government is increasing its bureaucracy, probably by many millions of dollars. I have heard of anywhere from $300 million to $500 million when you take in the fringe benefits. We see the problems with health care that they have on a daily basis. Now they are trying to grasp at straws, in my opinion, to get all the money they can to fund health care.

Back in the 1970s, when I had the pleasure of being parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, we tried to funnel, and did funnel, some of the money into research on drug and alcohol abuse, as well as heart research; cancer was another. We felt if we could help through research, that would alleviate some of the health care needs.

I think back to when we had people over from Europe talking to us about the number of beds that were being held down over there from drug and alcohol abuse, something in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent of all the beds. I felt it was a way to help cut down on eventual health costs and make healthier citizens of the people of this province.

I heard the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North -- I represent Renfrew South -- say earlier on this afternoon that the people of Renfrew North were pleased with this legislation. I do not believe that is right. They want to see money go to fund their hospitals, but I believe if members were to know what the people of Renfrew North are really thinking, it is that they do not want to see it funded through games of chance.

We have seen -- and I am starting on 19 years here now -- municipalities that through Wintario money have been able to build community centres and playgrounds, and hopefully not only for the young people but people my age who play hockey once or twice a week and try to keep themselves in pretty good shape. As has been mentioned before, I think that is good preventive medicine.

1730

I notice the parliamentary assistant, in answering the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I believe, said that the funding would be there, pretty well giving us her assurance, but the bill does not really say that.

If they kept the funding at the level it is at today and took into consideration that if lottery funds continue to grow as they have over the past number of years they would more than meet inflation and the money would continue to flow to culture and recreation, I think most of us would not have too much concern about some of the money, if there was some additional money going into health care.

I have always been surprised that we had a surplus left in our budget for culture and recreation, because, like many members in the House, I know of the needs in the area that I represent. I have heard the figure this afternoon that about 40 per cent of the capital projects applied for were actually given out. I think that is pretty representative of all the constituencies in Ontario. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, in your riding you get only about 40 per cent of those that are submitted.

I feel that if we have this surplus, then we should earmark that at the present level we have and, as I said before, increase it if we are lucky, as we have been over the last few years, in having people take more and more the games of chance.

I would like to mention that in her opening statement, the parliamentary assistant said that times have changed -- if I am not right in what she has said, she will correct me, I know -- that people back in 1975, when the games of chance came out, used to look upon them as gambling but now they look upon them as something other than that, or something along that line. Maybe we have old-fashioned ideas, but I think a lot of people in my riding still look at them as games of chance and gambling. An awful lot of people participate in it, but I still have quite a number who have not bought a ticket as yet because they believe that it is a form of gambling.

The surplus has been mentioned at different times, and I believe $361 million is the figure that the Treasurer will use to kind of close out the books on all the surplus that is there and try to funnel, if there is any there, into health.

It has been my recollection over the years with treasurers that once they get their hands on that money, there is not, as the member for Mississauga South said, any pot of gold over there; it is used up as they get their hands on it. We have seen that in a lot of ways with the fishing licences and with the tax on lumber; once it gets to the Treasury, we do not know where it goes. It goes into the general fund.

If the Treasurer in the past had felt that the surplus of money that he did not pay out through culture and recreation should have gone to hospitals, I am sure he had every opportunity to do it. Last year, he had $41 million. He could have put that into hospitals if had wanted to. He did not need this bill to do that, because, as I said before, all treasurers have controlled the pursestrings there. He could have put it in there had he wanted to do it.

The many cultural groups that have come in to see me -- and they are not all just in my riding, but others -- and the recreational groups, are very nervous of this bill. I cannot believe for a minute that members of this Legislature, some of whom are making comments to some of the other speakers this afternoon, are not getting the same concerns back in their ridings. I am sure that they are and that those people have told them they would like to see some sort of guarantee in there that funds will not go down but rather remain the same -- or more.

