Journal des débats 1989-mars-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: The arrogance of the Liberal government continues unbridled. We have a piece of legislation, Bill 162, which is so badly flawed that the only way it can be saved is to scrap it completely; yet the Liberals are proceeding with its implementation, although it has yet to be passed.

The Liberals agreed to public hearings on Bill 162, but then cut off the number of submissions they would hear. The government claims most of the submissions are from organized labour groups that would be saying exactly the same thing. The Liberals hate repetition. They do not want to be reminded that they do not know what they are doing.

One of the people who will not be allowed to appear before the Committee is June Howard of Ingersoll in the riding of Oxford. Mrs. Howard presented her member of the provincial parliament, who is also a member of the standing committee, with a copy of her brief and asked for his assistance so she could present it to the committee.

Guess what? Mrs. Howard is on the waiting list for the Toronto hearings. Mrs. Howard is not connected with any organized labour group. Mrs. Howard is an individual whose husband has churned through the compensation system. Mrs. Howard has some legitimate complaints and she has the right to be heard.

Of course, this government is open, honest and without walls or windows. They do not need walls or windows, because they will not let anyone talk to them. June Howard deserves to he heard on Bill 162. So does everyone else who has something to say about the bill, but the Liberals refuse to listen. Maybe they will finally, during the next election campaign, get the message on what it costs to muzzle people.

MINISTRY POLICIES

Mr. Pollock: Yesterday, I questioned the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) in regard to the unfortunate passing of Landmarks magazine. While the minister insisted that the decision to discontinue Landmarks was entirely economic, we on this side of the House do not think that was the case. It seems clear to us that Landmarks was discontinued because there was no good news to print about the current Minister of Natural Resources and his many unwise policies.

This fact, coupled with the extreme media pressure and the general public’s dislike of the direction in which the minister is taking the Ministry of Natural Resources, is the real reason for cancelling Landmarks. What was to be a “no walls, no barriers government” is today a government without direction. The erection of walls and barriers and the secrecy of the Minister of Natural Resources are well illustrated through the cancellation of Landmarks and his refusal to hold public meetings into the Burgar report.

We on this side of the House are not so secretive. In fact, tonight we are sponsoring a public forum on the Burgar report, to begin at 7 p.m. at the Scarborough council chambers. I would like to take this opportunity to invite the minister, his parliamentary assistant and all members to this meeting. It appears that this evening’s forum may prove to he the only opportunity for an open and frank discussion on the Burgar report. I urge the minister, the parliamentary assistant and all those who are genuinely interested in the future of Ontario conservation authorities to join us tonight.

HOUSE PRICES

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I would like today to paraphrase portions of a letter written by the Toronto Home Builders’ Association and published in the North York Mirror. I think it is a letter to which both the opposition parties and the media might listen.

The letter said, “In his attack on North York Mayor Mel Lastman ... editorial writer David Nickle states, ‘the recent escalation in housing prices ... now puts the price of an average North York home at $800,000

“In the same issue Mr. Nickle informs readers ... that he visited a grade 7 class and told students ‘about journalism and how stunningly complex it all is.’

“It certainly is complex. One of those complexities is making sure of the facts. It’s called research....

“Our news release” -- that is, of the Toronto Home Builders’ Association -- “outlined ‘the average asking price of a new detached home’ built in 21 Metro-area regions. Since North York is virtually built out, the $806,000 figure was based on one 200-home subdivision.... There was no other subdivision anywhere in North York that met our criteria of at least 15 homes.

“We even underscored the key phrase to minimize a possible misunderstanding of the statistics. Seems the shock value was too good to pass up. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

“North York is a great place to live and work. It is a vibrant city, with a wealth of recreational and cultural facilities for all North Yorkers to enjoy, whether they live in moderately priced apartments or multimillion-dollar mansions,” something for the opposition to think about.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Hampton: Since last spring, when the government introduced Bill 162, it has become very apparent that what the government intends to do with Bill 162, what it is trying to do with Bill 162 is not mere tinkering. It is regarded by many injured workers and by many workers across the province as a fundamental change in workers’ compensation provisions and in workers’ compensation benefits.

Given that it is such a fundamental change in legislation, why are people like Vie Baskin of the Canadian Paperworkers Union local in Thunder Bay, Robert Lavallee of another Paperworkers local in Thunder Bay, Dick Facca of another Paperworkers local, Nancy Fisher from the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, Greg McColgan from the United Transportation Union, Jim Kempton from the United Steelworkers of America, Oliver Piccinin from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Charles Meeking from the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council in effect being denied the right to be heard, the right to present their submissions as to why this legislation is wrong-headed and is going in the wrong direction?

It is time for the government to open up the hearings on Bill 162, so that all who are going to be affected can be heard.

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

Mr. Sterling: I would like to congratulate John Turner, the leader of the federal Liberal Party, on the delivery of one of his election promises. He and Ed Broadbent promised to locate the federal space agency in Montreal. Today that is going to happen.

We had a very real shot at getting this prestigious centre. Ottawa-Carleton should have been the logical choice. Of the 22 companies across Canada that do space-related work --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: -- three are in Quebec while eight are in the Ottawa area alone.

It was the responsibility of Ontario politicians to lobby the federal government to show the necessity and the practicality of locating the agency in Ottawa.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: We must question the effectiveness of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his minister in their lobbying tactics. A few token words of support were hardly adequate. Over the past four years the Premier has used every opportunity to practise federal-government bashing. He has done little to show any co-operative spirit.

On the other hand, Quebec quickly reacted to the announcement in late 1986 of the intention to create this agency. As many as 10 meetings were held with delegations from that province before Ontario took any action to intervene.

This government has benefited at the polls from federal-government bashing, but it has cost the people of Ottawa-Carleton the federal space agency.

1340

GEORGE P. MACKIE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Miss Nicholas: The George P. Mackie public school parents and teachers association’s annual Fun Fair, to be held on April 8 this year, again will be entitled “Free the Children.” This year’s campaign will use funds raised from donations to adopt children in underdeveloped countries. The plan is to adopt one child for each grade from kindergarten through grade 6 and to keep writing to the children on a regular basis.

The usual fun and frolic will culminate with the entire school emptying out into the playing field to stand in a large circle. Each person, young and old, will be given a helium-filled balloon as a symbol of his joy and freedom. They will then, all together, release their balloons as a symbol of hope and freedom with a wish that their balloons be carried in the wind and carry the message that we all share, the message that we do care and we will share.

The George P. Mackie public school hopes to raise our levels of consciousness to the needs of others, both in our children and in ourselves. “Free the Children” is starting in Toronto and going nationwide. The school is aiming at every school eventually being a sponsor. Joe Trentadue, chairman of the association, and parents are to be congratulated for organizing such a fine event. I attended last year and was overwhelmed by the energy and enthusiasm that went into this event, both from the children and from the parents. I would like to stand here and congratulate them again today.

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Mr. Farnan: The recent spill of 40,000 pounds of soy-based oil at Canadian General Tower in Cambridge revealed an ineptness and reluctance on the part of the Ministry of the Environment to be responsive and honest in its handling of the matter.

There was 10 times more heavy oil spilled than originally reported by the ministry. Some of the oil did enter the Grand River, contrary to the statement made by a ministry official, and it took an anonymous phone call to the Cambridge Reporter to reveal that we were dealing with a 40,000-pound spill as opposed to the 4,000 pounds reported by the Ministry of the Environment.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FUNERAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to inform the House that it is the government’s decision to release shortly two unnumbered bills regulating bereavement services that will ensure a more equitable marketplace for consumers, business and nonprofit groups through improved access to information and services.

Due to technical difficulties in drafting the strengthened consumer protection measures decided by the government, the bills will not be available before the Legislature rises. I am announcing these decisions today, however, in order to clarify the environment in the bereavement sector. We will be meeting shortly with all affected groups to explain the decisions taken by the government and to discuss implementation processes.

The new Cemeteries Act and the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act will be formally introduced in the Legislature when the House resumes in the spring. The provisions contained in the Prearranged and Prepaid Funerals Act, Bill 27, which is currently before the House, have been incorporated into the new legislation. I would like to emphasize that the bills we will be releasing are the result of extensive study and consultation between government, industry, nonprofit participants and consumer groups.

Our review has shown that both existing pieces of legislation, the Funeral Services Act and the Cemeteries Act, are not only out of date but they are cumbersome and difficult to administer.

The government proposes to transfer responsibility for funeral service legislation from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In conjunction with that transfer, the Board of Funeral Services will report to the consumer ministry.

The legislation I am announcing today focuses on enhanced consumer protection. For that reason, both the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act and the new Cemeteries Act contain certain provisions that are similar. I want to outline a few of them.

Purchasing death care services is a uniquely sensitive transaction. During the consultation process, considerable attention is focused on the issue of door-to-door and telephone solicitation. This type of marketing presents the unavoidable risk that the ill or recently bereaved may be contacted. Due to the undesirable nature of this type of solicitation, the new legislation prohibits all telephone and door-to-door solicitation for funeral and cemetery services.

The two proposed bills include strengthened disclosure provisions. Itemized price lists must be available and funeral establishments and cemeteries will be required to provide reasonable information to the consumer over the telephone upon request.

Unethical business practices such as excessive pricing, misleading or deceptive advertising and high-pressure sales tactics are prohibited. All money received for pre-need funeral and cemetery services will need to be placed in trust and all contracts may be cancelled within 30 days of signing at no cost.

Under the new legislation, consumers will be guaranteed the right to purchase a nontraditional funeral or basic low-cost funeral. In addition, licensed transfer services will be permitted to offer to the public basic disposition services. This service includes the removal and transportation of the deceased and the filing of documents.

In response to the changing practices, values and preferences of our multicultural population, funeral directors will be licensed in two categories: those who perform embalming and those who choose not to embalm.

To allow continued consumer choice of services and ensure fair competition within the industry, the new legislation continues and clarifies the current prohibition against an operational connection between funeral homes and cemeteries.

For the first time, operational connections will be clearly defined and will include, for example, joint marketing, referral selling and common directorships. The regulations will also prohibit funeral establishments and cemeteries from being located on one site. These prohibitions will be strictly enforced by my ministry.

To keep pace with emerging issues and trends and to foster a better understanding within the bereavement sector, a minister’s advisory committee, independent of this legislation, will be established, with representation from all key industry, nonprofit participants and consumer groups.

In outlining these reform initiatives, I stress the government’s commitment to provide improved consumer protection and disclosure, to address the needs of our multicultural population, and to ensure more stringent regulation of the commercial aspects of the bereavement industry.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Hon. Mr. Scott: As members of this Legislature will know, the Temagami, or Bear Island, Indian land claim has raised numerous complex issues for this government and for previous Ontario and federal governments. Two days ago, on Monday, February 27, the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its judgement on the Temagami band’s claim. The court’s judgement has major implications for land claims in Ontario and across Canada. In particular, it has direct impact on the Teme-Augama Anishnabai and on all residents in the Temagami area.

The main issue before the court was the TAA’s assertion that they have never signed a treaty and that they therefore have an interest in the approximately 4,000 square miles of Ontario crown land within the land claim area.

As in the 1984 judgement of Mr. Justice Steele, the Ontario Court of Appeal has rejected this claim by the Temagami Indians. The Court of Appeal ruled that the TAA were either parties to the Robinson-Huron treaty of 1850 or were subsequently bound by adhesion to that treaty thereafter.

That ruling is not, of course, the end of the matter. While the courts have definitively rejected the band’s claim that it was never bound by the treaty, the issue of what the band is entitled to under the treaty was not before the courts and must now be addressed.

This government acknowledges that the Anishnabai have not in the past received their full entitlement under the treaty. Ontario continues to be willing to meet its obligations under the treaty, and on that basis we are today prepared to make an offer of settlement to the Temagami Indian people of land to meet their outstanding treaty entitlement.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is also prepared to discuss a new role for the band in the land and natural resource management in the Lake Temagami area. This new role would be in keeping with the intent and spirit of the original treaty; that is, to effectively develop modern treaty arrangements.

I have distributed to the members of the House a map that shows the approximate boundaries of the proposed reserve that was mutually agreed upon by the band and the federal government in the 1880s. It is this government’s proposal that the land can now form the basis for the provision of an expanded reserve, which will be, by the way, some 50 times the size of the current reserve at Bear Island.

We now expect that Ottawa will join with us and help to bring this issue to a resolution. Federal involvement is at the heart of the resolution of a treaty issue. While the issue of crown land is the responsibility of the province and we herewith make our offer, the entitlement to compensation for unpaid annuities, which is an unfulfilled entitlement in this case, must be addressed by Ottawa.

The Ontario government is committed to bringing about a negotiated settlement, and we call on both the federal government and the band to meet with us to begin the process of finally resolving the issues.

1350

RESPONSES

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mrs. Grier: Responding to the statement by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I am quite sure the government wishes to finally resolve this matter. I think the dilemma and its continuing saga to a large extent have been brought by this government upon itself by its actions with respect to the Temagami wilderness.

What I find strange in the statement by the Attorney General today is that there is no acknowledgement of the fact of the band’s decision to appeal the judgement that was rendered. Surely the Attorney General recognizes that the band does not feel as yet that it is covered by the treaty, and that the negotiations he is suggesting are decidedly premature until the disposition of the appeal.

In fact, as the band said in its statement yesterday, it seeks an explanation from the Prime Minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as to why coexistence is not possible and why denial of their ownership is not considered a crime against humanity.

The other silence in the Attorney General’s statement is no mention of a commitment not to proceed any further with either of the road extensions until the issue has been finally determined. I hope we can get that commitment.

Mr. Pouliot: This is a sad day indeed for our First Ontarians and our First Canadians. I would like to remind the Attorney General, as we did --

Hon. Mr. Scott: That’s really odd. We offer a lot of land and you say it’s a sad day.

Mr. Pouliot: Can he can stop interjecting for a second?

The establishment of a land base and the settlement of long-outstanding land claims forms a very important and crucial component of the resolve, the promise and the fulfilment of self-government for our First Canadians.

The Attorney General would perhaps agree that courts of law in Ontario and in this country in this endeavour -- tripartite agreements are not the best possible way to resolve the problems. One does that with intent, spirit and commitment, and with some funding to at long last give the first people of our province, the first people of this country, the people who need it the most, a chance to join the economic mainstream of Canada and to end the ever-present cycle of poverty.

What the Attorney General failed to inform the House of in his statement this afternoon was that he establishes no timetable, does not tell us meticulously whom he will be meeting with and what offers are still on the table. I would like to remind the Attorney General, as we did in the past two days during the course of estimates of the Office Responsible for Native Affairs under the auspices of the standing committee on administration of justice, that $25 does not, in quotes, represent a modern settlement, and offers no vision about what should be done.

The Attorney General has the opportunity, the mandate, and more important the responsibility, to do what is right, to come to the House and give us information on a timetable regarding the settlement.

FUNERAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: I want to congratulate the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). This legislation is valuable.

I suggest it is regrettable that in his remarks the minister did not have the generosity of spirit to mention by name the former member for Welland-Thorold who has championed this cause for many years. Much of what is contained in this recommendation is the substance of what the former member for Welland-Thorold presented in this House on a very consistent basis.

Indeed, the former member for Welland-Thorold introduced a private member’s bill that contained all the provisions of this legislation. It took several years before the government had the courage to getup and run with this issue that New Democrats have championed for a long, long time.

I suggest we will be looking at the bills very carefully. We want to stress our utmost dedication to the fact that the bereavement sector must be divided into three distinct subsectors: funeral services, cemetery services and monument services. We are totally opposed to concentration of this bereavement sector into a small group of providers. This legislation will not totally address that and we are determined it be amended to do so.

Mr. Runciman: We as well welcome the minister’s comments in respect of the bereavement sector, after at least two or three years of pressure; but in light of so many other crises occurring within this government, obviously it has not been a priority and we can understand that.

We are pleased to see the minister finally accepting a recommendation put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on behalf of senior citizens of this province with respect to the ban on telephone and door-to-door solicitation. I think we all appreciate that anyone in a situation of bereavement is very vulnerable, but seniors in our society are even more so. I think all of us can understand and appreciate that.

We have all heard a number of horror stories in this area, and I am sure the minister has, with respect to individuals going into senior citizens homes and nursing homes, approaching seniors at a very vulnerable time in their lives and taking advantage of the situation. Obviously, we believe most people working within the bereavement industry are honourable citizens and we know there are only a few bad apples in the lot, but we believe the minister has finally taken appropriate action with respect to the concerns of many in Ontario, especially senior citizens.

