role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 13, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L148 - Wed 13 Dec 1978 / Mer 13 déc 1978

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

The House met at 9:01 a.m.

Prayers.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Chairman: Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not so much a statement, Mr. Chairman, as a few remarks. As you know, this is the first occasion I have had to present the estimates of this ministry. While the ministry is one of the more visible ministries of government by the nature of its operation, its scope and the particular subjects it does deal with, none the less there are some very significant new thrusts by the ministry that probably have not had the attention they deserve.

One of the things I would like to say this morning is that we are launching a program designed to help low-income consumers cope in today’s economic conditions. Rising prices and ripoffs are a big problem for these people; it’s a big problem for everyone but it’s much bigger for them because of the limitations upon their income. They often don’t know enough about their rights and responsibilities to fend for themselves.

Consumer education today is simply not reaching people who need it most. But we’re not creating a new arm of government with this; instead, we’re looking at ways to plug consumer education into existing community services. I think this is the role in the future. Without community participation and community support for these programs they tend to become isolated, they tend to become expensive and they tend not to really reach the people they were intended for.

Starting in April, we’ll be running the first project, which will be in Cornwall. Cornwall was chosen because of its high unemployment rate, as well as the fact that a significantly high percentage of the population is on social assistance.

First we’ll determine which of the organizations already dealing with low-income consumers can work with us to provide more consumer advice through their counselling services. For example, social workers, public health nurses and credit counsellors may include consumer education in their normal dealings with clients. Our own consumer information centre will provide basic information on money management and consumer law, as well as books, films and other resource materials, and we’ll have a staff on hand to provide advice and guidance.

The Cornwall project, which is budgeted to cost $12,000 including staff and information resources, will provide a prototype for consumer education in low-income families across the province.

We have to move into this area. It is an area of significant importance today because of a number of factors, particularly the fact that ours is an aging society where more of the population will be on fixed income. This type of approach, through the community, is really the consumer protection of tomorrow.

In the past the emphasis, and rightfully so, has been on legislation. At the same time it has always been understood that the difficulty with legislation is that it reacts to a situation that has occurred. Legislation seldom anticipates problems, nor does it really work hand in hand with the community; yet it is the community that really understands the local problems, it is the community that is more than willing to play a role every time it is asked.

One of the difficulties in the growth of big government is that for a long time government, regardless of where it was and regardless of its politics, tended to look upon the community as something that could be used occasionally but certainly wasn’t an integral part of the operation.

As I said when I was sworn in to head this ministry, one of the thrusts I want to make is to take the ministry out into the community because the community can be doing much of the frontline work. The tendency is to look at it in terms of cost -- it’s not going to cost as much if the community is doing it. The cost has very little to do with it. The fact of the matter is what is going on is in the community and the community is aware of it, the community generally has a response to it or some ideas as to how it can be treated locally.

It’s been my experience, in a previous ministry, that if you go to the public and ask them to join you in a new initiative, they are more than pleased to do so and the results speak for themselves when the community gives its support.

Mr. Conway: So we’ve noticed.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No matter how viable or how successful legislation or a policy program or a developmental program can be, without community support it is going to die.

I would also like to draw the attention of the members to the first provincial fire code. The advisory report on what should be done will be printed in totality in the Ontario Gazette of January 13. The reason for that is we want the widest possible public comment, not just from people who specialize in the building field or in the fire field, but indeed by the public.

The new building code takes care of the fire question in new buildings, but what do we do with the older buildings? Because of the nature of the very quick turnover or demise of older buildings in this country, the traditional approach has been that you grandfather the older building, because pretty soon it will be out of existence and will be bulldozed anyway.

In the light of changing conditions, where more and more older buildings are being converted and where more and more older buildings that don’t need much rehabilitation are going to be in place for some period of time, if we are to come to grips realistically with the very important question of firefighting, fire safety and, above all, fire prevention, we have to look at existing or older buildings.

To that end, the fire code advisory committee was established in November 1976 to draft an Ontario fire code for public comment by the end of 1978. They have fulfilled their mandate. That will be out there. We want the municipalities to comment; in particular, we want the comments of smaller municipalities, because a fire code that is applicable in Metropolitan Toronto may have enormous repercussions for older buildings in smaller communities and vice versa.