I know there are a lot of people who want to speak on this and I have promised my colleague that I would not take too long; but this is something that I think every member of the Legislature should be speaking to on behalf of the people they represent in the ridings, to let the government know. I hope and pray that they will send this bill to committee so that the people who want to -- and I know that there are lots of them -- will come in and let the government know their concerns.

If it goes to committee, I hope that whoever sits on that committee will have an open ear -- and not like in the Sunday shopping, where they were whipped into doing what the government wanted -- and let their conscience be their guide because they are here to represent their areas, as we all are. On something like this, I believe they would be doing their people an injustice if they did not see that amendments were brought in to correct the flaws that I see in this bill.

Mr. McGuigan: I would like to make a comment to my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew as to the lack of guarantee. I believe that there is a guarantee in section 9, which says, “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct, to be available for appropriation by the Legislature -- “

Mr. Farnan: Is that “may,” sir?

Mr. McGuigan: Let me finish. The point is that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct the entire funds to those purposes. The member pointed out that he may not, but I would like to point out that he also may.

The other guarantee that backs that up is simply the order in which these items are presented in the bill. The first order is to “the promotion and development of physical fitness” and so on, and “for the activities of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.”

The third order is that the remainder go “into the consolidated revenue fund.” I take that as a pretty good guarantee that an honourable government -- and I happen to think that this government is honourable, as I thought the previous government was honourable -- would carry out that commitment. We heard it from many members of the government, from the Treasurer and from people who have spoken here today.

I would like to make a comment too about the question of the consolidated revenue fund, which my friend mentioned. There are many things that I blame the former government for; but one of the things that I give it great credit for, as a system of government, is that we have a consolidated revenue fund, as opposed to the United States, where there are various funds. The thing I want to bring up as an example is that in the early 1950s and 1960s in the United States --

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

1740

Mr. Wiseman: I would like to reply to my friend’s comments, where it says “may” in the bill. I am sure that if he went to a bank manager -- and there is a former bank manager behind him -- and the bank manager said, “I may lend you the money to spray your fruit trees and everything,” I do not think the honourable member would take that, run to the hardware store and buy all the spray. It would be a lot better if the bank manager said, “I’ll lend you the money for it.”

Mr. McGuigan: I did that all the time, Doug. That’s the way I ran my business.

Mr. Wiseman: Knowing the honourable member as I do, he probably does not have to go to the bank, but if he did have to go to the bank, he would want to hear, “I will lend you the money” and not, “I may lend you the money.” I think that is what the people are worried about out here, not that they will see the revenue remain as it is. I am sure, as I said before, the member would not go run to the hardware store if he were short the money with an “I may lend it to you.” I know the bank manager behind the member would certainly agree with me.

Mr. Farnan: We have just witnessed a most extraordinary scene in this House. We had the member for Essex-Kent stand up and defend this legislation by saying that the sports and cultural groups will have their funding protected because of the word “may” in the legislation. They may receive the funding.

He went on to qualify that remark by saying that he trusts the sports and cultural groups will indeed receive this funding because he has faith, he says, in an honourable government. Let me tell members, there are many people out there across Ontario who do not share that faith in this government, that the member for Essex-Kent suggests they base their trust upon, with regard to funds.

This is the government that said, “We have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance,” and broke that promise. This is the government that said on Sunday shopping, “We believe in a common pause day,” and then changed its mind on that issue despite the overwhelming voice of the people of Ontario. This is the government that now says to the sports and cultural groups of Ontario, “You may receive the funding.” Why, in goodness’ name, would the sports and cultural groups of Ontario have any faith and confidence in that kind of contract with a government that has clearly had a record of breaking its promises?

Let me suggest that the debate we are having right now is a very devious move on the part of the Liberal government of Ontario. What I hear and what I do not hear -- let me talk about what I do not hear in this debate. I do not hear any discussion about what is an adequate funding level for the sports and cultural groups of Ontario. There is no discussion on the part of the Liberal government to say, “We believe this is a realistic funding level that we are prepared to ensure sports and culture get in Ontario.”