I do have some reservations with respect to the minister’s comments about continuing the prohibition against an operational connection between funeral homes and cemeteries. I guess this is something we are not prepared to pass final judgement on at this point, but an initial indication to us would be that in terms of protection of consumers, the real impact this initiative has -- or continuation of this measure has and we can understand where he is coming from with respect to that -- is protecting independents from the newer, more aggressive commercial competition. We wonder if over the long term that is indeed in the best interests of consumers of this province.

In any event, we are prepared to work with the minister to make sure this legislation serves the best interests of both the industry and the consumers of the province.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Pope: I would like to comment on the statement of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) with respect to the Bear Island claim. First, the Attorney General and the government could not have been surprised at the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing, given the decision of Mr. Justice Steele in 1984 and the evidence presented to the courts at that time.

I believe it is not an appropriate response to merely indicate that there is a reserve. There is some more fundamental obligation to our first citizens than merely standing up in the House and saying, “It is up to the feds and here is some land.” There is an obligation to work with the band, to allocate resources to the band, to help them create industries and economic wellbeing for their people.

These were the issues the former Bishop of Moosonee, Jim Watton, and the former Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, René Brunelle, discussed with the Bear Island band in 1983. These are issues we discussed with Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt as mediator in 1984 and they remain important issues for the members of the Bear Island band.

As well, we call upon the government to remove that caution, develop Maple Mountain and allow for the mineral exploration and development of the area of highest undeveloped mineral potential in this province. They should allow that development to take place so that everyone, our native people and the residents of the Timiskaming district, can benefit from economic development that his government has not allowed to take place for the last four years.

Finally, I say to the Attorney General and to others in this cabinet that this area is not a wilderness area. It has communities located throughout. It is 200 miles south of my home town. It is an area that is in desperate need of some leadership from this government so that the rich resources of this area can be developed for the benefit of everyone: residents of Bear Island, Temagami, Haileybury-New Liskeard-Cobalt, the Tri-town area.

Everyone has a right to expect these resources to be developed for their benefit. It is time this government stopped looking upon this as a wilderness area and started taking some concrete steps to allocate the resources to the residents of the Bear Island band and to the residents of these communities. Let’s get on with the job of developing the great mineral and recreational potential of Timiskaming district.

Mr. Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

1400

BRIEFING ON BILL 208

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention and ask for your consideration of a matter that in my view violates the privileges of my whole caucus, and perhaps of another caucus in this assembly as well.

Yesterday, the chairman of my caucus received a letter from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) indicating there would he Bill 208 information sessions. It talked about two special caucus briefings that were scheduled. One was for dinner tonight from six o’clock to eight o’clock, and another was for lunch tomorrow from 12 noon to 1:30 p.m.

It was to be a briefing conducted by the minister, his staff and Ministry of Labour officials, with a brief presentation. “The session will be used to field questions and comments from caucus members.” It indicates: “We urge all members to attend this session. If you cannot attend, please feel free to send a staff member.”

My caucus chairman brought this letter that he received to the attention of the caucus and asked who would like to attend. When he called to indicate who of our caucus would like to attend, he was informed by the minister’s office:

“Whoops, that was not intended for all caucus members of the Legislature. That was intended only for the Liberal members of the Legislature. Indeed, your caucus members have not been invited. A mistake has been made.”

Further yesterday, the Minister of Labour came to my chairman of caucus and said, “We have a problem here.” My chairman said: “No, we don’t. My members are delighted to attend, as they were asked. There is nothing on the invitation that said it was for Liberal members only.”

The response from the Minister of Labour was, “We’ll send you a briefing package later on but this, paid for by the ministry staff, presented by the civil servants, is only so the Liberal members of this Legislature can be properly briefed on this bill before it comes to the Legislature.”

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pass this on to you. I ask you to look into it. It is typical of a number of things we have seen from this government. In my view, the privileges of my entire caucus, and indeed I would suggest of another caucus, have been abridged.

Mr. Mackenzie: On the same point, Mr. Speaker: It would seem to raise some question about the efficiency of the government ministry in terms of sending this letter out, obviously, to some wrong people or people who were not intended to get it. The only comment I have --

Mr. Ballinger: Did you get one?

Mr. Mackenzie: No, we did not, and it does not disturb me that much.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: My concern is not over not receiving it, that bothers me not in the least. My concern is whether it is a propaganda package and whether the information will be as incorrect as it was on Sunday shopping. I suggest to the Liberal members who attend it that they “check against delivery” the material they get.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just a brief word on this point, Mr. Speaker: I am not exactly sure what the point of privilege is that the member for Nipissing is making, but I want to say to him that if it is a rather convoluted inquiry as to how he can join this caucus I am sure there is a way; and that is he would just have to stand up and indicate that he wants to sit on this side of the floor.

I do want to offer a brief explanation and simply say to the Conservative House leader that there were certain members of this caucus who asked me to prepare a briefing on Bill 208 and I have done that. I want to tell my friend the member for Nipissing and I want to tell the official opposition that if they are interested and if they make that request, the same briefing, the same briefing materials and the same explanation of the bill will be provided to them as soon as they can arrange a date.

Mrs. Grier: Same menu?

Mrs. Marland: Same menu?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Although our caucus is providing the food for this briefing, I am sure that if there are some leftovers we will provide them for the members.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I wish all members would pay as much attention as the Speaker does.

I have listened very carefully to the three members who have spoken. The member for Nipissing rose on a point of privilege. I listened very carefully and I cannot see where it is in any way a point of privilege. The member may wish to continue and try during question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Attorney General and it concerns the Temagami issue. As I pointed out in my response to the minister’s statement, in that statement the Attorney General did not give the House any indication what the government’s position was with respect to the road extensions in the area. I notice that in a story in the Globe and Mail this morning, when asked about the road issue, the Attorney General pointed out that if the band moves reasonably promptly with respect to an appeal, the government “will not take any steps that maybe deemed to be to their prejudice.”

The band has now instructed its counsel to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal against the decision. I would like to hear from the Attorney General whether or not he can give this House a commitment that until that appeal is dealt with, the government will not take any steps that may be deemed to be to the prejudice of the band.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, leave to appeal is required before any appeal can be considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. That application could be made as early as next week or in the next couple of weeks.

The policy of this government from the beginning, as enunciated by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), has been to construct those roads. As the honourable member will recall, the Court of Appeal indicated that certain work could proceed against the date when the appeal was heard. The policy of the government has not changed in that regard.

Mr. Hampton: Given the Court of Appeal decision on the Temagami issue, does the Attorney General not now consider himself to be in a conflict of interest in this situation? As a number of legal experts have pointed out, this decision has been very prejudicial to the interests of Indian people, probably across Ontario.

The Attorney General finished telling myself and my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) yesterday that in his position as the minister responsible for native affairs, it is his job to enhance and promote social and economic development for Ontario’s native people. Yet the position he adopts as Attorney General -- I would say it is an intransigent position that is going to lead to more court cases like this -- is going to whittle away some of the very rights native people insist they have and insist they need.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Hampton: Does he not consider himself now in a conflict of interest --

Mr. Speaker: The question was asked a little while ago.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As a matter of fact, I do not and I do not think the honourable member will find any legal authority in the country who will take that position.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: He has done more for the Indians than anyone since Father Brébeuf.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: I believe the Treasurer’s comment illustrates the sensitivity of the government on this issue. I want to ask the Attorney General --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: As the Attorney General knows, there are Indian bands across Ontario that insist that aboriginal rights persist, that even though treaties may have been signed and treaty rights may have been observed, aboriginal title and aboriginal rights still exist. That is a bone of contention with many bands across the province.

Is it the government’s position then that aboriginal rights do not exist? If that is the government’s position, is the minister going to try to litigate every one of these claims across northern Ontario? If that is the case, what happens to development plans?

1410

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, it is the position of two courts in Ontario, and indeed of other courts elsewhere, that aboriginal title does not survive a secession by treaty. That is precisely what the court held here. It is not our position, it is what the court has said; that we have a treaty obligation but no aboriginal title obligation.

As the honourable member knows from our discussion in estimates, we have taken a very vigorous line in indicating that we are prepared to negotiate matters of entitlement. I can take my honourable friend’s criticism, because he and his party in Ontario, after all, are innocent of government, but I cannot take the same observations from the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who held important portfolios for the 13-year period when this litigation was under way, when the government of Ontario made no offer whatever to settle at all --

Mr. Pope: I did so; you’re wrong.

Hon. Mr. Scott: -- which received 60 land claims and never responded, over a 40-year period, to even one of them. For these chaps I got no time --

Mr. Sterling: What about Whitedog?

Mr. Pope: That’s right, what about Whitedog?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: Point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Well, it got you into the room and to your feet.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: What about Whitedog?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I settled it.

Mr. Sterling: BS you did.

Mr. Pope: You did not.

Mr. Sterling: You did not do anything.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Health. This would be classified as one of those questions about a Liberal promise that needs to be “checked against delivery.” This Liberal promise with regard to the Nursing Homes Act needs to be checked against delivery.

I would like to ask the minister specifically why, 20 months after the Nursing Homes Act and the amendments to the Nursing Homes Act, which were supposed to be short-term, quick-fix amendments to the Nursing Homes Act, the financial disclosure that would allow the taxpayers of this province, and the residents of nursing homes of this province, to know how their money is being spent taking care of the residents of nursing homes -- why has that section of the Nursing Homes Act still not been implemented in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the member for the official opposition is aware that the Nursing Homes Act was a product of the Legislature, a result of considerable discussion and amendment by opposition parties and is considered by many to be a model piece of legislation in accountability and quality assurance. I know he will have the opportunity, when we deal with the Independent Health Facilities Act in committee, to check the regulations and the statements in the Nursing Homes Act against the proposals of the Independent Health Facilities Act, so that we will be able to ensure that we have the same kind of accountability and quality assurance in an independent health facility as we presently have in a nursing home.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not know where the minister is coming from. I asked a question about the Nursing Homes Act, not Bill 147 -- the Nursing Homes Act. It is in a blue cover and it was given royal assent on July 1, 1987. Not Bill 147 -- the Nursing Homes Act. Now does the minister understand?

I would like to ask her again, what happened to her promise that she would implement the financial disclosure, so that the taxpayers of this province and the residents of nursing homes would know how hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent taking care of those residents? Why has she deliberately not implemented that section of the Nursing Homes Act?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the member should be aware that there are ongoing discussions around regulations whenever they are proposed by the ministry. I can tell him that whenever we are dealing with issues of accountability, which is why I mentioned the Independent Health Facilities Act as an important example of our commitment to accountability, it is important that we make sure that all of the partners in delivery of health care are very clear on what is not only expected but what is acceptable. I can say to him that those regulations are in their final form of draft.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The section dealing with financial disclosure was put specifically and in detail in the act so that there would not have to be regulations attached to that section. Obviously, the reason the minister does not want to implement that section of the act is that she cares more about the Ontario Nursing Home Association than she does about the 30,000 residents living in the nursing homes.

I would like to ask the minister another question. In the Nursing Homes Act there was also a requirement, “The minister shall announce, annually, in the Legislature the desired balance between nonprofit and profit-oriented nursing homes.”

The minister has not made that statement in the Legislature annually. Why is she breaking her own Nursing Homes Act?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I would say to the member of the opposition who raises this question about seniors and those residents in our nursing homes that he knows full well our commitment is both to the quality of care and to the quality of life. We have taken and made enormous strides in ensuring both quality of care and the participation of residents in those homes. The bill of rights has been enacted, and during estimates in this House we had many opportunities to discuss exactly our commitment to and support of the better balance between the profit and the nonprofit sector.

I am proud of the number of beds and the announcements that have been made in this House and in this Legislature and around this province as we have made announcements of additional beds in nursing homes in the nonprofit sector, which has been able to compete and compete well.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. It has to do with a press release issued today by the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board in respect to the board reopening its classification hearings effective this Monday to look at a low-risk driver classification. One can only assume that this is being done in response to the pressure applied by this party and senior citizens across this province in respect to the impact the board’s decision is going to have on senior citizens, the best-risk drivers in this province.

I am wondering: Is this press release today, and the fact that the board is going to reopen its hearings, an admission by this government that it made a mistake?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for patting himself on the back. He does that rather well from time to time, and from my point of view it is an indication that he, like the rest of us here, is quite interested in the insurance industry and the issue around which we are talking a great deal these days, the affordability of insurance premiums.

The issue that he raises about the reopening of the hearings has really developed from a very high-profile discussion of the issue as it has applied to people who are deeming themselves to be low-risk drivers. I think it is fair to say that the chairman has indicated that they are moving up one of the hearings that they had intended to have before anyway. They brought it forward so that they could deal with some of the issues which were highlighted during the original hearing process, and I think it is a clear indication that the board has a public sensitivity about the issues of rewarding those drivers who are indeed low-risk drivers, and at the same time also providing the higher cost of bearing insurance premiums to those people who do not perform well.

They had indicated in the original announcements that there would be surcharges for those people with convictions and with claims. This actually moves into the area of looking at those drivers who are good, and I think it is an appropriate time for them to move.

Mr. Runciman: One has to wonder in respect to who made the decision. The final decision obviously has been made by Mr. Kruger, but we have suggested from the outset of the hearings on Bill 2 that the establishment of this board was really going to result in more and more political interference.

I am asking the minister here today: Is he suggesting to the House that he did not, or no official of his ministry or no official of the office of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F Nixon) contacted Mr. Kruger and proposed that the board reopen or move up its investigations in respect to the impact this was having on seniors? The minister’s hands are clean, is that what he is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It has been my position right along that I would not interfere with the hearing process. The process is now open on a motion by the chairman. I can tell the honourable gentleman that he, like all of us, would like to see the end -- sorry, I cannot say that. The honourable gentleman indicated quite a number of times that he is not in favour of the end of discrimination, he wants to see discrimination continue.

This party wants to see the end of discrimination. This party wants to see the end to people dealing with high premiums on the basis of good records. We want to see, in fact, what is going to take place, a hearing on how good drivers can be rewarded for their efforts. The type of activities that are being reviewed now by the board will take a look at what is appropriate for low-risk drivers, those people who do not have accidents, those people who do not have convictions. I think that is, in fact, very appropriate.

The board has agreed to open that hearing and has decided to do so. That is a positive step, and I think the honourable gentleman should be quite relieved by that and should also understand this will apply to drivers of all ages.

1420

Mr. Runciman: The minister gets up and makes noble statements about wanting to eliminate discrimination, but the effect is that what he has done through this legislation and the actions of this government is to institute reverse discrimination. We are penalizing the best drivers in society and making the good drivers subsidize the bad drivers. That is the fact.

The government knew this 18 months ago. This is no surprise to anyone and certainly should not be a surprise to the minister. We knew this was going to happen. We knew the impact on seniors and young women drivers and society, yet the government went ahead. Now it is stumbling from crisis to crisis, flying by the seat of its pants and not dealing with it in an effective manner.

Is the minister finally prepared to review this risk classification system that he has put in place which is, indeed, penalizing the best drivers, the safest drivers in society? He should not restrict it to seniors. Let’s look at young women drivers and society as well. We are suffering --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have seen the honourable member performing in this House since 1981, and if he is not running for leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario I think there is something wrong. I think he ought to take a stab at it. He is doing a very, very good job. He ought to install another bank of telephones in his office so that he can get on with it.

In fact, he just repeated what I said was going to happen. This board hearing was going to deal with the issue of the low-risk driver right across all of the driving records. It does not deal just with seniors or specific groups, but it does deal with exactly the issue I enunciated in my reply to his first supplementary question; that is, if there are low-risk drivers this board will study the manner in which they can be assisted with premiums. There is no secret about that. There is no issue to be dealt with around that.

This gentleman knows that is what the announcement is about, and I can tell the honourable member that we are moving forward in a very comprehensive fashion with establishing the rates in a reasonable fashion for the payment of auto insurance premiums in the province. We are moving forward with implementing the class plan and, in fact, the very thorough nature of the hearing that has already taken place by the board allows us to make positive --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

TOURIST INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I would like him to confirm the following: that all the square brown signs with white question marks indicating tourist information areas are going to he removed, and if they are to be erected again the cost will be $100 per sign; that the signs on provincial highways indicating tourist regions will be removed; that the travel booths and service centres along Highway 401 will be closed, and that all the rest stops containing small park areas, picnic tables and outdoor washroom facilities will be closed. Will the minister confirm this information?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: This gives me a chance to clarify some information that went out from a certain individual. Quite a bit of it is incorrect. I can tell the member, first of all, that there will be a correction letter going out from both myself and the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). correcting most of the things that he mentioned concerning the signs, the rest stops and things pertaining to the Ministry of Transportation.

I can also tell the member that we have looked at the information centres and the travel centres that have been located along Highway 401. Those will be phased out by the ministry, but they will be offered to the local tourist groups. We will supply them with the space free of charge, the kiosk which is there and the information to man those booths. They can make the decision whether they wish to man them.