We want a very flexible fire code that will meet more than adequately the needs of the local community, the needs particularly of northern Ontario where it is a different type of problem than it is here, and the needs in areas where there is a volunteer fire department that is some distance away from the scene compared to the full firefighting and fire prevention resources that you have in major centres like Metropolitan Toronto.

One of the interesting things is that the committee’s draft code -- and that’s the one that is going to be published -- was developed to be consistent with the national fire code. I think there is an onus upon government these days not to duplicate; so it will be consistent with the national fire code and with the Ontario Building Code for new buildings. As rapidly as the input can be achieved, I hope this consolidation of 63 separate provincial acts concerning firefighting, fire prevention and fire safety can be brought into a single, easy-to-understand code that will be relatively easy to apply and to enforce across the province.

There is another matter of which I think the ministry should be extremely proud; so, too, should the members. I can recall, I think it was almost two years ago, the many nights spent in committee and in this Legislature concerning the Credit Union Act. One of the things that came out of that act was the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation. About a week ago, I tabled the report of OSDIC.

Those who read that report will agree that it is an excellent testimonial to the spirit of government deregulation, because it adds to the growing list of industries -- and certainly the financial industry is an industry -- that are able to regulate their own affairs without putting an inordinate drain on the public purse.

OSDIC became operational just about a year ago under the provisions of the Credit Union Act. The corporation was established to create protection for depositors. The banks and the trust companies had deposit insurance; there was a concern in the credit union movement, not because of anything that was going wrong but as to how you keep your customer when the customer says: “If I have my deposit in the chartered bank in the loan company, it is insured.

What do you have?” The Ontario Credit Union League did have a contingency fund but, with inflation and because of the success of the movement, it was considered within the movement that putting it on a more rational insurance basis might be very beneficial.

[9:15]

The corporation was not only established to provide financial protection but if there were a troubled credit union, perhaps a troubled independent credit union that really couldn’t apply to either the credit union league or the caisse populaire, who was then going to provide an orderly disposition there? Of course, this is OSDIC.

Of course, this protection is provided by a fund capitalized by an assessment of one per cent of share capital for each member. At the start the fund stood at $25 million; by this year it will be up to $32 million. This is a very interesting and significant form of consumer protection that isn’t costing the consumer, or isn’t costing government, a great amount of money to provide.

The examination of OSDIC activities came at a time when their organizational phase was just ending, but none the less it had been necessary for the staff to exercise judgement and take initiative in many situations not specifically provided for by the act. The superintendent of insurance reports -- remember he is the objective judge in that office -- that this has been done in a capable and a positive manner.

Their management has proven aggressive in anticipating and resolving problems. This has resulted in enhancing the competitive position of the credit union movement and the protection of participating consumers.

One final matter: I really think when a minister talks about his ministry there is an obligation, not just to the members but to the taxpayers, to show where we are going. First of all, I hope to be able to distribute these to the members because I want them to participate in this as well. We have gone the route of free enterprise; we are just the same as General Motors now. We have asked our employees and we are prepared to reward them up to $500 for very positive suggestions that will lead to increased productivity.

I realize this is old hat in industry. Industry has had its suggestion boxes and various awards programs, particularly in very competitive industries, for a great many years. It is unheard of in government. We are going this route.

The reason I want the members to know about it is that they certainly deal with our ministry and their constituents deal with our ministry. While I suppose, the same as police officers, we are not entitled to the reward, if there is a positive suggestion from a constituent that leads to better efficiency, economy and improved operations or service, it will be a benefit to the taxpayers.

I don’t want to set up this particular pace before Christmastime, because I know you will be busy, but shortly after the new year, when you return to your endeavours invigorated, refreshed and looking forward to paring the budget for the next fiscal year, we want to provide you with these. We hope, on a very serious note, if you do have suggestions you will participate. I think this might indeed be very motivational for the public service to know that you, as users of their services, or through you the public as users of their services, are interested in improving the service and in cutting costs. I think it would be an extremely motivational thing.

Mr. Riddell: I will recommend job fulfilment by competition, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If you want to have a competition I will tell you what I will do: next time we are going to have a land registrar’s one, I am going to put you on the committee and we’ll call in all the people who are eligible for the commission.

Mr. Riddell: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Now I tell you, the one thing I won’t do is pay you for it, because you will wind up in public accounts just the way somebody else did getting a lot of money for doing nothing, because nobody will be able to show up.

Mr. Nixon: How is that? Do you want to run that through again?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member should come in on time. I remember when he used to be here at 5:30.