The Liberal government has moved the debate away from the amount of funds that sports and cultural groups should get and has moved it to the source of funds. How clever. We know that sports and recreation have been receiving a decreasing level of funding from this government in real dollars. Instead of discussing the real issue, what is an appropriate level of funding, we have the Liberal government trying to divert their attention with a motherhood direction of saying, “Hospitals are good.”

Members opposite will find nobody in this House who will disagree with the government on that basis. However, the Liberal government is losing an opportunity to play a leadership role by stating the minimum funding level for sports and culture that is appropriate in Ontario. This is indeed, I would suggest, a moment of opportunity to establish a leadership role by making a clear-cut commitment to the ongoing funding of sports and culture, but the member for Essex-Kent is clearly off the mark if he believes that a commitment to sports and culture is to be based on the premise that one may receive some of these funds.

Let me say that I am frankly disappointed in several of the ministers of cabinet. I am disappointed in the Treasurer, that jovial and happy financial tax-gatherer, whose constant occupation seems to be to devise ways and means to tax the Ontario public to the hilt, whether it is a sales tax, whether it is land transfer, whether it is lot levies. The only tax the Treasurer is not interested in is a speculation tax that would perhaps control the cost of housing. In every other aspect, we find the Treasurer simply bilking the taxpayers of Ontario.

I do not see, for example, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation or the Minister of Culture and Communications, or members of the cabinet, standing up for the groups they are supposed to represent. I do not see the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) taking a stand on this issue either, as he nods his head in agreement that he would anticipate that these other ministers should be making a stand.

Let me say what I would do as the Minister of Tourism and Recreation within a New Democratic Party government. It would certainly not be what is happening on the Liberal benches right now. I think we could, for example, establish that the $369 million of unallocated surplus be put into a trust fund. This amount of money, the interest generated on this fund, would be targeted for new government programs designed to reduce the stress on the health care system in the long term. The preventive components of recreation and the promotion of leisure and healthy lifestyles should play a major role in this initiative of preventive health care.

That is the difference between Liberals and New Democrats. We have a vision of where we want to go. Unfortunately, the Liberal government does not have this vision.

Preventive health care is something we have urged upon this government for a long time. It is a fact that only one tenth of one cent of every health care dollar goes to preventive health care. This is a tragedy in this province. If we were to invest in preventive health care, we could reduce the exorbitant cost that is crippling our economy in terms of paying for health care costs down the road in institutionalization, in hospitalization. If we were to invest in real preventive health care through sports, recreation and culture, then I believe we would be saving the taxpayers money in the long run.

Let me suggest that it is always encouraging for us when we find that our good ideas are getting through to the government. Occasionally we have heard the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) talk about preventive health care. It is unfortunate that all we are getting at the moment is talk. We are not getting responsible action; we are not getting investment in preventive health care. Of course, the tragedy of the matter is that the result constitutes increased expenses for institutional care down the road.

I want to turn for a moment and say, of course, that New Democrats will never play second fiddle to Conservatives or Liberals when it comes to the issue of funding health care. That is not the issue here. When the founder of medicare, our former federal leader and Premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas, first instituted this concept -- and we had to spend a long time convincing Conservatives and Liberals that this indeed was a good idea -- he did not come along and say: “Medicare is a good idea. Let’s have a comprehensive health care system and let’s fund it out of lotteries.” Tommy Douglas did not have the idea of funding health care out of lotteries. He did not say, “Let’s have more operations in good lottery years, and in bad lottery years we can say to people: ‘Sorry, that triple bypass is not on this year, after all. This is a bad lottery year and therefore we just have to do a little bit of cutback here.’” It is really sad.

1750

Health care is an integral, important right that the citizens of Ontario and Canada have come to expect. They demand from our governments and from our elected leaders a secure and guaranteed source of income for our health care system.

At this moment, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in the Premier’s own backyard journal, the London Free Press, on November 2, 1988. The title of the article was, Reliance on Lotteries is a Risky Business. It says:

“California has been using lotteries as a source of funds for education -- a practice the state’s school superintendents say has backfired. Ontario is now proposing to divert more lottery profits from recreation and culture to hospitals.”