Mr. McLean: Is the minister saying that all the information booths on Highway 401 are going to be leased out to private enterprise? Is the ministry getting out of the tourist business?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: No, we certainly are not. As I mentioned, those booths within the travel centres along Highway 401 will be offered to people -- to travel groups. I can tell the member that we will be assisting them in supplying the space: the kiosks and the information to man them, as I mentioned. I can also tell him that we are placing the emphasis on the entry points into Ontario.

We have recently renovated the travel information centres in Barrie, St. Catharines, Niagara, Fort Erie and Sault Ste. Marie. We built a new one in Windsor. We are looking at another one in Windsor. Under construction we have one on Hill Island coming across the Thousand Islands, and there is also a new one located in Lancaster. Along with building the new ones, renovating and the new ones planned, we have placed quite a bit of emphasis on the 1-800 number, whereby we supply information for people before they start out on their trips.

Mr. McLean: What I am getting from this is that the Minister of Transportation is cutting and flat-lining his budget. He made a statement the other night in the Royal York Hotel, “I am willing to meet anyone, anywhere, anyplace.” He never met anybody at the convention.

The minister is the caretaker of tourism in Ontario. He is abdicating his duties. He is not fulfilling the responsibilities that he has. He is backing off on the tourism and the tourist people of this province will not forget him for it. What is he going to do to make sure those signs and those highways are going to be maintained for the tourists of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, the member could not have been listening, because I thought I clarified that to him. I can also tell him that there is nobody more supportive to the tourism industry in Ontario than the Minister of Transportation.

Just to add to that point one additional thing which we are doing in co-operation with the Ministry of Transportation: We have also put approximately $15 million into the northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program and the tourist information centres across northern Ontario, which is just in addition to many of the other things we are doing.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Kormos: To the Minister of Financial Institutions: After months of hearings, after $7 million is spent, the government’s Ontario Automobile Insurance Board now decides that it is going to consider discounts for low-risk drivers. If it had discussed and considered affordable insurance rates, it would not have to consider discounts now. It is going to move the discussion of bonus-malus forward. There is a lot of bonus-malus in the system right now, but it is all malus and no bonus.

Is it not remarkable that the announcement is made today, just one day before the session ends? When there has been massive public pressure about the government’s failure to deliver on its promise to reduce auto insurance rates, is this really not just a frantic effort on the part of the government to hide the broken promise? Is this not just a scam -- just smoke and mirrors?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman, as is his way, exaggerates the situation. He knows very well that the people have indicated in the press release that they wish to take a look at the advantages that could be offered to low-risk drivers. That is what they are doing; they have announced that they are going to do it; they are having the hearings. As always, the honourable gentleman is able to make his presentations in front of the board.

I can see nothing inappropriate about the board’s moving to move up the time in which it wishes to deal with the issue of bonus on the bonus-malus-type system.

Mr. Kormos: Let’s take a look at who is going to be considered a low-risk driver. We are talking about people who drive less than 8,000 kilometres a year; where driving after dark does not constitute more than 15 per cent of total vehicle use; when driving on highways with four lanes or more is not more than 15 per cent of total vehicle use; where the vehicle rate group is less than 40.

That is for a big discount of 5 to 10 per cent from grossly inflated and unaffordable rates. This is a real con job.

1430

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Kormos: It is bait and switch. Who in Toronto is going to be eligible? Who in northern Ontario is going to be eligible? Just how many drivers will be low-risk drivers -- 10 or 15 right across the whole province?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is three questions.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Again, the honourable gentleman’s exaggeration is just inappropriate. I do not know where the guy comes from, but he should be prepared to go through the hearings and he should be prepared to put the full story in front of the people of Ontario.

The member says that these are the items which will be considered. He is right; they will be considered by the board. That does not mean that they are mandated by the board. The board will have the hearing after hearing all of the material that comes in front of it. It will make decisions with respect to what the characteristics of the low-risk driver will be.

The member should know that this board has acted in a very reasonable and thorough fashion in the past and will continue to do so. This person should be willing to tell the people of Ontario that there will he a fairness in the hearing process unlike what they have ever seen before.

This board process has provided for us information about the insurance industry that allows us to be wise and smart shoppers for insurance. It allows us to measure the types of things that are considered to be part of the rate structure. It allows us to understand what can be done to address those people who are low-risk.

Those are some suggestions that the member has just read off. It does not mean it is a total enunciation of all the characteristics. It does not mean that they will all be put in --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

RACE RELATIONS

Mrs. Marland: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. I read in the newspapers today with great concern some of the remarks of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) last night. In fact, it was quite interesting that the Premier had to go to a Liberal fund-raising event to tell the country that his policies had been a failure and that, as the Premier has said, he sees storm clouds that challenge the very values of Confederation.

One of the quotations says, “Peterson lashed out at those who are trying to divide Torontonians, Ontarians and Canadians through racial, linguistic and cultural intolerance.”

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: “The Premier said he sees ‘majorities in various jurisdictions less comfortable with the minorities.’”

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mrs. Marland: I am sorry if the minister cannot hear the question because of the lack of consideration by his own members. The question is, could the minister tell this House who those people are to whom the Premier referred in his speech last night?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I could not hear the first part of the question. Might I have it again?

Mrs. Marland: If I may repeat it as part of my first question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Mrs. Marland: I quote:

“Peterson lashed out at those who are trying to divide Torontonians, Ontarians and Canadians through racial, linguistic and cultural intolerance.

“The Premier said he sees ‘majorities in various jurisdictions less comfortable with the minorities.’”

Could the minister tell the House who those people are and what is meant by the words “in various jurisdictions”?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I think last night the Premier put forward a concern that many of us have. I think we do see some stresses and some strains in society, whether it be in terms of stresses and strains between our police community and many of the minority communities, stresses and strains in some of our universities or stresses and strains in terms of the relationship between our minority communities and employment.

In regard to what we are doing about it, which I think is important, there is not one single minister in this government who is not responding to it in a very important way, whether it be the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) with race relations policies in our schools, or the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). I do not think anyone has been more responsive to ensuring that we have change in our police community than the Solicitor General.

What the Premier was saying last night is a message of concern, I think, to all of us. There are stresses and strains out there that we must respond to. What we are doing, as a government, is responding to that in every single ministry. That is what the Premier was talking about, whether it be the communities in our universities where we see, unfortunately, Professor Rushton espousing theories that none of us supports or believes in. Those are the stresses and strains the Premier was talking about, and the responses we are talking about are occurring in every single ministry in this government.

Mrs. Marland: We in our caucus certainly understand that when we are faced, as we can be, with racial tensions and specific race-related problems, there are those in the community who strive for peaceful, positive discussion in hopes of coming to constructive solutions. Then there are those who try to use, to their political benefit, the emotions of those groups in the community in what I view as a destructive -- rather than a constructive -- verbal degradation of our society as a whole.

Obviously the minister chose to use, in reply to my first question, a platform to repeat what was said last night. That was not my question at all. In reference to last night’s comments and his own comments in the House today, would the minister tell us at whom the Premier directed his comments last night?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Again, I go back. The police chiefs of Ontario said that it is important for our police organizations to change to reflect the diversity. That was not the Premier saying that; that was the police chiefs. So we responded in that area. The communities say that we must respond to the diversity in terms of employment. It was the communities that said that, and we have responded to that.

As a matter of fact, I am very pleased that we now in our government have, as a result of changes in the past year, three deputy ministers, one from the native community and two from, quote, the visible community, because the Premier wants to ensure that we take advantage of all the talent in this province. That is a change he has made. The Premier is someone who has, from the outset, said that we as a government must first respond to that diversity.

The member asked who in the community has said there is a need for change. The police chiefs of the province have said that, and we responded to that. The communities have said that we must respond to change in terms of our employment practices, and the Premier has responded to that. The communities have said we must respond in the race relations area and we have responded to that.

Mrs. Marland: But who is it that is causing the divisiveness and the intolerance?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. New question?

Mrs. Marland: It’s really disappointing when we don’t get to ask very many questions and then you don’t answer.

Mr. Speaker: You are just wasting the time again. Order.

HOME RENOVATIONS

Mr. Fleet: I am pleased to have an opportunity to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In recent months, my community office has received numerous calls with complaints and comments about home renovations and additions The concerns raised by my constituents relate to improper contract disclosure, fees that vary drastically from estimates, poor quality of workmanship and failures to complete the job on time. Aside from using the small claims court, what help or advice is available to home owners through his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There is no doubt there have been and continue to he a number of complaints which consumers have over home renovations and improvements. In the past we have received, each and every year, several hundred complaints from consumers on the kinds of issues that my friend has referred to. I can advise the member that the consumer services bureau is empowered to investigate such complaints and take appropriate action if there have been violations of the Business Practices Act or the Consumer Protection Act.

Until now, and at this point as the member will know, we do not have specific legislation for the home renovation industry. It is something we have been looking at, which has been addressed and, frankly, which is being examined by a number of other jurisdictions which I think are equally concerned about the area of consumer protection.

1440

Mr. Fleet: In light of the significant number of complaints across the province and a pattern of increased problems in the field of home renovations, would the minister then consider extending the provisions of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to include renovations and additions to existing residential properties?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That issue has been raised on a number of occasions, I suppose as one option, although I would say to the honourable member that I am not sure it is the appropriate option. It is the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and we are registering new homes and we are registering the builders of new homes. It seems to me that in terms of home improvements and renovations, we are looking at an entirely different area.

As I indicated to the honourable member, over the longer term we are looking to see whether we can develop legislation in the home renovation area with home improvements, whether on a wide-ranging basis or more of a pilot basis for larger home renovations at the outset. In the shorter term, there is a new organization which has been set up through the Ontario Home Builders’ Association called the Ontario Renovators Council. We have been holding some discussions with them in an effort to get a handle on the industry and working with them to deal with some of the problems that consumers have been bringing to the member’s attention and to mine.

PERINATAL CARE

Mr. Reville: Mr. Speaker. I wanted to wish you a happy St. David’s Day.

However, I do have a question for the Minister of Health. There are instructions that go with this question because I am in a better mood today than I was yesterday. I have always been slow to chide and quick to bless.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Say that again.

Mr. Reville: Slow to chide and quick to bless. Okay, we have got that out of the way. The instruction is, would she take out the card on cardiovascular surgery and also the card on perinatal and neonatal care. That is where my questions are going.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Interjection.

Mr. Reville: I am a helpful person. It says right here that --

Hon. Mr. Scott: You just concentrate on the question.

Mr. Reville: History seems to have a way of repeating itself under this government. Just last year at about this time, we suffered an epidemic of flying moms and tots and here we see again, “Metro Mom Flies to Kingston to Find Bed.”

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Reville: Mr. Speaker, I have not warmed up yet.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I will let someone else warm up.

Mr. Reville: Will the minister tell us whether she is satisfied with our system of perinatal and neonatal care in the province, or is this somewhat like the cardiovascular care system about which she said there was nothing wrong for about a year and a half before we had a report saying that there was lots wrong?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member from the opposition will acknowledge, I believe, if he wants to be factual and honest to this Legislature, that Ontario is a world leader in both perinatal and neonatal care.

We have a system in this province. What we want is for women who need this highly specialized care to be able to receive it as quickly as possible in a centre where it is offered in a highly specialized area that provides quality care. That is why we have the kind of system that will see that they get the care they need, hopefully as close to home as possible.

We know that the system is sometimes stressed in one area and underutilized in another. That is why we established a central registry system to get people the care that they need as close to home as possible and as quickly as possible.

Mr. Reville: I am worried. If this is how a world leader behaves, one worries about those who are struggling to catch up.

Mike Reiter, who is related to the new mom by marriage said: “Somebody screwed up as far as I am concerned. I come home from work, my wife is on the phone in tears, Danielle is in tears.” That is the mother who was about to deliver the twins, she thought in Toronto, but in Kingston. “I cannot accept it. I want to know how this could possibly happen in 1989.” Is it a problem, as we saw in cardiovascular care, of co-ordination or what?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to assure the member opposite that in fact the capacity of our perinatal system meets the objectives of the Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care. It is extremely important that women who are designated high-risk communicate with their physicians so that they in fact understand how this system works. When there is a peak in one of our centres, they will be taken to the closest available bed where there is that kind of highly specialized care.

I know what an important time that is for women, having had children myself. I can tell him that for high-risk pregnancies it is important that they get to the highly specialized care in one of our 10 designated centres.

I am pleased to hear that the result is that healthy twins have been born. I want to wish the family members well and say to them that in Ontario they can count on the fact that we will get them to the care they need as quickly as possible and as close to home as possible.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling). In his absence, I will direct my question to the Deputy Premier.

In a speech delivered in the Legislature on October 17, 1988, the Minister of Skills Development stated: “A strong apprenticeship system is vital to the Ontario economy as we move into the 1990s and beyond. We face rapid technological change, skills shortages and tough international competition. Apprenticeship is an absolute necessity in meeting this challenge.”

Approximately 72 skilled trades are governed by regulations under the Ministry of Skills Development and the Minister of Skills Development is aware that he has the power --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Cunningham: -- to change these regulations and specifically the apprenticeship ratios.

In how many skilled trades have the ratios of apprentices to journeymen changed under this government’s stewardship?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Where are the feds in this?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the interjection of the Minister of the Environment, because It IS exactly what I was going to bring to the honourable member’s attention. She is aware that the basic funding for this sort of training has over the years essentially been met by the Treasury of the government of Canada, but there has been a substantial withdrawal over the last two years and this concerns us very much.

As a matter of fact, we have had to inject emergency funding into the apprenticeship program so that many young people, particularly those who had already been accepted and were under way with their apprenticeship, would not be simply left out in the street totally bereft and abandoned by the withdrawal of this federal support.

Mrs. Cunningham: In response, the amount of money the Deputy Premier is talking about was $5 million out of over $70 million. It was the inability of this government to negotiate a proper contract with the federal government that caused that oversight. They did not sign the agreement. They were stuck with the contract they had for last year and therefore the government reneged. That is the reason.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking if the Deputy Premier agrees?

Mrs. Cunningham: No, I am not. That is not the question.

Mr. Speaker: Well, place your supplementary.

Mrs. Cunningham: I was clarifying the mistake the Deputy Premier made in his response.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for London North place a supplementary?

Mrs. Cunningham: It is the responsibility of this government to discuss ratios. If the apprenticeship ratios remain unchanged, young people cannot get into these programs. When will the Minister of Skills Development live up to his words and make the necessary changes to apprenticeship ratios -- that is the question -- to better reflect the training needs of this great province of Ontario?

1450

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member would know that we have injected additional moneys just this year into the apprenticeship program to make up for the funds that were not allocated by the government of Canada. The honourable member took time in her question, as she said, to clarify what my comment was, and somehow or other she blamed our government for not being able to force the government of Canada to give us the money that it has given us in the past.

That is the same sort of explanation the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) used earlier when he blamed us for the government of Canada’s allocating the national space agency money to the province of Quebec. I am glad they got it, but it would have been nice if we had got it.

It is the same sort of argument that the honourable member would have made when she blamed me for the fact that Michael Wilson has drawn back $1 billion that we should have in this province for health care and post-secondary education.

I do not understand the philosophy of the honourable member where she simply blames the victim, and the victim is the taxpayer of Ontario.

DAGMAR SKI RESORT

Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Two incidents involving Dagmar Ski Resort have been brought to my attention by constituents.

In one case, an 11-year-old girl was injured after falling from a chair-lift at Dagmar while on a school outing in January. Reports indicate that the safety bar on the chair would not come down.

In the second incident, a seven-and-a-half-year-old boy had to be held by another youth to keep from falling 40 or 50 feet to the ground from a chair-lift. Apparently he was not loaded properly on the four-seat lift and began to slip out of the chair. When the lift neared the end of the run, the boy fell 15 feet. Thankfully, he was not seriously injured, nor was the girl in the first incident.

Those incidents have raised concerns among parents and educators about safety at Dagmar. What action is the ministry taking to investigate these incidents?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable member for giving me notice of these specific incidents. I want to report to her and to the House that as a result of the incidents, officials of the elevating devices branch of the ministry and an inspector did go to the Dagmar Ski Resort and inspected the facility and the ski lifts.

I can tell the honourable member that all the safety bars were found to be functional and in proper working order. Indeed, the inspector monitored for a period of time the workings of the operators and found that all of their operations were being handled in accordance with the kind of safety we would want. Indeed, on a couple of occasions where the safety bars had not come down properly, the ride was stopped before it really got moving and it was put properly into place.

I would want the House to know that while the ski lifts are generally handled in accordance with the Canadian Standards Association safety code, that code does not require these bars. In Ontario we have established specific regulations to require such bars. I can say to the honourable member that in that sense we provide safer ski lifts in this province than in many other jurisdiction in Canada, and certainly in the United States.