Mr. Nixon: I am sorry, teacher; but I will stay late, how’s that?

Mr. Ruston: He just got the cows up.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He has never been the same since he sold the herd.

Mr. Ruston: There’s something about that. It’s kind of soothing.

Mr. Conway: You wonder why the beef prices are where they are.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just on a final note, in terms of the taxpayer in a more direct way, I think it is very incumbent upon this ministry to set an example in terms of budget restraints, and in terms of efficiency and so forth.

As I said at the very beginning, because of the scope of the ministry it does indeed affect almost everyone’s life one way or the other on a daily basis, either in terms of regulatory protection, information, education, and so on and so forth; we actually serve more than 340,000 businesses. We have conducted a survey. It shows that more than six million people are directly affected, almost daily or weekly, by our operations. We have geographically dispersed operations over the length and breadth of the province, we have the land registry, technical standards and so on -- 70 pieces of legislation altogether.

Our commitment is to absorb cost in- creases in 1978-79. The ministry this year is absorbing cost increases due to inflation and growth in workload volume. Inflation in recent years has been in excess of six per cent and workload growth averages between five to eight per cent a year. To illustrate what this means: a six per cent inflation on non-salary items represents an increase of approximately $1 million annually. A one per cent productivity improvement in our ministry translates into approximately $600,000 in non-statutory expenditures.

Just to absorb that six per cent every year we need a two per cent improvement in productivity, and we are doing it. We are committed to holding the line in 1979-80 as well. That means absorbing a forecast of approximately $5 million in non-controllable increases through productivity improvement and service level adjustments. Our workload increases alone are expected to represent approximately 80 man-years or more than $3 million, yet we will not ask Management Board for additional manpower operating dollars for 1979-80.

We are committed to constraints of $1 million absorbed in 1978-79 and another $1 million in 1979-80. This is over and above normal cost increases. We intend to have better resource utilization through better management, such as much more business-like administration through an improved management structure, improved resource planning and allocation process, greater accountability, resource control. We started to examine and forecast longer range resource needs over three years and to draft three-year expenditure forecasts rather than the traditional much shorter forecasts.

Also, cost recovery guidelines are now being used internally and self-funding alternatives are being examined automatically when we are looking at new policy moves and so forth.

It is not quite the stuff that headlines are made of but it is the stuff that leaves more money in the taxpayer’s pocket. By the same token, it also allows the head office of the ministry to allocate more resources to priority areas without having to go to the taxpayer.

Mr. Nixon: Like Correctional Services?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. Correctional Services is an example for the entire world -- even the American states. On that note Mr. Chairman, I will sit down.

Mr. Breithaupt: I didn’t realize there would be as many people here this morning.

Mr. Nixon: What a great send-off.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s very difficult, of course, to come to grips with a ministry of this size in something around three and a half hours.

Mr. Conway: And a new minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, that’s true too, we have a new minister in this portfolio. Certainly I think that the activities of the ministry have never had a higher profile. The 25 hours we expected to have to discuss the great variety of interests and activities contained in these estimates has now shrunk to about four hours. The end result is that we are going to be dealing with some $300,000 a minute. Whether I talk quickly or not, I am sure the time is still going to pass and, eventually, the money will, of course, be voted for everything covered in the minister’s comments.

While this ministry has only a few hours before us this morning, we have, in fact, seen a great amount of legislation over this past year. Indeed, I would suggest that probably the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has had more legislative time than any other ministry in the province.

We have completely reworked the Securities Act and its two companion pieces of legislation. We have had a new Condominium Act, which has now finally received the support of the House after public hearings. We have the Residential Tenancies Act which had developed from the report of the general government committee after its hearings in the spring and which will now be continued with further hearings on clause by clause dealing with what is now bill 163. In addition, eight or nine other acts have been amended, and we have had before us as of yesterday the new statute to deal with pyramidic sales.

There is, as I say, a great volume of legislation which has appeared before us in the House, and there are a great number of activities on which I am sure many members will have questions. I think one thing we should do is ensure that the ministry does come before us early in the next session so that whether we are in the House or in committee, probably in committee, we will have the opportunity to have a full review of all of the activities.

Mr. Conway: The minister will probably be Attorney General by then.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not a lawyer yet.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t let that stop you; we can soon fix that by legislation through one of those fine bills you are famous for.

Mr. Breithaupt: We can pass another bill which would at least grant that status from time to time.