There is a very sensible warning here, because what has happened is that the funding for education has decreased in California as the funding generated from lotteries has decreased. As the dependency on lottery funds became increasingly the modus operandi in California, the government commitment to the education area became less and, as a result, we had a reduction in the level of funding in California to education, linked directly, I suggest, to the dependency on lottery funds.

A survey taken of California’s 1,074 school superintendents “...showed: 95 per cent of the respondents said the lottery has undermined legislative support for education funding, 94 per cent said it has cut public support of schools, 71 per cent said lottery funds have not solved any financial problems in their districts, 87 per cent said the lottery is an ‘unreliable’ source of money and 54 per cent branded it an ‘undesirable’ funding source.

“Profits from California’s lottery were supposed to supplement normal school funding, not take its place. By law, 34 per cent of lottery ticket sales goes to public education -- from kindergarten through to university. That is the prospect that lies ahead of us in Ontario if we divert the funds from the area of sports and recreation to what we consider to be an essential service.

When lotteries were first instituted, the government committed the profits from lotteries to culture, recreation, sports and physical fitness. Since that time, both the previous government and this one have tried to divert money from that purpose. All of the profits from the Provincial lottery, Lotto 6/49 and Super Loto were diverted to general revenue long ago; $296 million in 1987 alone. Profits from Wintario, Lottario and the Instant, $169 million in 1987, are left to fund culture and recreation and the Trillium Foundation. But $369 million of that money has been allowed to accumulate while legitimate grant applications have gone unfulfilled.

We have heard today the percentage of groups that applied for this fund that was originally directed towards them. These are legitimate, justifiable projects which have not been funded by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Funding from lottery programs -- what we are talking about here are groups of men and women who look after our kids, who coach our kids, who look after neighbourhood groups, who are working with all kinds of worthwhile projects. What we are saying to them is, as the Liberal member for Essex-Kent said, “You may receive funding.” That is a real commitment.

Let me turn for a moment to the idea that was suggested by my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine. The parliamentary assistant suggested that the member for Beaches-Woodbine was incorrect when she said that lotteries are a regressive tax. I want to put the record straight because the parliamentary assistant is not properly relaying the results of the survey that was taken. She is being very, very selective. It is true that the survey that was taken indicated that lottery tickets are bought by people in every socioeconomic group. It was even suggested that more lottery tickets were bought by middle-income Ontarians.

But let me give the parliamentary assistant some figures which clearly indicate that it is a regressive form of taxation. In 1986, 49 per cent of families with incomes under $10,000 bought lottery tickets, spending an average of $49 according to Statistics Canada. By contrast, 81 per cent of families with incomes between $50,000 and $60,000 bought tickets, spending an average of $238.

Certainly they spent more on the tickets. However, and this is the point, for low-income families that expense amounted to 0.65 per cent of their total income and for higher-income families it was 0.25 per cent. In that sense, I put it to the parliamentary assistant to accept the fact that this is a regressive tax and that it hurts poor people more than it hurts those people who are better off.

The parliamentary assistant, in her opening remarks said, “The government is totally committed to culture and recreation.”

Mr. Ballinger: Hear, hear.

Mr. Farnan: I am glad to see the member for Durham-York carrying on with his continued abuse in the background because that seems to be the nature of his contribution to this House. Certainly when we are trying to discuss an issue which is of grave significance to culture and recreation groups within this province, that is not the type of representation we would anticipate from the member from that part of the province.

Certainly, I believe that the culture and recreation groups are going to be very disappointed, not so much because he is supporting government legislation, but because he is not prepared to allow a civilized debate or to have opposition members present their remarks. What we have from my good friend is a very low degree of involvement which is purely disruptive.

Mr. Speaker: The member may wish to glance at the clock. If he has further remarks, he may wish to adjourn the debate.

On motion by Mr. Farnan, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

28 février 1989