Mrs. Stoner: My supplementary is expressing the concerns of the parents, the operators, the ski patrol and the students that the educational ski program at Dagmar can continue. What can be done by the ministry to ensure that similar incidents do not occur in the future?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have had a chance to discuss this matter with the executive of the Ontario Ski Resorts Association. I gather they were in touch with school officials and school board insurance officials to discuss this matter even before we got in touch with them.

Certainly, the honourable member expresses an important concern about ensuring the greatest possible safety on these ski lifts. Both of those parties, and our ministry is certainly willing to work with them, have begun to explore opportunities that might be available within our school system for a degree of public education for the students now, an education which will serve them well in the future.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister will know that for the entire time that his party has been in power, the issue of indexation of pensions has been on the public agenda and people have been waiting for the government to deliver on its promise to index pensions. The minister, on December 14, made a curious statement and promised that at some point draft legislation would be introduced for discussion.

I would simply like to ask the minister where is his draft legislation, if he will not bring in legislation for debate in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are very close to bringing that draft legislation forward.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I guess what I would like to ask the minister is, why is it that it takes this government so many months, so many years, to deliver on a promise to index pensions for retirees in this province, when it takes absolutely no time at all for his government to bring in higher insurance rates for retirees across this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is being outrageous. In this business, if we consult widely, do the things we are supposed to do and get the views of the public, the opposition says we are taking much too long. If we bring things in quickly, they say we are not consulting and we are not talking to the people. We cannot win with the members opposite, because they just will not accept what is good process.

We have taken on our plate the issue of indexing pensions and we are committed to following through on that. We are bringing the draft material forward in very short order, but I can tell the honourable gentleman that it is more than just indexing. There are several issues which we will be dealing with over the course of the next few months, as we approach the issue of pensions generally.

It seems to me that the honourable gentleman would like to know that we are committed to moving on pensions. In fact, he will see very soon indeed that we are moving on pensions. I thank him for the very timely nature of his question, bearing in mind that the fellow himself may be thinking about retirement because of the activities of the local New Democratic Party member of municipal government in Windsor. I am told Mr. Burr may be after his seat and that may be of interest to him. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the Legislative Assembly’s pension is --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, in its report last fall, presented the minister with a list of recommendations that it felt needed to be addressed in order to help solve the nursing shortage, both in the long term and the short term. In the 10 months since she has admitted that there was a nursing shortage, she has implemented only one of the recommendations that at least four different reports have presented to her.

One of the RNAO recommendations dealt with the formation of a health manpower planning committee. I will quote from the RNAO report.

“The RNAO believes that there simply has to be better co-ordination between the Ministry of Health planners, the health professions concerned, the employers of health professions and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. We believe that what is required is an independent institute for co-ordinated health manpower planning” --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: -- “that will bring these diverse groups to systematically project labour requirements, based on impartial data” --

Mr. Speaker: And the question? Mr. Eves: -- “collected by professional market economists.”

My question is, very simply, does she agree with this recommendation from the RNAO?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to say to the Health critic from the third party that, in fact, we are working co-operatively not only with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario but with the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Ontario Hospital Association, as we discuss the many issues affecting nursing in this province.

The one thing everyone acknowledges is that this situation is not new as of today. In fact, I would say to him that even yesterday Vickie Kaminski made this statement: “The nursing shortage has not come about overnight. It has been upon us and slowly evolving and it is not going be solved overnight.”

As a matter of fact, the RNAO representative met with myself and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to discuss many of the recommendations in the report, and, as I have said to the member before, the conclusion is that it is a partnership; we must all come together to solve problems collectively. That is the approach we are taking. I believe that in the short, medium and longer term that will prove to be successful.

1500

Mr. Eves: The conclusion is that the minister has implemented one out of 14 recommendations that the RNAO made. I am asking her to implement another one, one that costs barely any money at all, if that is the big hangup over there, she does not want to spend any money to solve some of the problems in health care.

What I am asking her to do is set up an independent institute for manpower planning.

This is one of the specific recommendations. They are very specific that it should be independent. They say in their report that they feel the government -- which is responsible, by the way, to plan and implement manpower policy -- has been ineffective and inadequate.

Is the minister going to agree to set up this institute, independent of the Ministry of Health, with representation from her ministry on it, nonpolitical, nonpartisan, to recommend to her what should be done? Then will she do something about it?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have spoken at length in this House on numerous occasions about the importance of overall health manpower planning, not only for nurses but also for physicians and all the other allied health professionals.

I can say to the member that for the first time in the history of this province, the Ministry of Health is being proactive in doing appropriate manpower planning. We are taking advice from all of our partners in health care. If he has any good suggestions for a change, I would be pleased to hear from him.

MINERAL EXPLORATION

Mr. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Mines. We are all aware of how vital mining is, not only to Ontario’s economy but also to the economy of the whole of Canada. This crucial sector of our economy can be sustained only through a constant process of exploration for new deposits. Unfortunately, because of the short-sighted policy of the federal government with respect to flow-through shares, exploration activity in Ontario has been severely curtailed.

Can the minister tell us what programs are being developed to help our prospectors in their efforts to expand our known mineral reserves?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the honourable member for his question. As he knows, the federal government, under the direction of the Minister of Finance for Canada, announced some time ago that it was not going to continue with the so-called MEDA, the mineral exploration depletion allowance. That has gone by the board as a result of federal Tory tax reform. That has had a very, very worrisome effect on the mining community.

The federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, almost a year ago, committed the government of Canada to a new program, the so-called CEIP, the Canadian exploration incentive program. That was to have been in place as of January 1, 1989. Regrettably, the regulations are not yet in place, and that is causing the industry, labour, and certainly those at the provincial government levels across the country a great deal of concern. I have written to the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and indicated our desire to see that program in its final design so that we can decide what actions we are going to take in the future.

Mr. Campbell: I understand the difficulties faced by the minister. The federal CEIP program is a virtual carbon copy of our now-suspended Ontario mineral exploration program. Can the minister advise this House what is causing the delay in restructuring OMEP so that it may be of benefit to our mineral exploration industry in the upcoming session?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member is correct that, at first look last spring, the new federal program looked very much like a duplication of the Ontario mineral exploration program, which our government suspended last July to see what the final federal initiative was going to be like. We do still assume that it is going to be very much a duplication of OMEP.

We have indicated that we are working with the prospectors and developers and others in the mining community to find ways and means of providing additional stimuli, particularly to the junior mining companies and the solo and unincorporated prospectors who continue to generate a great deal of the exploration and development in this critical sector of the Ontario economy.

I hope we will be able to conclude those discussions very shortly after the federal government announces its final regulations. Subject to, of course, cabinet approval, I will be anxious to inform my colleague and other members of the assembly of any future developments.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister will know that in 1987-88, 1,300 jobs were lost at the Firestone plant. He may not be so familiar with the fact that 21 other plant closures took place in exactly the same space of time, losing more jobs than in the Firestone instance. Yet the Firestone workers secured a major and significant labour adjustment package which was largely denied to most of the other workers.

I presume the minister is not exactly in favour of this kind of two-class labour adjustment.

Would the minister be prepared to sit down with a community group that has been working for a year in Hamilton, looking at how to provide for all the workers the kind of package that has happened for the Firestone workers and to find some way of providing some resources to make a community-based labour adjustment program happen for those workers in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In the brief few seconds that are left in question period, I want to assure my friend the member for Hamilton West that I would be only too glad to sit down with that community group and discuss with its members proposals that they have.

I should mention to members of the House that I do not think the layoffs and the terminations in Firestone and the reaction of the community represent so much a two-tiered system as a really true, shining example of how labour adjustment can work, not only in a community like Hamilton but, hopefully, in any community around the province.

If there is some expertise that we can derive from that process, unions and management and government at all three levels working together to help the process of adjustment, I would be only too glad to hear about it, to analyse it and to see how that experience can be applied in other areas of this province, as well as in Hamilton, to the benefit of the working people of this province who find themselves in a position, potentially, of not having the same job and having to look for new work.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Is this on a point of privilege or order?

Mr. Pope: Either one, Mr. Speaker. I know you did not want to recognize me during question period, and I can understand that. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made reference to me in his comments during question period. I can only assume that he has joined others in cabinet whose sense of revisionism has affected their minds. He forgot the Whitedog agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not feel that is a point of order or a point of privilege. If the member wishes to correct someone else’s record, that is impossible.

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: “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.”

It is signed by nine workers in the city of Toronto and I have affixed my signature.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 87 persons in the riding represented by the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), a government member, 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 they deserve.”

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

1510

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Pope: I have three petitions, all with the same wording, so I will read just one. The first petition is signed by 41 persons in the riding of Cochrane South. The second is signed by 134 persons in the riding represented by the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash), a Liberal government member. The third is signed by 342 persons in the riding represented by the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), a Liberal government member. They all read the same.

“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 all three petitions and I support this petition.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

It is signed by a number of people, including some people from Campbellford, Ontario, which is eight miles south of Havelock. It is a fine town indeed. I have signed my name.

EXTENDED CARE

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 55 persons in the riding represented by the member for Etobicoke West (Mrs. LeBourdais), a government member. It 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.

I have a second one, which I will not read, that is the same as the first. It has 35 signatures on it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to reform the workers’ compensation system in Ontario so that people injured at work get decent pensions, rehabilitation and jobs when they are able.”

This has been signed by 1,400 people in Ontario and I agree with them entirely.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Eves: I have three petitions. I will read only one. They are all the same. I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 153 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.

The other two petitions are of identical form. They are from the riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the riding of Port Arthur, both represented by members of the government side. The one from Muskoka-Georgian Bay is signed by 55 residents. The one from Port Arthur is signed by 72 persons. I have affixed my signature to all three.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

The petition is signed by 10 citizens, some of whom come from the riding of Guelph, a government-held riding. I have attached my name to the petition.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. McLean: I have two petitions and I will only read one. One is from Bestview Health Care Centre in Orillia and the other is from Birchmere Residential Hotel.

I have a petition for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 19 persons from my riding, which reads as follows. The other one is signed by 25 persons.

“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 both of them.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have two petitions, one of which has been signed by over 100 residents of the city of London. I will read excerpts from it:

“We, the undersigned citizens of London, Ontario, and the surrounding area, forward this petition to the provincial government of Ontario.

“This petition is a demand for an increase in the minimum wage to $6 per hour. By resolving this most important issue, there will be a significant decrease in the number of welfare and unemployment insurance recipients. At this time, some people on welfare and unemployment insurance receive more money than people who work for minimum wage.

“We ask you, as government officials, how you could survive on $4.55 an hour. If it is impossible for you, as government officials, to afford the necessities of life on such a low income, then again do not expect people who help pay your wages to do so.”

I have signed this petition and present it for the government’s consideration. I hope the government will act upon it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a second petition, signed by 10 residents of various communities across Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

I heartily endorse this petition as well as the previous one and have signed my name to it.

EXTENDED CARE

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 433 persons from my riding. To save time, I also have one signed by 278 persons in the riding represented by the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) and one signed by 67 persons in the riding represented by the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mrs. Wilson). I will read them all together since they say the same thing.

“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 my name to all three of these petitions and will hand them over to the Legislative Assembly.

1520

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

The petition is signed by 10 residents of Branchton, Guelph, Cambridge and Fergus. I have affixed my signature as well and support their petition.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Pollock: I have here three petitions. One was signed by 33 people from the riding of Victoria-Haliburton, another by 80 people from the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox and the third one is signed by 46 persons from the riding of Frontenac-Addington, represented by a government member.

Mr. Villeneuve: All government members.

Mr. Pollock: Yes. I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 46 persons from the riding of the Frontenac-Addington, which is represented by a government member. It reads in part as follows:

“We 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.

“We 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 so richly deserve.”

I have signed these three petitions.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Villeneuve: I too have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 234 persons in the riding represented by the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Poirier), a Liberal government member. It 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.

“We 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 this petition and present it to the Legislative Assembly.

BIRTH OF RESEARCHER’S CHILD

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

“We beg leave to petition the Legislature as follows:

“All members of the Legislature, particularly those who are members of the standing committee on public accounts, take joy in the announcement that Wendy MacDonald, researcher for the public accounts committee, gave birth this morning to a daughter, 7 pounds, 15 ounces, and we look forward to her return to the public accounts committee.”

I have signed it and I believe the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) is about to sign it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Furlong from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr78, An Act respecting the County of Lanark.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Mahoney, on behalf of Mr. Callahan, from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office responsible for Native Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ontario native affairs directorate program, $4,884,100.

MOTION

TRANSFERRAL OF BILL 124

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Bill 124, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, be transferred from the standing committee on administration of justice to the standing committee on social development.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved first reading of Bill 222, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The purpose of the bill is to permit emergency vehicles, after first coming to a stop at a stop sign or red traffic light, to proceed with caution and to require other drivers to yield the right of way to emergency vehicles unless it is unsafe to do so.

The bill was prepared by Mark Learn a student who lives in my riding but attends the University of Waterloo. This was part of a political science project for Mark Learn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Cambridge has some further comments.

Mr. Farnan: In continuing my comments from yesterday, for the benefit of our viewing audience I would like to put my remarks in context and in perspective. New Democrats have been, from the very beginning of medicare, the champions of quality health care and adequate funding for health care. The New Democratic Party vision of an effective health care system includes a strong commitment to preventive health care. We view a strong and vigorous program that supports sports, culture and fitness as a cornerstone of any health care system, one that we will promote when we become the government party in Ontario.

We believe that a healthy body and a healthy mind make for a healthy society. We believe we can contribute towards this goal by putting in place adequate funding formulae for sports, recreation, fitness and culture. No one who watches the proceedings of this House on a daily basis or who follows the media reports of the activities within this noble assembly will doubt the integrity and honesty with which the issue of adequate funding for health care is pursued by my leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), and by the Health critic for the NDP, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

On a consistent basis they have championed adequate funding for health care. When you are dealing with the New Democratic Party, there is some confidence that you will have consistency. Just for the record, I want to read from a letter sent by my leader to Sport Ontario, which requested from the three parties their positions back in 1988. It reads as follows:

“There is an unspent backlog of money which was accumulated up to April 1, 1988, which was to have gone to culture and recreation. This bill” -- referring to Bill 119 -- “would redirect that money to hospitals. We are fully aware of the desperate need of hospitals for funding, but we are very concerned that there is no guarantee of any particular level of funding to culture. recreation, sports and fitness. Not only that, but there is no equitable process for deciding how the funds would be distributed. It would be decided by cabinet.

“We feel that the money spent on culture and recreation means long-term savings for health and social services. We think it would be a mistake to limit funding in these areas, and we think that is just what the Liberal government has in mind.”

1530

This is signed by the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for York South. There is no question that if there is a champion of health care in Ontario today, it is the leader of the New Democratic Party.

The government bases its premise on the contract or agreement that it wishes to make with the sports and cultural groups of the province by saying, “You may be funded.” Of course, there was a very large number of groups that rejected this particular approach in minority government, and the bill died. Those same groups are still opposed.

The government has said, “You can trust us,” but the reality of the matter is the people of Ontario are becoming rather suspicious, sceptical and somewhat cynical about a government that has broken its promises on so many issues.

While they may look at individual members of the cabinet and say, “Yes, I trust this particular individual,” when they look at the government as a whole, the track record is such that they cannot trust this government. When a government says it will introduce a program of reducing the costs of auto insurance in the province and does not do so, and when a government turns around and does a flip-flop on the Sunday shopping/Sunday work issue, then how can these groups put trust in a piece of legislation which says, “You may get this money”?

Yesterday the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) had the gall to say, “They know they will get the money, because we have an honourable government.” There is no substance of faith for the people of Ontario to believe for one moment that they can trust this government. No wonder these groups are concerned.

We have heard much of the continuing commitment to sports, recreation and culture. The groups themselves do not believe this.

I am going to quote now from a letter from the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association dated October 3, 1988, to members of the Legislative Assembly.

“Since 1975, profits from Wintario, Lottario and Instant games have been deposited into the consolidated revenue fund. However, each year not all of the profits were spent on the dedicated beneficiaries -- culture, sports, fitness and recreation. By 1988, the total value of unspent profits was $369 million.

“Section 2 of the bill will transfer all of that money to the Legislature” -- read “cabinet” -- “for immediate appropriation to hospitals. While OMRA agrees that solving the financial crisis in Ontario’s hospitals is a commendable goal, the money should not come from recreation.

“Accepting section 1 of the bill requires OMRA to trust the government, to believe that it is willing to commit financial resources to recreation in Ontario. Their track record proves otherwise. Here are the facts:

“1. In 1985, the unspent moneys in the consolidated revenue fund totalled $292 million, an average increment of $27 million to $28 million each year. Over the next two years, the total grew to $369 million -- a growth rate of $38 million each year.