We have in this ministry, as I have said, such a great variety of items. We deal with everything from rent review to the pension commission. We are involved with the securities commission, the operation of insurance, and indeed everything from waitresses and their elevation problems to elevators and the waiting problems, which we all have.

In any event we are going to be going through the votes and there are going to be questions which I am sure a great number of members will want to ask. As a result, I am not going to take any further time in opening comments.

I do congratulate the minister for the activity and for the quality of the staff which his ministry has. I have had some involvement in recent years as chairman of the select committee on company law and the involvement there, for example, with Murray Thompson and the members of his staff has been certainly a most worthwhile one. In meeting with various other members of the minister’s staff through sessions on the rent review legislation and the condominium legislation, I have again been impressed with the quality and dedication of the people who serve in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We will be having the opportunity, as the minister knows, to go through all of the branches in detail early in the next session. I think that the time would be better spent this morning allowing questions on particular matters to be placed by a greater variety of the members so that we have the opportunity of covering as many particular points of interest as may be possible.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Unlike my colleague from Kitchener, rather than using my time to ask questions, I will use most of my time on my lead-off. As a result of the government’s calling back the assembly so late in the fall and the change of Ministers of Consumer and Commercial Relations in mid-October of this session, we do find ourselves in a position with something under four hours to consider the estimates of this ministry as opposed to the 20 hours which was originally agreed upon.

Frankly, I have to agree with the member for Kitchener that it’s just not possible to deal with all the aspects of this rather complex and far-flung ministry in such a brief period of time. If I might, I think I would concentrate my contribution solely on what I view to be the most important element of the ministry, which is the element of consumer protection.

On this issue, the ministry’s record has been abysmal. The fault is not the fault of the ministry staff, who are by and large a group of men and women I find to be immensely skilful and capable. It is the fault of a government that has shown itself clearly to be fundamentally disinterested in effectively protecting consumers’ rights in this province, a government most willing to talk about consumer protection, but a government unwilling to act.

[9:30]

The previous minister spoke eloquently about protecting consumers and failed to take action in most of the cases that were brought to his attention. The current minister is different. The current minister speaks loudly of protecting consumers but fails to act or fails in his acting.

The issue is of fundamental importance, and I think in this case it is fair to characterize the government’s role as one of all talk, no action. That is not a view I alone hold, nor is it a view shared only by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. It is a view shared by the consumers of Ontario.

Earlier this year, just a few months ago, the ministry published a rather interesting document called Ontario Consumer Issues. I do not know how many members of the assembly have had a chance yet to read that document, but I recommend it highly. It makes rather interesting reading on the problems and concerns of consumers in Ontario. The document is in essence a survey that was conducted sometime earlier this year, with the results. I would like to share a few of the facts and figures that appear in that document published by the ministry.

“Consumers believe that business cares more about consumer needs than does government.” What a sad state of affairs when consumers say that. “About two-thirds of consumers believe that government favours business more than it does consumers.” That is both true and sad, and is something that an NDP government will change when it comes to power.

“Only one per cent of consumers in the province would turn to the Ontario government for information and assistance on a major purchase decision.” It is rather interesting to note that four times that many consumers would go to the local library for information.

Consumers were asked where they were taking their complaints. Of the nearly 1,000 people interviewed, not one single consumer even mentioned the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Indeed, to read the results of the survey it is clear that consumers believe they can have a better hearing and get more useful service from writing a letter to the editor of their local newspaper.

The issue of consumer protection is a crucial one in the province, and certainly in the area I represent, Hamilton Centre. Earlier this spring I sent a questionnaire to my constituents and asked them if they would list what they believe to be the five most important issues in Ontario today. It is obvious that in a riding like Hamilton Centre at this time the top issue would be unemployment. But the second most frequent response, quite interestingly enough, was consumer protection, and that went well ahead of issues such as inflation and national unity and half a dozen others.

I also asked my constituents if they thought the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is adequately -- underline adequately -- protecting consumers. Of those who replied 19.4 per cent were undecided; 15.8 per cent of those who replied said yes; and a resounding 64.8 per cent of those people who replied said no, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations was not even doing an adequate job of protecting consumers.

The incredible lack of consumer confidence in this government and this ministry is not particularly hard to understand, Mr. Chairman. It is a question of results and the record quite frankly is appalling. Last year the ministry handled over 17,000 complaints, and was able to obtain how many convictions?-- 179. What a batting average. Anyone with that record would be thrown out of any other league but this.