“2. From 1977-78 to 1985-86, tax-based revenues spent on Community Recreation Centres Act grants dwindled from $19.4 million to $2.8 million. During three years of rule by the current government, the money spent on this program each year was zero dollars, zero dollars and zero dollars.” What a commitment.

“3. Another tax-funded source of revenue available to communities is regulation 517. In 1985-86, the government miscalculated the total requirement, $5.1 million instead of $5.8 million. In each year since, the exact same total was made available. No attempt was made in any budget to reduce the shortfall.

“4. In fiscal year 1987 and fiscal year 1988, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation received an identical budget appropriation. No increase was deemed necessary to meet the demands of inflation, population growth and increased amounts of leisure time.

“OMRA believes that the government has not proven its financial commitment to the recreation needs of communities and citizens of Ontario. How can we trust them when they tell us that only residual revenues, those not given to culture, sports, fitness and recreation, will be allocated to the Trillium Foundation and to hospitals? Who defines residual revenues?”

Obviously, the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association does not want this bill passed as it is currently written. They recommend that it be rescinded and at least sent to committee, where OMRA and other interested groups and parties can make a united plea for changes that will benefit all Ontarians.

The reason there is such unease and concern among all of the sports and cultural groups of the province is precisely the track record of the government. How can they say to these groups, “Trust us; the basis of the agreement is going to be a basis of trust,” when they know that the experience of the past has been that they have had a dwindling, decreased real dollar commitment to sports, culture, fitness and recreation?

Let us presume for a moment that there is a global fund available and it is $369 million. In some of the correspondence I have had with sports groups, they have said: “We do not want all of the funds; we are not asking for all of the funds. What we want is a guaranteed level of funding. What we want is a guaranteed formula that will see this allocation increase.”

They can live with an allocation of a specific amount of money for a particular use within the medical field -- a capital cost, specific equipment -- as a one-time shot for the use of accumulated funds, but they have no guarantee that there will be ongoing funding of sports, culture, fitness and recreation at an adequate level, and they will have to compete with the needs of hospitals.

New Democrats believe that the government must boost its commitment to preventive health care and hence must boost its commitment to sports and cultural activities. This is the formula for a progressive and enlightened approach to health care in Ontario; no Band-Aid solutions but a clearly developed, conscious policy of preventive health care.

1540

Let me continue by quoting from another group representing many individuals, the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario. In correspondence with members of the provincial parliament in September 1988, John McIntyre, the chairman of the group, had this to say:

“Demand for funding by clients through lottery programs far surpasses the grant awards made by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Culture and Communications. Every year, these ministries receive hundreds of grant requests. Admittedly, some of these requests do not meet the criteria of the ministry. However, the federation also knows that a large number of grant applicants, which are considered to be complete and eligible applications, do not get funded.

“The federation has formally requested from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation the exact dollar value of those eligible requests which are not funded on a yearly basis. We believe that this is vital information which should be shared with all practitioners in the field of recreation in this province, as well as all members of provincial parliament. This type of information should be brought forward before Bill 119 is considered for third reading and royal assent.”

That is a perfectly legitimate request on the part of a major group. We have a surplus that has accumulated. What are the grants that have been refused over the many years in which this surplus has accumulated? What are the grants? These are legitimate applications that met the criteria but were not funded.

How can a government say it has a real commitment to sports, culture, fitness and recreation when it has a fund there that was specifically designed and designated for that particular purpose and we have ministers in the cabinet saying that they look upon these particular areas as being real areas of preventive health care? How can that government not fund those areas of legitimate request and expect the players in this particular field to take them seriously when they say, “Trust us”?

There are literally thousands of legitimate, eligible requests that have been rejected. They were rejected because of lack of funds. That was the reason that was given -- lack of funds -- at the same time as there was an accumulation of surplus within this area.

We are talking about every possible kind of group across the province. We are talking about men and women who try to teach our kids how to play hockey and the people who are running summer camps to keep kids off the streets. We are talking about huge organizations with literally millions of volunteers. They represent the heart and soul of Ontario. They represent a very generous commitment on the part of volunteers to co-operate with the government in developing a real preventive health care system and they are not getting funded adequately.

This is a letter addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, dated July 18, 1988:

“On behalf of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, I wish to express our serious concern regarding Bill 119 and the significant impact of its enactment on the field of parks, recreation and culture. At the present time, our agency provides services to over 17,000 youngsters throughout Ontario. The recreational programs which are provided address the improvement of lifestyles, the development of self-esteem and the actualization of leadership potential.

“Many nonprofit agencies such as ours have built community-based facilities through which recreation, day care, seniors programs and youth employment programs are provided. These services, which have been requested by the communities in which we operate, oftentimes only skim the surface of diverse needs which our society is presently experiencing.”

In my short time in the House, I have listened to opposition critics questioning, for example. the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and the minister himself recognizing the great needs that are yet unmet. Here is a fund available; here are volunteers available to deliver the service.

The letter continues: “It is our concern that the unallocated but dedicated dollars from the proceeds of lotteries are not being directed to parks, recreation, and culture in Ontario, although there is an apparent and obvious need for such. In addition, it is a concern that the funds dedicated to these areas are losing their purchasing power as a result of annual rates of inflation.”

I quote from a letter from Sport Ontario to the Premier dated June 29, 1988. Sport Ontario, as members know, is the collective voice for sport in Ontario and represents not only 55 member associations but also more than one million registered individual athletes. In addition to this number of athletes, one may add an equal number of volunteers, coaches, and officials. Mel Barlow, chairman of Sport Ontario, writes:

“I am writing to you on behalf of the membership to register our deep concern with respect to the introduction of Bill 119 regarding the addition of hospitals into the dedication of lottery funds.

“Before the government proceeds any further with Bill 119, we urge you to take the time to carefully consider both the long- and short-term implications of this act on the fields of sport, fitness and recreation. At the very least, if the bill receives second reading, it should be referred to committee for a comprehensive review. Our athletes, coaches and volunteers are all depending on your government to keep Ontario’s sports system strong. Your decision on Bill 119 on lottery funding is critical to the wellbeing of athletes from every small-town rink, diamond and court to the national team athletes on their way to Seoul, South Korea, and beyond. Don’t let them down.”

I cannot help but draw a comparison to the fanfare that went on in this House with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) standing up and blowing the trumpet about our athletes in Seoul -- mind you, blowing the trumpet on those who won medals. Despite the fact that I have on two occasions now, once in the House and once in estimates, requested that all of the athletes be recognized and their names read into the record, that has not happened. The tragedy is that there is no fanfare for the kids in the small rinks. We can deny them their access as long as we can blow our trumpet when some athlete wins a medal in Seoul or some exotic area abroad.

This is the politics of grandeur. This is not the politics of people. The polities of real people is in the small rinks of every little city of Ontario. I realize that I am speaking to the heart of the issue when I see the jolly Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of the province bilking the province by every possible means of tax and at the same time taking away from the sports and culture groups.

1550

The Ontario Association of Art Galleries: “We are concerned with a possible retroactive feature of Bill 119. What will happen to the accumulated unspent lottery funds?” This letter was written September 26, 1988, to the Treasurer.

“Your assurance that provincial lottery-based spending for culture will not be jeopardized by Bill 119 is not reassuring. We have tried to present evidence that the amounts actually budgeted for culture in 1987-88 are inadequate. Since December 1987, grants requests from 15 public galleries totalling $125,725 have been refused -- requests for art acquisition, internships, art in public places and professional development. The professional development requests made to attend OAAG seminars were in amounts as insignificant as $106, $297, $459, $372 -- not granted; and yet OAAG is funded and mandated to provide professional development.”

The Boy Scouts of Canada, writing the Premier on October 27: “On behalf of the Boy Scouts of Canada, provincial council for Ontario, I am writing to express our concern over Bill 119 and its potential harm to the whole area of recreation and culture. The reallocation of funds from agencies, organizations and recreation activities would seem to be in direct conflict with the of the Minister of Health’s (Mrs. Caplan) stated objective of redirecting health policy to preventive measures, rather than the expensive treatment of subsequent medical problems, many of which could have been prevented by the right environment and emphasis in earlier years.”

The corporation of the town of Onaping Falls adds its voice to the list of those who would challenge this bill.

Artscape, in a letter to the Premier of August 11, 1988: “Toronto Artscape is a nonprofit corporation with a mandate to provide secure, affordable workspace for artists. We are writing to register our serious concerns. The sectors to which lottery funds have to date been dedicated are of growing importance. Recognizing the ageing demographic profile of Ontario’s population and growing costs of health care, combined with growing recognition of the need for holistic care -- attending to individuals’ mental as well as physical needs in fostering good health -- have led to increased recognition of the vital roles of physical and cultural recreation in our society.

“Through these we foster health, fitness, creation, innovation and invention. Such activities can only be conducted effectively from a base of solid planning and adequate facilities. While numerous successful planning and facilities projects have been supported by lottery funds, there are many communities whose needs on this front have not, as yet, been met.

“We recognize the continuing needs and benefits of the culture, recreation, sport and fitness communities, and hence the importance of this government’s clearly articulated, secure, continued commitment of net profits of the Ontario Lottery Corp. to this sector.

“We thus express our substantial concern regarding Bill 119 and encourage your reconsideration of the matter.”

The township of Schreiber, in a letter of June 15, 1988, to the Premier, questions the concept of partnership. It is getting conflicting messages:

“On the one hand, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has recently formulated, adopted and distributed a community recreation policy statement which stresses the importance of the partner concept throughout. Portions of this policy statement have been stressed in justifying various changes in programs and policies by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, but in the area of the allocation of lottery funds, what we are finding is that these groups are silent partners. Their view is not asked, their view is not considered, their view is irrelevant and their needs are irrelevant to this government.”

Again I add a letter to the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash) from the director of recreation of the town of Dryden, Gerry Ferguson, urging the member to seek government reconsideration:

“Just recently I had a discussion with a very concerned lady, a single parent with two growing children who are living on welfare. Unfortunately, she would not give me her name or write to you, as I suggested. She sounded like a proud lady in a difficult and frustrating position.

“Her concern is her two children, both students, who after returning from school sit down in front of the TV, eat in front of the TV until bedtime, and the pattern is similar on weekends, resulting in these youngsters becoming couch potatoes. There is no extra money for these youngsters to participate in the community recreation activities organizations. If she could save enough to pay the admission or membership fee, she cannot afford to purchase the personal equipment needed for them to participate.

“On checking with our town welfare office and the Ontario Ministry of Social and Community Services, they advise that there are no funds available for boys and girls in these circumstances to pay admission fees, community sports club fees or purchase the necessary equipment to participate in any of these leisure activities. Both mentioned that they receive numerous requests for such funds from low-income and welfare families.

“Without some form of financial assistance to these individuals, the government is now raising a large and growing crop of couch potatoes. Unless something is done quickly, these potatoes may become rotten in society later, which, unfortunately, is happening now in some cities and towns, resulting in increasing vandalism, drug use and health costs.

“Is the government now pricing community leisure activities only for the middle class and up? Just ask a parent what it costs to have their youngster participate in hockey, ringette, figure skating, etc.”

I come to a letter I received from a group in my own area, the Conestoga Five Pin Bowling Association. This league covers the area of my home base, Cambridge. It also includes Kitchener, Waterloo, Stratford, New Hamburg and Elmira. They too have joined our voice in requesting the rescinding of Bill 119. Part of the letter reads:

“We are not implying that health care is not important, but rather that the funds be used for what they were originally intended. Health care is covered under other budgeting, and possibly that budget should be reviewed, rather than funds be taken from other areas to correct the situation.

“If these funds are taken away, many amateur sports will suffer a great setback and, in turn, many youth participants and adult volunteers will be lost.”

I believe that the Conestoga Five Pin Bowling Association reflects the thinking of many sports groups across the province.

I think we have clearly demonstrated, and that was my intent, that the sports, recreation, fitness and cultural groups of Ontario are very, very strongly opposed to this legislation.

I can recall a Liberal member saying to me, “Well, you know in Ireland, Mike, they had lottery funds used for hospitals.” That is true. However, let me remind the House that the lottery fund in Ireland is no longer in existence, by the way, because the Irish realized what was happening with lottery funding in California. A lottery was used in California for education, and of course with the decrease in the spending on lottery tickets, education suffered in California. The Irish also realized that you cannot fund an essential service like hospitals out of lotteries.

1600

When the Irish Hospitals’ Sweepstakes, which was a lottery, did exist, it was very clear that the funds raised in that lottery went specifically to hospitals as designated. The funds we are talking about were also very clearly designated. They were designated for sports, fitness, recreation and culture. This government made a similar commitment. What I am saying is that the Irish government lived up to the commitment it made. It would be nice if this government could live up to its commitment.

I want to look at the difference that exists between the government we have in 1989 and the government we had in 1985-87. There is a very distinct difference between the two governments. One was a minority government with 48 Liberal members, I believe. Because it was a minority government, there was a sensitivity to what the people of Ontario were saying. When the people of Ontario spoke, there was a chance that the government would listen.

With the change that took place on September 10, 1987, when that massive Liberal tide swept across the province and 95 Liberals were returned to this House, a real tragedy took place, because I prefer to have 48 Liberals who listen than 95 Liberals who refuse to listen. I can tell members that the people of Ontario prefer a minority government that listens to a majority government that is arrogant and refuses to listen, and that is precisely what we have today.

These groups fear that their protests will go unheeded. With the new legislation, the profits from all six lotteries will go into the same pot. Enough money will then be shared between sports and cultural groups and the Ontario Trillium Foundation and what is left over will go to pay hospitals’ operating costs. But nobody says what the guarantees are for sports and recreation, nobody defines what that limit is.

As I said in my opening remarks, this government not only refuses to listen, not only is arrogant, but is extremely devious. This government has moved the focus of the debate from an adequate funding level for sports groups to where the funding comes from. We can show clearly that the real dollars for these groups have declined. The government is saying, “We believe in hospitals.” So what? Big deal. We all believe in hospitals and we all believe hospitals should be adequately funded, but we in the New Democratic Party believe that preventive health care, through sports and recreation, is a cornerstone of any quality system that delivers a quality health care package for the people of Ontario.

When sports groups sit around their basements trying to raise those extra few bucks to send the kids to a hockey tournament and sit around in the basement trying to think of ways to raise a few dollars to buy some sports equipment or outfits for the children in their charge, I know the question they are asking themselves at the moment. The question they are asking themselves is, “Can we trust this government?” Unfortunately, the answer is, “No, we can’t,” because the track record of this government is that, on a whole variety of issues, this government has flip-flopped.

This government is not even promising these groups a funding formula. This government is saying to these groups, “We may allocate certain funds for this purpose, but we shall allocate the residual to the hospitals.” There is no protection in that language.

I do not know of one individual, whether it be in the commercial, business or labour sector, who would sit down at the bargaining table or in a business meeting and sign a contract which said, “We may deliver what you require for your needs.” When I sign to purchase a car, the signature that I get says the ear will be delivered by a certain date. Of course, these groups can have no hope or confidence in the legislation.

What is the minister saying? The minister is saying to the groups: “Don’t worry, sports. Hospitals are going to get the residual revenues. But who is going to say what residual revenues are? Who is going to decide what these residual revenues are? The cabinet is going to decide. It is going to decide that they might get them, but then again, they might not.

I am going to conclude very soon, but I know there are a couple of concluding remarks the members would not want me to forgo. There has to be a very clearly defined commitment to the sports, recreation, fitness and cultural groups of this province. We have to know how much it is and whether it will be ongoing. That is what the government must tell the groups. If the government simply wants to play the role of arbitrary dispenser of funds, in my view, it creates a very unstable and uncertain situation for the areas affected. This is an approach that smacks totally of paternalism and arbitrariness.

Paternalism and arbitrariness are the characteristics of a majority government. It is not surprising at all that when we have 94 members in government, it refuses to listen and it says to the groups: “Listen, you’ll get what we say you’ll get. If it’s less, too bad, but we’re not even going to listen to your complaints.”

It is vitally important that in concluding my remarks I very clearly enunciate where New Democrats stand. New Democrats stand for a quality health care system. We believe that a quality health care system should be funded adequately from a secure base, and that should not be dependent upon income from lotteries, which fluctuates.

What are we going to say to the residents of Ontario in good years? “We will provide you with better health care.” And in bad years: “Well, health care just won’t be so good. You need a heart bypass surgery this year? Well, we had a good year on lotteries. Give him a bypass.” But next year: “You’re out of luck. We didn’t sell that many lottery tickets this year. So why don’t you come back next year, and by the way, why don’t you buy more lottery tickets and you’ll have a better chance of getting your triple bypass surgery.”

1610

Isn’t that tremendous? Is this the vision of the Liberal Party? Has health care, the sacred trust of providing decent-quality health care for the people of Ontario, sunk to such a low that the Liberal Party says, “We can tie medicare to lotteries”? Boy, oh boy. Indeed, our health is at stake. The viewers of this proceeding today should know that the Liberal government wants to play Russian roulette with health care, with their lives, because if they are going to provide health care on the basis of lotteries, they are on the wrong base.

I want to spend these last two minutes talking to my friends and the viewing audience in particular. I want to say to the viewing audience that with New Democrats they have a commitment to a complete system of health care. They have a commitment from New Democrats that our health care system is not institutionalization and it is not just hospitalization; it is in fact a system that is a continuum that includes preventive health care. If necessary, we will have the hospital available and quality health care in the hospital available.

We will have adequate funding for hospitals, but we will make a real commitment with those funds we have allocated to recreation, sports, fitness and culture. I know I can say to all the sports, fitness and cultural groups that New Democrats will not double-cross them. We will provide the funding because we know they are part of the preventive health care system. We will not let them down. We will guarantee them funding at the appropriate level because we know the groups that contribute to a healthy body and a healthy mind are the groups that will save us tax dollars in the long run in terms of providing a health care system.

There is a difference I want to emphasize today because the government is going to try to move around this issue. Goodness knows, the Treasurer is as nimble an operator as they come, but it is very important the people of Ontario realize that with New Democrats, there is a difference in vision when we talk about health care. There is a very distinct difference in vision between New Democrats and Liberals because from the very beginning, health care and medicare were the child, the idea, of the New Democratic Party, from Tommy Douglas of the Saskatchewan party that first implemented it. Because of pressure from New Democrats across the country, medicare became a reality.

My friends, New Democrats today are as committed to quality health care as we have ever been. Perhaps we are more committed to quality health care because we see it threatened by old-line parties such as the Liberals and Conservatives, who are prepared to cut corners. But my friends, we want all the sports groups out there to know that we realize they are part of the preventive health care system of Ontario.

It has been a great pleasure for me to address the House, both yesterday and today. I want to thank the members opposite for their very careful attention to my remarks, but I want to ask them for more than their simple attention. I want them to look inside their hearts. I want them to examine their consciences. I want the government to reflect very carefully on the message all these groups across the province are sending out.

I want the government to say: “Let’s hold hack. Let’s not be hasty. Let’s give health care the priority it deserves. Let’s look at preventive health care in the kind of light in which New Democrats look at preventive health care. For example, let’s reconsider our position where only one tenth of one cent of every health dollar presently goes to preventive health care.” That is a condemnation of this government.

We are saying we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is. We are prepared to invest heavily in preventive health care because we believe we have an overall system that down the road is going to protect the taxpayer in having to invest very heavily in institutionalization and in hospitalization.

I ask the government to reflect. I ask the government members to look into their consciences, and more than anything else, to listen. For goodness’ sake, the government should put aside its arrogance, cast aside its arrogance for one moment of time. It should listen to the people of Ontario and hear their voices. The people of Ontario are saying to the government: “This bill must be rescinded. At the very least, it must go to committee.”

Even sending it to committee gives me little comfort because I have gone through the process where I travelled this province with the Sunday shopping issue and heard 529 delegations, representing every segment of the community, come before the committee and say to this government, “We want a common pause day.” We heard nine groups come before us and say, “We support open Sunday shopping.” Despite the fact the government set up a committee to go out, it did not listen. The Liberals did exactly what they were going to do and did not care what the people of Ontario said. They did it in spite of what the people said.

My fear is that what is going to happen today is that the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is going to give his very careful shuffle. He is going to try to deflect this issue from funding to sourcing. Indeed, the government will be forced to send this bill out to committee. But the tragedy of the matter is that those individuals who, like the honourable House leader, had some degree of sensitivity and openness in opposition, have become very aloof, very -- I suppose it is just not listening. That is sad.

The people of Ontario are making a checklist and I want the honourable House leader to know that on that checklist they are saying, “Auto insurance: broken promise; Sunday shopping: broken promise.” They are going to look at this one and they are going to say, “Health care: failed to deliver on preventive health care. There is a political price to pay, my friends, and that political price --

Mr. Ballinger: You ought to know. You won by 100 votes.

Mr. Farnan: The member for Durham-York is anxious to get in with his comments again. It is a price that backbenchers like the member may have to pay.

It has been a real pleasure and I know the viewing audience out there will carefully evaluate these remarks. I am sure the government may be influenced as a result. I certainly hope so.

1620

Mr. Cousens: In dealing with Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, I am concerned with the effect of it. It is not a long bill but it would have quite an effect on what is going to happen with lottery moneys in Ontario. It is like a lot of other bills we are dealing with. It is just a few changes here and a few changes there, but it has significant ramifications as to the long-term effect on what is going to happen with the moneys from Wintario and the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Our caucus will be opposing this bill. I oppose it personally. I think the bill is flawed in a number of ways. I would like to briefly enter some of my concerns about it. I think what will happen is that when this hill comes for a final vote, it will not be voted down. We will try to, but the Liberal majority will carry it. We will at least force it into committee, and through the committee hearings there will be an opportunity for the public and interested groups to make a statement as to what they see should be done to change it.

It is rather tragic that during the past year we have seen what this government does with public input. When the government was faced with the whole proposal of whether Sundays should be open or closed, there were well over 500 presentations by different people and groups to the committee over a year of hearings. At the end of that time, the government really did not change its position at all. I guess that is the tragedy we have now. The government will not listen. They have proved that in a number of other areas. I do not hold out a lot of hope for either ourselves or anyone else who wants to amend this bill to rectify some of the concerns that have been addressed earlier.

I am concerned with three different aspects of Bill 119. The first one has to do with trust, my trust in the government and what it is going to do with the bill. The bill in itself really gives the government a wide-open option to interpret the needs according to the time. As they change, the government can say, “We’ll put more money into recreation and sport,” or less, but I happen to believe it is going to be the night of a thousand knives. Annually, there is going to be less and less money invested in sports and recreation.

There is no guarantee in this bill about how much money is going to be placed into sports and recreation facilities and services within Ontario. It just says that the money not spent on that will go to the health care system. If I had some sense that there was going to be a specific amount, we could begin to budget and plan for our communities, which have benefited so much from the investment through the lottery funds. In my own community, we are seeing $500,000 going to the Milliken library. We have seen money go to theatre, to so many centres for recreation and to the sports field. All of these investments by the province have long-term benefits for the whole community.

What we are going to see with the passing of this bill is no guarantee that there is going to be a continuation of the extent of service and commitment that have been part of the corporation since it was first started. I am concerned that this bill dramatically changes the spirit of how lottery profits are going to be spent. Now, in fact, we are going to see the funding decreased as it affects our recreational and cultural activities.

I do not think the bill does anything to ensure that hospitals will receive any more funding. Again, though we want to see the hospitals funded and though the hospitals require over a third of the total provincial budget right now, is this really the place from which to take the money? If we are going to really look at the needs of hospitals and health care, and though we see it as a major priority for our community and our province, if this bill is really saying what the government says it is, then the bill should spell it out more clearly.

I happen to believe we are dealing with a government that has changing priorities all the time. Though the bill does spell out that the surplus revenues will go to hospitals, I wonder just how changeable this government is in its priorities. Maybe next year it is going to be the environment and they will change it for that. Indeed, we should have a greater emphasis on the environment. Maybe it is going to be potholes or maybe it is going to be books in schools. There are many things we could be investing in in this province. I do not have any satisfaction that the government has a true commitment to recreation, sports and cultural activities or to health care, because all of them seem to be crumbling when it touches them.

The sense of trust that this government is going to do what it says it is going to do about how it is going to spend moneys is something I have very many doubts about.

I am concerned about the matter of balance. We can talk about health care as being so all-important. There is not one person among the 130 people in this Legislature who does not believe in the importance of health care and the adequacy of the health care system. We have to have a high-quality system in Ontario. That is indeed something that is self-evident to all of us, but what we are now seeing with this bill is that it unfairly pits the sports, cultural, recreational and fitness groups against hospitals for public support.

One of the things that will happen is that when the public learns what this bill is all about, first off, many people will say: “It’s a good idea. Let’s put the money into health. We need more money to provide for our hospitals and the health care system. It’s obvious that they do not have enough money right now, so let’s take the money from the lottery systems and put it there.”

Well, I believe something else should happen, that in fact the hospitals should be funded out of the general revenues and should not be dependent on or rely on the fluctuating lottery program to finance important social programs.

I hope that when the government looks at how money can be spent in hospitals, it might be able to spend it on some of the extras that are needed, such as dialysis systems or the computerized axial tomography scanners that are needed in different hospitals. There is going to be new technology that can take our whole health care system farther into the future. It might be spent in some of the areas of research and development and scientific advancement. We have not begun to put the money into future planning so that we do our share of solving problems with proper investment in the health care system through the support of professors, students and those who are really trying to develop new systems.

One of the basic and fundamental problems I have with this government as a whole is the fact that this government has really not faced up to how it is going to run the health care system and how it is going to finance that system. It should not be simply finding new ways to pay for it all; rather, it should be a government that tries to find better ways of controlling and administering the billions of dollars that are going into health care each year. That is part of the balance I would like to see from this government.

I do not have the trust that it really knows how to handle it. I do not have the sense of confidence that it knows how to balance the books, balance the objectives and the needs that go on within the different areas of the community.

I do not know how this government is going to be able to answer the people who have worked so hard to bring the Olympics to Toronto, when in fact what it is going to be doing is trying to reduce the amount of money that goes to that. If they were able to say within this bill that they were going to back up the commitment for the Olympics with continued expenditure of funds for sports and recreational facilities, that would be something rather pleasing to know.

Instead they are saying on the one hand: “We want the Olympics. It would be nice to have them in and around Toronto. Wouldn’t that be good? It would do a great deal for all the communities that surround this area and for southern Ontario, but I do not see the concomitant investment by the province to help make that happen.

I have to say that it is a major problem of a breakdown of what it is we really want to see happen in our province. We want to see a province that has harmony between all areas that make up a strong and good society. That is the fundamental balance that is implicit to what this bill is all about. We cannot continue to have a strong and healthy society without preventive health. We should not just deal with the symptoms of disease and sickness and the problems people have, but through a good recreational service and through investment in cultural activities within the community, we will then continue to have a society that is balanced in a strong way.

There is a significant impact on health through strong recreational programs. I have heard of and know of seniors who, once they become involved in recreation of different kinds, need less medication. They need less attention to other problems. They get out and they learn the value of exercise and of participating in things. In fact, there have been studies done. Dr. Roy Shephard of the University of Toronto indicates that participation in regular recreational and fitness activities, as part of a comprehensive lifestyle program, results in reduced medical care costs.

This study found that a more physically active society produces improved personal health habits, a reduction in the number of doctors’ visits, less prescription drug requirements, better ability to cope with stress, fewer days of work missed, better attitudes towards work, reduced medical costs and greater ability of older adults to live independently in their communities, reducing the costs of geriatric care.

1630

Having a strong recreational program, having a strong cultural program makes up just one of the many components that builds a strong society, and for this government gradually to slip the money away from those important activities is to say, “Well, we’re just going to concentrate exclusively on health.” I do not think they can do it all that way. It just starts with a sense of balance and what is important.

I have to say that recreation is an essential service for our province. It has a significant impact on the economy. As we start looking at the dollars that are invested in recreation, it has a $7.3-billion impact on the provincial economy, and the fact of the matter is that there is quite a multiplier effect. For every dollar that is spent by the province in recreational activity, it causes nine other dollars to be invested, so there is a stimulus to the whole economy through this investment.

I believe there is a significant political impact by continuing to support strong recreational programs. I think the recreational sector is dependent so much on the province for funding, for maintenance, for growth; and for the province not to realize that it is an integral partner of this is to begin to show that it has lost sense of its priorities, it has lost sense of that balance I was talking about earlier.

I would like to say an awful lot more about this issue but I think there are many others who want to participate in the debate that pertains to Bill 119. I really hope that our Treasurer will rethink some of the things that have been tabled today and other days during the debate and will also pay close attention to the public’s presentations when it makes its feelings known to the committee when it goes out for public hearings.

It is a very frustrating thing to be here in the House knowing that the likelihood of there being any change to Bill 119 is slim, but I believe strongly in trying to promote a number of things. Let’s promote a strong, healthy society. Let’s not try to fool people and say, “Oh, we’re going to do this just in order to make a stronger health system.” I think we have to have them all in harmony and balance, and we are not doing it by taking the money away from sports and recreation and cultural things to put it into health care.

When the government is prepared to put an amendment in this bill that enunciates clearly that it is prepared to defend and continue to build and strengthen the recreational and cultural sector of our society, then this bill will begin to have meaning to it. Then I will have some trust in it. I do not have that element of trust in all the members opposite, and until it is put into the form of an amendment, I think this is going to be a very weak bill and just lead to further erosion of fundamental values of our society and of our communities.

I know there are many others who wish to talk. There are many other things I would like to say to expand on my points of view, but none the less I believe it is a matter of trust, it is a matter of balance and it is a matter of placing our health and recreational systems in harmony together, knowing that we cannot have one without the other.

Mr. Hampton: We realize that the government is insistent upon this legislation. We realize, of course, the natural facts of this place. They have 94 members and our only possibility of making the government turn around would be to go to the wall on this issue as we have on a few others. The fact is we cannot go to the wall on every issue, so we are placed in the position of saying to the government, “If you really want this legislation and you want to go through all the steps, then I guess you can have it.”

I only want to put on the record a number of concerns that have been raised with me by a number of community groups all across northern Ontario. The concerns of those groups are quite simply this: First, most northern Ontario communities are, compared to their southern neighbours, relatively isolated. Second, most northern Ontario communities are not large communities. If you are going to operate a curling club, a minor hockey association, a gymnastics club or a multiculturalism association, there is only so much voluntary money out there among the citizens of the community.

In particular, if you are a community that has suffered through the recession that hits northern Ontario harder than any other part of Ontario, it is not unusual that one or two of the key industries in your community -- if you have more than one key industry -- may not have recovered from the recession.

So there are communities at the present time that cannot find the funds they need to operate some of the community, cultural and recreational activities that we think contribute to a good quality of life. Many of those groups have written to me or have approached me directly and said:

“Look, we really have fears over this bill. We fear that if there is any tightening up of the money, we will suffer more than we are already suffering and, as it stands, we’re barely getting through.”

I want to put it across to the Treasurer that there are some groups out there who are very worried about what he is doing. I want to say to him that in my own mind I do not think he is doing the right thing. I think that some of those community cultural and recreational groups will likely suffer. I think the ones that will suffer the most are those organizations that are already having a tough time making it.

As a result, I think that the quality of life that we lead in many towns and in many communities in northern Ontario very likely will suffer. I hope that once the government has its way, it will not allow funding of community recreational and cultural groups to decline. I hope that is the case.

I want to put one other comment on the record and that is this: There are many jurisdictions in the United States that have become involved with the idea of using lottery revenues to fund what we consider to be essential services, whether those services be for education or for medical care. I think almost all of them have rued that decision in retrospect, because that kind of decision leads to two things.

First, services like education and health care, as we know, require a great deal of money. Once one becomes dependent on that kind of lottery funding, it then becomes an easy issue for those people who promote lotteries, bingos or even the more commercialized forms of gambling, to come to the government and say: “Look, why don’t you open up our society to wide-open gambling? Why don’t you expand the lotteries even more?”

I think there are two things wrong with that. First, lotteries are overwhelmingly a tax on those who can least afford it. Let’s say it is a quiet way of tapping the pockets of those people whom we otherwise would not want to tax. It is an unfair tax, ultimately. Second, the more society gets into legalized gambling, the more social problems you create at the end of the way. So I think that, ultimately, Ontario will live to regret the day it began to use lottery funds to finance an essential service such as health care.

Having said that, the government can have its way. It has the 94 members and it can pass its legislation. But I emphasize again: I think we are headed down the wrong path in terms of the expansion of even more lotteries and I think we are also headed on the wrong path in that, ultimately, the funding that is available to community recreational and cultural groups will not increase as it should for their needs. Some of those organizations will suffer and, as a result, in some communities I think the quality of life will suffer.

However, as I said, the Treasurer has determined that the Liberal Party supports this legislation. The Treasurer has the majority and ultimately he will have the say. Only in this case, I think his say is the wrong say.

1640

Mr. McLean: I am very disappointed that there are not more than seven Liberals here to listen to this outstanding speech that they are about to hear.

Mr. Ballinger: As soon as you start we are going to lose five more.