I know that on occasion this government has exhibited a flair for bungling and ineptitude, but that is not the case with this ministry and that is not the case with that particular problem. I have a suspicion that only by purposely trying could anyone obtain such a bad record.

I understand, and I will be quite frank about it, that many of the problems the minister is struggling with now were not problems of his own making but problems he inherited from his predecessor, his predecessor’s predecessor and so on.

One example of that is the current Ontario-Quebec auto insurance nightmare we are all involved in. That was another case of another minister counting his chickens before they were hatched. Members of the assembly will recall that on March 1 of this year the province of Quebec brought in a new no-fault insurance scheme. It became impossible for Ontarians and other non-Quebec residents to be able to participate in the scheme and that, therefore, made it quite difficult and dangerous for people from outside of the province of Quebec to be driving about in that province.

The then minister quite appropriately went down and met with his counterpart in the Quebec government, Honourable Lise Payette. He came back and on July 11, in a news release from the ministry, quite appropriately entitled “Grossman Secures Equal Treatment for Ontario Drivers,” he announced that he had, “reached an agreement with Madame Lise Payette whereby Ontario residents driving in Quebec would be given the same rights as Quebec drivers to participate in the Quebec no-fault insurance plan.”

While that is a direct quote from the minister’s press release, it is perhaps not quite an accurate statement. I think perhaps the agreement is more accurately reflected in another document. That document is one that recently came into my hands. It is a memo dated August 2, 1978. It is a confidential memo from Mr. Grossman to members of the PC caucus in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s one of the real classified ones of all time. I wondered how you were developing the talent. Now I know.

Mr. M. N. Davison: How many copies do you have? Did you send me the copy, Frank?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I wouldn’t send you anything.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister characterized the agreement with Madame Payette in a slightly different fashion. I quote from that document: “I secured from Mme Payette an agreement in principle that Ontario residents would be compensated on the same basis as Quebec residents.” Those are two different agreements that are talked about: one is the agreement that is suggested to have taken place publicly, and a second different kind of agreement that is told to the members of the PC caucus.

According to the July 12 press release from the minister, “the two ministers agreed to have their senior ministry officials meet immediately to draft the necessary agreement to implement our decision. It should come into effect within two or three weeks.”

The internal party communique adds another dimension to the publicly-revealed follow-up meetings. The memo to the members of the PC caucus characterizes them in this fashion: “It was agreed that the officials of the regie and my ministry would work together to have Ontario-based insurers agree to reimburse the regie, at least to the extent that the new Quebec plan as altered by my discussion with Mme Payette will save these insurers money.” That is a much different set of continuing talks than the continuing talks outlined in the minister’s press release.

Finally, there are two elements of that memo to the PC caucus which, frankly, disturb me. They cause me some concern. The two matters are that the industry seems to have been lobbying -- not terribly effectively, I suppose, in terms of the Ontario government -- for a somewhat different approach to the problems presented by Ontarians driving in Quebec. The second is that the former minister makes reference to some element of political motivation, and some element of political risk involved in the ministry’s position. Frankly, I am not sure exactly what that means.

Perhaps I could read the three relevant paragraphs of the memo into the record and the other members would be in a position to judge for themselves.

“The automobile insurance industry, clearly recognizing its involvement in the various provinces and states surrounding Quebec, made an alternative proposal directly to the Quebec government which they hoped would be acceptable to all jurisdictions. The effect of their proposal was that the industry would undertake to pay the amounts of the Quebec benefits in respect of death or injury of all non-residents of Quebec in accidents in that province, if at the same time the Quebec government agreed to make such payments to all Quebec residents without recourse against such at-fault non-resident drivers.

The industry proposal may have required the Ontario insurance contract to be amended, notwithstanding that there was a precedent for recognizing the higher Quebec benefits in this way.

“A specific amendment would be likely to call into question the equity of the Ontario contract being specifically adjusted to provide higher no-fault benefits in Quebec than it would in Ontario. Further, as the industry proposal would have relieved Quebec of making any direct payments to Ontario residents, injured or killed in that province, it is likely that the arrangement would be viewed by the public as being biased in favour of Quebec.