Mr. McLean: The member is well aware that we are not the government. We do not have to keep the members in the House.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline the concerns I have with Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, which received first reading on April 25, 1988. As we all know, lottery profits have become an increasingly important source of revenue for the Ontario government. For example, in the current fiscal year, lottery profits paid into the consolidated revenue fund are projected to total $460 million, an increase of some 367.5 per cent relative to 1977-78 levels.

The introduction of this bill indicates to me that the rapid growth of lottery profits, coupled with growing funding pressures in a number of priority expenditure areas, has encouraged this government to attempt to free itself from the statutory limits imposed on the use of lottery proceeds in Ontario. These limits on the proceeds from Ontario-only lottery games are currently set out in section 9 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, which provides that:

“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, recreation and cultural activities and facilities therefor.”

Only the net profits of the Ontario-only games -- Wintario, Lottario and Instant win -- are appropriated and allocated for the purposes described in section 9. Until 1986, proceeds from the interprovincial games were paid into the consolidated revenue fund and used to support health and environmentally related health research, hospital funding and building and equipment, senior citizens’ housing and the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

However, in 1986 the government changed its policy and now proceeds from interprovincial games are simply paid into the central revenue fund with no specific provisions attached for their allocation. The same government has indicated that it wants to have greater discretion than it currently enjoys with respect to the use of lottery proceeds in this province. In fact, the government first tried to implement this policy by way of Bill 38, which was introduced on May 13, 1986.

Bill 38 would have implemented the 1986 budget proposal to eliminate the limitations imposed on the use of lottery profits of section 9 by deleting the relevant parts of the section. Bill 38 did not stipulate any alternative use for lottery profits. The members will recall that Bill 38 did not move beyond first reading and was abandoned when the government faced stiff legislative and interest group opposition.

However, the Treasurer made it quite clear at that time that he was not abandoning the concept. In fact, the idea resurfaced in the Treasurer’s 1988 budget, which stated, “Legislation will be introduced to make provincial expenditures on the operation of hospitals eligible for funding from lottery profits.”

Bill 119, which we are debating here today, re-enacts section 9 of the act and amends it to provide that proceeds from the lotteries paid into the revenue fund may also be made available to the Ontario Trillium Foundation. “May” is the key word there. It provides that any net profits not appropriated “for the promotion and development of physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities and facilities” and “for the activities of the Ontario Trillium Foundation” shall be applied to and appropriated for the operation of hospitals. It also provides that unexpended net profits paid into the central revenue fund before April 1, 1988, shall be applied to the operation of the hospitals and shall be accounted for as such in the public accounts.

Bill 119 differs from Bill 38 in several important respects. Unlike Bill 38, Bill 119 does not eliminate the statutory provisions providing that lottery profits be used to support section 9 activities. Unlike Bill 38, Bill 119 stipulates an alternative use for the profits not allocated to the activities mentioned in section 9, that being the operation of hospitals. Bill 38 did not deal with the question of how the accumulated surplus was to be dealt with but Bill 119 provides that the surplus be appropriated for and applied to the operation of hospitals.

Once again, there is a great deal of opposition coming from a coalition of recreational, sports and cultural organizations. The groups that are opposing Bill 119 are the same ones which successfully blocked Bill 38. They have been mobilized under an umbrella organization called the Alliance to Protect Culture, Recreation, Sports and Fitness in Ontario. As well, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has expressed some serious reservations about Bill 119 and more than 90 municipalities have actually passed resolutions opposing the bill.

I have concerns that Bill 119 will result in any real increase in the amount of hospital operating funding. I fear that if this bill is passed, additional funding provided through lottery profits will simply be offset by reductions in the amount of funding received from the general revenues, resulting in no net increase.

On a number of occasions I have urged the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to meet with the Ontario Lottery Corp. officials to devise a new province-wide lottery aimed at generating funds exclusively for hospital construction projects. We in Ontario need expanded or new hospitals, and that means that creative new methods for providing hospital capital funding must be devised to meet the growing demand.

I believe the people of Ontario would wholeheartedly support a new lottery, especially if they knew that all proceeds would be used for expanded or new hospitals, construction projects in their own communities. However, my plea for this unique new lottery appears to have fallen on deaf ears, and I find that to be an extremely sorry state of affairs.

In conclusion, I would like to briefly outline why I am opposed to Bill 119. I have already mentioned some of the reasons.

Lottery profits were originally intended to support sports, recreational and cultural programs and activities, and this purpose should be maintained, as these activities are badly in need of funds and the government has either discontinued, prorated or flat-lined all alternative funding mechanisms. If the government insists on redirecting lottery profits away from these activities, then the government should ensure adequate funding of the relevant grant programs from its general revenue base.

This bill amounts to unfair, retroactive expropriation of the unallocated surplus. Bill 119 unfairly pits sports, recreation, culture and fitness groups against hospitals for public support. The bill does not provide any guarantee of a minimum funding level or a minimum share of the profits, nor does it make any provisions for year-over-year increases in the level of financial support available to these groups from lottery proceeds.

Sports, recreational and fitness groups all make a contribution to the Ontario health care system by encouraging healthy lifestyles and should be supported for that reason. Bill 119 threatens reliable funding for these groups and does not guarantee any increase in funding for hospitals; it merely allows a government to account for normal expenditures appropriated by the Legislature.

1650

The government should abandon Bill 119, just as it did Bill 38. Failing that, the government should at least send Bill 119 to committee after second reading to allow the affected groups to voice their concerns and to ensure that the government is made aware of all the implications of this piece of legislation.

As I said before, I called on the then Minister of Tourism and Recreation to have a special lottery. Neither minister has seen fit to initiate that program. I have received hundreds of letters from constituents and municipalities opposing this legislation. The Ontario Municipal Recreation Association has many areas of concern with regard to Bill 119.

I support that the bill go to committee for full public hearings. Failing the minister’s withdrawal of the bill, I hope to have the opportunity to participate in the hearings in committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any comments or questions? Are there other participants in the debate? Does the minister care to wrap up the debate?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am sorry I was not able to attend the debate yesterday, but I appreciate the comments made by the honourable members this afternoon. Actually, some of them were slightly irritating but I guess that is part of the game. In every case, they were well informed and I think they represent a view in the community that is substantial.

I thought it would be worth while to briefly point out some of the history of the Ontario Lottery Corp. I was sitting in this House, in opposition unfortunately, at the time the lottery corporation was formed. Frankly, I expressed my view at the time that I felt the money should go into the consolidated revenue fund and that the Legislature, under the direction of the government of the day, which was then a Conservative government, should decide how the money would be appropriately spent.

As a matter of fact, I do not often quote myself, but I will do so, from page 7277 of the February 4, 1975, Hansard:

“I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that whether the bill directly earmarks” -- the revenue -- “or not, in my view I think it is a bad practice. I have read the bill and I feel that the so-called earmarking section is rather vague.” I say in parentheses, that is section 9, the one we are asking the House to repeal.

To go on with the quote, which I highly recommend to the honourable members, “For my part, we might some time in the future feel we would like to spend the money on pensions for, let’s say, defeated Tories or some such worthwhile project.”

I thought it would be worth while to mention that. In searching for a rather weak comment, I in fact missed the point I was trying to make; that is, that while sports and recreation and cultural matters were supportable then and are certainly supportable now and will be in the future, particularly as these revenues grew, the government of the day, whatever political stripe it would have, should have the flexibility of recommending to the members of the Legislature alternative funding matters.

Certainly, there are those who have indicated that some of the money should go to special environmental programs, but the Minister of Health, who sits two seats to my right, can use almost any amount of money we can put into the system. It was my judgement that we ought to at least broaden the application of this source of revenue.

As to the allocation itself -- I do not intend to be lengthy or to talk in too many figures -- the very first year the Ontario Lottery Corp. was in business, its total revenue was $42 million. Only $4 million of all that money was allocated to culture, recreation and athletics. Since it was founded in 1975, there has never been a year when the government of the day -- for most of those years, as I am sure members are all aware, it was a Progressive Conservative government -- spent all the money in support of cultural, recreational and athletic endeavours.

This means that over these many years a surplus in the fund has been built up that is substantially in excess of $1 billion: $1.3 billion. Even this year, because the people of the province are buying tickets at the rate we are aware of, the net profit, after the expenses and the prizes are all paid, is just about $500 million.

It so happens that we as a government have allocated, and we hope the Legislature will eventually approve, the expenditure of about $100 million -- actually it is closer to $103 million -- in support of the special programs that are mandated under the lottery corporation statute. In other words, even this year there will be close to $400 million unexpended. That really means that the legislation, which I indicated away back in 1975 was vague in its allocation, has allowed this surplus, which in many respects is a notional surplus, to be built up.

No one in either opposition party suggested that $1.3 billion be allocated to sports and recreation, particularly when there are such substantial needs in the community in addition to the $100 million that we are spending on those prescribed sources of funding.

This bill is really an attempt to rationalize legislation that was flawed when it came before the Legislature in 1975. It is interesting, if you want to peruse the Hansards, that the NDP which was then the third party was quite deeply divided on this.

The late and lamented Jim Renwick, who was the conscience and intellect of the party then -- never to have been replaced, as far as I know -- was quite concerned about the earmarking of the revenues and indicated quite clearly that as far as he was concerned, the earmarking was not a good idea. He did not carry the day in caucus, but having a certain independence of spirit and strength of intellect and oratory, he was able to indicate that he was not fully on side. Since he is not here to correct the representation I am at present giving of what I inferred from his speech, I will probably let it go at that.

The point is that there were at least two intelligent members of the Legislature who were concerned about section 9, which we now recommend to be repealed, so in that sense I would say to the official opposition that I am speaking for my much-lamented good friend Jim Renwick when I tell them that when they vote against this bill, they are voting against the grand and intellectual basis the party at least used to have.

Instead of that, we get the kind of contribution we listened to from the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), who I suppose was talking to the other members of the Legislature, but made no bones of the fact that he was competing with Edge of Wetness or whatever the soap opera is that may possibly be on the other channel in Cambridge.

The reason I was a bit concerned about it was that he made an impassioned plea for the little boys and girls out playing hockey after school with the idea that this bill would take the skates right off their feet. Of course, that is not true. While the $100 million that is allocated for these purposes may not be sufficient in the eyes of the honourable member, it is a substantial contribution on behalf of the taxpayers.

This is the same member who spoke at the time of our efforts -- that is, the efforts of this government, particularly of myself as Treasurer and the honourable Minister of Health -- to bring some rationality to the funding of hospitals and at least move away from a deficit situation where there was no rationale or control at all; the same member who on behalf of the hospital in Cambridge that had a succession of deficits, indicated that we simply had to apply more money for the provision of hospital services.

This same member spoke passionately against the increase of any taxation. I would say to those same people -- if there are any of them who watched him and may possibly be watching me on television -- that I would simply ask --

Mr. Farnan: They turned them off.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They turned them off.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Actually, I did hear a few of those channels change just a moment ago.

I just ask members to assess the rationality, not of the New Democratic Party which tends to be rational, but of the member for Cambridge who says that we must put all the money into recreation, that we must not put any of this money into hospitals. But we must put more money into hospitals and no taxes should be raised.

Frankly, I think the taxpayers and anybody in this House who wants to balance that kind of philosophy must realize that it really has little or no place in public discussion and should not be considered seriously by any members of this House or anyone else.

1700

I just want to say that the attempt in this amendment is to rationalize a funding basis that in my view has been flawed since 1975. I am not going to spend time talking about the morality of lotteries, the efficacy of lotteries or gambling as a fund-raising provision or mechanism for any government. We have it in this province and I cannot see that during my term as Treasurer, which I expect will extend for many years, this is going to be changed. As a matter of fact, the Ontario Lottery Corp. is doing its best to see that the revenues are maintained and in fact even grow.

I simply say to the honourable members that rather than removing the possibility of those people -- it includes all of us interested in sports, recreation and culture -- being adequately funded, we are putting the decision back where it should be in a democracy, and that is with the elected members of this House.

Mr. Farnan: The cabinet.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All right. The member for Cambridge says “the cabinet.” It so happens that he does not support a party that commands a majority in this House. He may very well do that some day. God forbid, but that is a possibility and the democratic system works that way.

But for now, all of us, 130 members of this House, look at the proposals of the government of the day and we support them, criticize them, vote for them or against them. That is the way it is supposed to work. Nobody, not the doctors, not the hospitals, not the environment program, nothing, gets assured funding from the budget except the payment of the interest on the debt. That comes off the top and then we in our democratic responsibility decide how the money is going to be spent and how many taxes are going to support that particular expenditure program.

I just tell honourable members that while there are many intelligent people who say this move is not necessary because we can go on funding it just the way we have and allow this notional surplus to build up into even more ridiculous proportions, which I believe is undemocratic and inappropriate, under these circumstances at least the House will decide as it should and must on the proper allocation and disposition of public funds.

For anybody in the opposition party or any of my own colleagues who tries to be persuaded by interest groups in his own community that somehow we are cutting off the little kids and their skates and whatever that may be, well of course that is not true; we want to support them in every possible way.

There are a few professional golfers whom we are not in favour of supporting, but aside from that, I say to the erstwhile leader of the third party -- meanwhile perhaps, something like that.

I simply ask for the careful consideration of the honourable members in this connection. I believe the bill is a rational one and worthy of support.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 151, An Act to revise the Personal Property Security Act and to repeal and amend certain other acts related to Personal Property.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know this is the item the members have been waiting for all afternoon and perhaps for a couple of weeks. We will now begin to move through a revised Personal Property Security Act.

Rarely has any piece of legislation really received such extensive preintroduction and review as this bill. That has gone on over the last four and a half years. During that time, two reports from the Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Personal Property Security Act were widely distributed to all interested groups, including the Consumers’ Association of Canada. The considerable number of comments we received indicated there was broad support for the legislation before the House today.

The Personal Property Security Act is a key piece of legislation that provides rules to govern the rights of both a lender and borrower when personal property is used as collateral in a secured transaction. The revised act is intended to improve the system whereby secured lenders can protect themselves by recording notice of their security interest. As well, prospective lenders and purchasers can protect themselves by carrying out searches in the system.

In addition, significant amendments have been made to the registration provisions, including the introduction of a variable registration period and the elimination of the requirement to register within 30 days. These amendments will make the registration system more flexible and remove some technical impediments currently faced by registrars.

The proposed bill also includes provisions to enhance consumer protection by providing some solutions to common problems now faced by both buyers and debtors. For example, registrations relating to consumer goods will have to be discharged within 30 days after a loan has been repaid. Under the current act, a consumer debtor had to give a secured creditor notice requiring that a discharge be made. Those consumer debtors were not aware of this requirement and therefore had difficulty selling their cars, for example, because registrations were not discharged. Buyers were misled into believing they were not getting clear title to their car.

Before buying a car, many consumers only do motor vehicle identification number searches. Under the current law, they cannot always rely solely on these searches because the number is required on a registration only when the vehicle is classified as consumer goods. They subsequently find out that they do not have clear title when the car is seized by a secured creditor, which is, as all members would know, an awful way to find out. Additional consumer protection amendments will solve this problem by ensuring buyers can rely on the motor vehicle identification number searches.

As members will recall, when the bill was first introduced in June 1988, the major change was the repeal of the Corporation Securities Registration Act. The intent of the repeal and other, complementary amendments is to integrate and clarify provincial law relating to security interest in personal property. No longer will we need a separate system, as we have now, for registering corporation securities when corporate assets are pledged as collateral.

The proposed legislation also includes the repeal of the Bills of Sale Act, which would help prevent a situation where a bankruptcy threatens to leave buyers high and dry. For example, members of the House will recall the case last year when boat buyers were prevented from taking possession of their boats after they paid for them in full but left them stored in a boatbuilder’s yard. When that builder subsequently declared bankruptcy, a technicality in the law allowed the sales to be set aside. In effect, they lost their rights of ownership and it took several months of staff work and a great deal of concern on behalf of those boat owners before we were able to resolve this matter.

I am sure members will agree that creditors, other commercial users and consumers will benefit from the streamlining of this legislation. In order to accommodate the proposed registration requirements, my ministry is redeveloping a computer system that will provide registrants and searchers with improved services.

There have been ongoing consultations and as a result of those consultations, which have continued even since the introduction of the bill in June of last year, I will be introducing a significant number of amendments, most of them of a housekeeping nature, in committee. They will reflect the results of those consultations with the interested parties. The most significant amendment will provide employees with protection for their vacation pay and pension contributions when their employer becomes bankrupt or insolvent.

I urge all members to support this legislation.

Mr. Farnan: The PPSA is increasingly important, particularly in our modern economy. When so many people are purchasing goods and items on instalment plans, there is concern both in terms of the security of the goods and the payment for the goods.

1710

Over the years, there has been a great deal of confusion with the Corporation Securities Registration Act and the Personal Property Security Act as to under which one of these acts consumers should register. I suppose the main thrust of what we are about today is that CSRA is repealed and eliminates a great deal of the confusion. I think we have to commend the government on that particular aspect of these bills. The only thing I would say is that this should have been done a long time ago, but better late than never.

Mr. Pope: Our party has been aware of the need for some time to make some improvements in the personal property security regime in Ontario. We are aware of the efforts of the minister resulting from the 1984 study that was done to bring this before the Legislature. We do believe that there are some elements of consumer protection in this bill which are improvements.

I guess the question is the consumer protection aspects. Will they be identical to the upcoming changes in the Consumer Protection Act that the minister has spoken of? Second, maybe the minister can indicate the involvement of the consumers’ associations with respect to the drafting of this bill and input from that association with respect to the principles of this new legislation.

Second, and I probably will deal with this at a later time, I am interested in the provision with respect to discharge of registrations. The minister is probably aware from examining sample printouts of the cluttering of someone’s credit record and someone’s security record by reason of undischarged liabilities which in fact have been paid in full.

What I am looking at is some guidance from the minister as to what steps are going to be taken by his ministry to remove some of that clutter from the securities record, which right now is affecting the ability of many individuals, partnerships and organizations and companies in the province to get credit and to enter into security agreements in an expedient way without going to quite a bit of expense, and second, how the minister is going to deal with the demand of some of the security registrants to have a fee paid prior to the discharge being registered or executed by the registering party.

I know the minister has examined these issues and no doubt his words or responses to these will be of some comfort to the people of Ontario who may be affected by some of this legislation.

In general terms, we understand the rationale for the changes that have been made and we know that the minister will be responding to specific questions as we go through this in committee.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly. I thank the honourable members and my colleagues from the two opposition parties for their support for this legislation.

The NDP critic is certainly correct in that it will streamline things to have a collapsing not only of the Bills of Sale Act but also the Corporation Securities Registration Act and will make matters easier for both business and consumers.

I say to my friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, obviously any further consumer protection legislation which would be brought forward would be consistent with the kinds of initiatives that are contained in Bills 151 and 152.

I can tell the honourable member that the Consumers’ Association of Canada, while it has not had membership on the ongoing advisory committee that has been chaired by Mr. Catzman, has been kept informed throughout of key initiatives as they have affected consumers, particularly the requirement of discharge within 30 days and other consumer initiatives, and is certainly supportive, as I understand it, of all aspects of the legislative changes, which the honourable member points out do take matters forward and do provide additional protection for consumers.

In terms of the undischarged liabilities, if I can find the specific section, we can deal with that on clause-by-clause. But certainly the member makes a good point, one which I made in my second reading comments, about not just the cluttering up of files but certainly the very difficult situation it causes for consumers when a matter is not properly discharged. The new legislation ensures that will take place.

We will have some additional discussions, undoubtedly, on this matter as we move through our committee discussions on Bill 151.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

REPAIR AND STORAGE LIENS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 152, An Act to revise and consolidate the Law related to Repairers’ and Storers’ Liens.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased also to present for second reading the Repair and Storage Liens Act. This proposed legislation has been again jointly developed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

As we try to have leaner amounts and perhaps thinner amounts of legislation for people to deal with, I think certainly members of the opposition, all members of the House and members of the public will be pleased to know that this one act is really in many ways a consolidation, because it will result in the repeal of the Unclaimed Articles Act, the Warehousemen’s Lien Act and the Mechanics’ Lien Act. The bill modernizes and consolidates the law relating to repair and storage liens. Many of the provisions are based on the revised Personal Property Security Act that we were just discussing and are consistent with its provisions.

In many cases, the current law is unclear and vague, and it creates problems for repairers, those who store their goods, and customers. As well, no adequate procedures exist to resolve disputes concerning the repair and storage of articles. Under the current law, a repair or storage company has a lien for unpaid repair and storage charges as long as it holds on to the goods. These traditional possessory lien rights, as they are called, are preserved and they are codified. The proposed legislation provides for the creation of a nonpossessory lien which will enable lien claimants to release an article but still retain a lien against it. Notably, this occurs in cases where articles are repaired on an owner’s premises.

Priority disputes between lien claimants and other persons with interests in articles will be governed by rules set out in the bill. These nonpossessory lien claims will be registered in the personal property security registration system. Detailed procedures are established for the sale or retention of an article by lien claimants and for the redemption of an article by the owner or other persons, such as secured creditors, who have an interest in the article.

The bill also provides rules to enable an owner or any other person entitled to the article to recover possession where there is a dispute as to the price of the repair and storage services. As well, the courts have been given broad powers to resolve all matters that arise under the act.

Once again, I believe that with this bill, Bill 152, consumers, and in addition repair and storage companies of this province, will appreciate the action in modernizing an area of law. I urge members to give it support.

Mr. Farnan: The present law does create problems for repairers, storage owners and secured creditors, precisely for the reason the minister suggests, that it is unclear. It is very complex legislation. I have to admit. Basically, what I would say is that perhaps an effort is being made to unravel and find resolutions for some of the problems that have been experienced, but only time will tell.

There may indeed be additional fine-tuning that has to take place and this will come from experience. We will hope that the minister will -- as indeed the opposition parties will -- monitor the application and the experience that result from these particular changes and be open to amendments that might occur as a result of the experience with these changes.

1720

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Miller): Are there any comments or questions? Are there any other participants?

Mr. Pope: I appreciate the attempts of the minister to try to bring some order into this area of legal conflict which exists from time to time, to the bedevilment of the construction and repair industries and numerous other financial institutions in this province.

Maybe I could leave a question for the minister as to how he sees existing litigation in the Mechanics’ Lien Act juxtaposing itself or inserting itself into procedures contemplated under this legislation -- particularly part III of this bill -- and how he sees the provision of subsection 32(1), which gives the right to a lien claimant to come under the provisions of part III of this act although there is not necessarily an obligation to do so, resolving itself in the courts?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Let me just indicate that I thank the honourable members for their support and indicate to my friend the member for Cochrane South that he has asked a very specific question to which I want to give him a specific answer. Since there are a large number of amendments, I will give him a commitment that. as we move through the bill in committee of the whole House, we can deal with it at that time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, may I seek the consent of the House for the minister to take a seat in the front row and have the permission of the House to have the officials from the department join the minister on the floor?

Agreed to.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT

Consideration of Bill 151, An Act to revise the Personal Property Security Act and to repeal and amend certain other Acts related to Personal Property.

The Deputy Chairman: May I first ask each of the parties the sections to which they wish to address comments, questions or amendments. First, the government.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, we have a large number of amendments which I believe the chair has and which have certainly been shared for some time with the opposition critics. But if you would like me to run through them, we have amendments to section 4, section 20, section 25, section 28, section 30, section 33, section 49, section 51, section 52, section 56, section 59, section 65, section 67, section 68, section 76, section 78 and section 81.

The Deputy Chairman: There are two amendments to section 28?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I apologize. In a number of cases, having noted that we had one I just moved along, so in a couple of cases there is more than one amendment to a section. You have all of those amendments. They have not changed since they were delivered to the desk yesterday.

The Deputy Chairman: From section 65 on, could you just run it past me again?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Certainly; section 65, section 67, section 68, section 76, section 78 and section 81.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. The opposition parties? No amendments? Very good.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

“(aa) to a deemed trust arising under any act, except as provided in subsection 30(7).”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly, the intent of the amendment is that the Personal Property Security Act will not apply to trusts created by statute except for the special priority given to employees’ deemed trust. This amendment ensures that other statutory trusts are not affected.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 20:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subclause 20(2)(a)(ii) of the bill be amended by striking out “this” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof “the.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is simply a typographical error.

Motion agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 25:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that clause 25(l)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(a) continues as to the collateral, unless the secured party expressly or impliedly authorized the dealing with the collateral.”

1730

Mr. Pope: Can I ask a question?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Do you want me to explain?

Mr. Pope: No, I just want to ask the minister what “impliedly authorized” means. If there is no express authorization, what constitutes the “implied authorization” which would allow this provision to kick in?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The use of the word “impliedly” indicates it could be through a verbal agreement reached in discussions between the parties.

Motion agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.

Section 28:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 28(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(4) A purchaser of collateral that is an instrument or negotiable document of title has priority over any security interest therein perfected by registration or temporarily perfected under section 23 or 24 if the purchaser.

“(a) gave value for the interest purchased;

“(b) purchased the collateral without knowledge that it was subject to a security interest; and

“(c) has taken possession of the collateral.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Just very briefly, this amendment actually is a fairly simple one. It deletes any reference to shares and moves that reference to newly created subsections 6 and 7, which I will be moving next.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Wrye moves that section 28 of the bill be further amended by adding the following subsections:

“(6) A bona fide purchaser of a security, whether in the form of a security certificate or an uncertificated security, who has taken possession of it, has priority over any security interest in it perfected by registration or temporarily perfected under section 23 or 24.

“(7) A purchaser of a security, whether in the form of a security certificate or an uncertificated security, who purchases the security in the ordinary course of business and has taken possession of it, has priority over any security interest in it perfected by registration or temporarily perfected under section 23 or 24, even though the purchaser knows of the security interest, if the purchaser did not know the purchase constituted a breach of the security agreement.

“(8) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), ‘bona fide purchaser,’ ‘purchaser,’ ‘security,’ ‘security certificate’ and ‘uncertificated security’ have the same meaning as in sections 53 and 85 of the Business Corporations Act, 1982.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The effect of these amendments is that when bankruptcy or insolvency occurs, financial institutions and brokerage firms which routinely acquire interest in shares and take possession of them will rank ahead of secured creditors which register under Bill 151. The only exception will occur when financial institutions and brokerage firms are aware that their purchase of an interest in the shares breaches an agreement between the owner and the secured creditor who is registered.

This is an amendment which, as I understand it, was worked on, and we came to agreement, which really clarifies the intent and meaning of the earlier sections which we have moved out and replaced with the new subsections 6, 7 and 8.

Motion agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

Section 29 agreed to.

Section 30:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that section 30 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

“(7) A security interest in an account or inventory and its proceeds is subordinate to the interest of a person who is the beneficiary of a deemed trust arising under the Employment Standards Act or under the Pension Benefits Act, 1987.

“(8) Subsection 7 does not apply to a perfected purchase-money security interest in inventory or its proceeds.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This provision is in keeping with case law, which was determined first in the Windsor Packing Co. case. I think members will be aware of the case law which began with that case and protects the interests of employees in both their vacation pay benefits and their pension benefits.

Motion agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.

Section 33:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that clause 33(2)(b) of the bill be amended by inserting “purchase-money” before “security” in the second line.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly, this is a housekeeping amendment which simply clarifies the intent of the legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 34 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 49:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that section 49 of the bill be amended by striking out “period that the registration of a financing statement is effective” in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof “registration period of a financing statement.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: A few words in the opening part of the section have been changed to clarify that an amendment can be made to a registration at any time during the registration period. Frankly, the wording as we now have it really locks us in and makes us unable to make the changes within the registration period; this simply gives us the flexibility that we need.

Motion agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.

Section 50 agreed to.

1740

Section 51:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that section 51 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“51(1) A financing statement may be registered for a perpetual period or for such period of years as is set out in the financing statement.

“(2) The registration period of a financing statement may be reduced by the registration of a financing change statement under section 49 or extended by the registration of a financing change statement under subsection 52(1).

“(3) The registration period for a financing statement begins with the time assigned to its registration by the registrar or branch registrar and ends on the earlier of,

“(a) the time the registration is discharged; or

“(b) at the end of the registration period as set out in the financing statement or as changed by subsequent financing change statements.

“(4) A financing statement is effective only during its registration period.

“(5) Despite subsection (1), a financing statement that indicates that the collateral is or includes consumer goods shall be deemed to have a registration period of five years, unless a shorter registration period is indicated on the financing statement or unless the registration period is extended by the registration of a financing change statement under subsection 52(1).

“(6) Every financing change statement extending the registration period of a financing statement described in subsection (5) shall be deemed to extend the registration period for a five year period that begins at the time of its registration unless a shorter extension is indicated on the financing change statement.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Believe it or not, all of that really ensures that the method by which we calculate the registration period is compatible with the new computer system which is going into effect under the amended act.

If I can offer the House an explanation, the first reading version of the section required that the extended registration period be set out on a renewal form. The new computer system, however, only allows the number of years by which the period is extended to be set out on the form. The original registration period was three years and the period was then extended by four years. The number 4 will be set out on the form.

Motion agreed to.

Section 51, as amended, agreed to.

Section 52:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 52(1) of the bill be amended by striking out “renewed” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “extended.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This is simply a small drafting change. It is a housekeeping amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 52, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 53 through 55, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 56:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 56(6) of the bill be amended by striking out “changes” in the third last line and inserting in lieu thereof “damages.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This simply corrects a typographical error.

Motion agreed to.

Section 56, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 57 and 58 agreed to.

Section 59:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 59(5) of the bill be amended by striking out “clause (1)(a)” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “subsection (1).”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are correcting a cross-reference error. It is simply a housekeeping amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 59, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 60 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 65:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 65(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “(c)” in the last line and inserting in lieu thereof “(d).”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Again, we are simply correcting a cross-reference.

Motion agreed to.

Section 65, as amended, agreed to

Section 66 agreed to.

Section 67:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that clause 67(l)(f) of the bill be amended by striking out “subject to subsection (3)” in the first line.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The amendment simply deletes an unnecessary clause in the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 67, as amended, agreed to.

On section 68:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 68(4) of the bill be amended by striking out “six” in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof “10.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The amendment allows an additional four days for the deemed receipt of notices or documents by registered mail. It is a more realistic time period for the delivery of registered mail.

Motion agreed to.

Section 68, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 69 to 75, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 76:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 76(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) except as otherwise provided in this part, this act applies,

“(a) to every security agreement made on or after the day this section comes into force; and

“(b) to every security agreement made on or after April 1, 1976 if the security agreement was one to which the Personal Property Security Act, being chapter 375 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, applied immediately before the repeal of that act.

(1) except as otherwise provided in this part, this act does not apply,

“(a) to a security agreement to which a prior law applied at the time of its making, including any advance or extension of credit, delivery of services or other event occurring pursuant thereto whether before or after this section comes into force; or

“(b) to a transfer of chattel paper or an account, other than a transfer of a book debt, made before the coming into force of this section which does not secure payment for performance of an obligation.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This amendment adds an additional clause to clarify that Bill 151 does not apply to a sale of a chattel mortgage or lease or accounts, other than accounts receivable, which will occur before Bill 151 is proclaimed. It really adds an inadvertent omission and completes a section.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: I should at this point interrupt to indicate that we have an outstanding order to take divisions at 5:45 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have two more amendments in a very long list. We could complete this in another couple of minutes if the opposition members were not to notice the clock.

Agreed to.

Section 76, as amended, agreed to.

Section 77 agreed to.

Section 78:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 78(12) of the bill be amended by adding at the commencement thereof “subsection 30(6) and.”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This is simply again a housekeeping amendment which puts back in a cross-reference inadvertently omitted on first drafting.

Motion agreed to.

Section 78, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 79 and 80 agreed to.

Section 81:

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Members will be glad to hear the last of the amendments to this bill.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that section 81 of the bill be amended by adding at the commencement thereof “Except as provided in subsections 78(7) and (12).”

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This is another housekeeping amendment. This is an exception clause that ensures there is no conflict between this section and section 78, which contains the transitional rules for corporation securities which were registered under the Corporation Securities Registration Act.

Motion agreed to.

Section 81, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 82 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wrye, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

Mr. Speaker: It now being the appropriate time, I believe a number of votes have been stacked.

We will deal first, of course, with the vote on Bill 122, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. I remind the members that the bell can be for a maximum of 30 minutes.

1804

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Grandmaître’s motion for third reading of Bill 122, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra;

Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald. Mahoney, Matrundola, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., O’Neil, H., Oddie Munro, Phillips, G., Poole. Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Tatham, Ward, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Kormos, Laughren, Martel, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pope, Pouliot, Reville, Sterling, Villeneuve.

Ayes 59; nays 24.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Kerrio’s motion for third reading of Bill 175, which was agreed to on the same vote.

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Kerrio’s motion for second reading of Bill 170, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Hon. R. F. Nixon’s motion for second reading of Bill 119, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: For the interest, I know, of all House members, tomorrow, March 2, we expect to conclude this session of the 34th Parliament. The House leaders and whips have been working diligently over the last number of days to prepare a full agenda. The House will begin tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock with committee of the whole House on Bill 152 and we will proceed through a variety of other matters. We hope to conclude the day with His Honour’s address of prorogation, hopefully about this time tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

1 mars 1989