“For this reason I found the proposal to be politically unacceptable. On the other hand, my agreement with Madame Payette to have Quebec make payments to residents and non-residents without discrimination and without regard to fault, ensures that Ontario residents will get the same, and in some cases higher benefits than they would have under the industry proposal, while at the same time we would have avoided the political risks which I felt we would be taking had I agreed with the industry alternative.”

About four weeks ago, there were reports in the press on the breakdown of whatever agreement the press was privy to. There was talk of Quebec having reneged on a deal or misinterpreted the agreement. But the current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was quoted as saying he was totally mystified about the Quebec reversal. The minister also went on to suggest that the problem is --

Hon. Mr. Drea: Do you mind telling me where it’s from?

Mr. M. N. Davison: That quotation “totally mystified”? In an article, I believe, on November 18 by one Eric Dowd.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No it isn’t.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Is the minister suggesting he was misquoted?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would like to see it. At your leisure, you can send me the article. It doesn’t matter now.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Is that not the minister’s position? Did he not say he was totally mystified?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would like to see the article. If you don’t even know where it came from then I’ll have to go and find it myself.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The evening Ottawa Journal, November 15, 1978, in an

article entitled “Quebec Breaking Off Auto Insurance Deal,” by Eric Dowd of the Journal’s Toronto bureau, in the second to last paragraph it reads as follows: “He” -- the minister -- “said he is ‘totally mystified about the reversal,’ but he believes it is a result of misinterpretation at a lower level.”

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh well, that’s quite different from what you originally suggested. Thank you for reading it to me in context.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I was just going to read you that line also. You were totally mystified though?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I was talking in a different context. You asked me a question.

Mr. Chairman: Order; would the member for Hamilton Centre continue.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Yes, now that that is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, I’ll continue.

The

article goes on to state that the minister said he’d be willing to go down to Quebec and straighten this matter out. That’s fine, and I’m sure we’re all going to be quite happy when the problem is solved. We all would like to see the problem solved; perhaps the minister will inform us during the estimates debate as to what the status is now.

But that is not what I’m really concerned about today. There is some confusion as to exactly what deal was made between the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for Ontario (Mr. Grossman) and his counterpart in Quebec. Was it the deal suggested in the minister’s press release; or was it some different kind of deal as conjured up by the minister’s memo to members of his caucus?

[9:45]

It may well be possible, contrary to press reports, that the province of Quebec is not to blame for any of the delay or any of the worries of its staff having misinterpreted agreements and so on. It would be a very good idea for the current minister to table a copy of the original agreement so we might all see what deal was made and where the bottleneck was in those months since July in finding some resolution to this problem. I would also like very much for the minister to table a copy of the industry proposals so that it might be possible to make a less subjective analysis of the political acceptability of that particular proposal.

The matter I just referenced is, as I said earlier, a case of another minister at another time counting his chickens before they were hatched. The deal didn’t go through. I talked earlier about just talk and no action being something of a hallmark of that minister in his brief life. The current minister went out of his way upon his appointment to this ministry to show us what the ministry can do in the way of being all talk and no action. That issue, as I am sure all members will recall, occurred within minutes of the minister being sworn in when he was off and running about topless waitresses in the province of Ontario.

The quotes from the newspapers of October 18, 19, and 20 read as follows -- I just have a brief survey and I can find the particular newspaper if the minister is interested: “My advice to the girls is to get their clothes on, and I mean above the waist too. There will be no more topless. I want clothes. There is no more topless, there’s nothing. I want clothes on the girls. On Monday I want to crack down.”

Mr. Nixon: It’s kind of poetry, modern poetry.

Mr. M. N. Davison: There weren’t very many people who disagreed with you at the time. It was a question of fundamental human dignity that nobody in this province, be they male or female, should have to strip to get a job as a waitress or as a waiter. I think there was very little disagreement with you and people would have applauded action on your part.

Unfortunately, they didn’t get it. I could be wrong. There may have been some other reason or some other motivation for what you said, but through all the noise that’s what I got as being the guts of it. I’m sure you would correct me if I was wrong.

Mr. Hennessy: You’re never wrong.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Within a day, speculation had begun about just how you were going to accomplish this worthy goal; fair enough. By Monday, October 23, the minister, quite frankly, had managed to become totally carried away with himself. In regard to his earlier statements he said: “I don’t need anything to enforce it. There will be no new legislation. There will be no new regulation.”

Of the liquor board he said, in response to comments: “I certainly hope they read or hear what I am saying today.” Of the licensed establishments in the province, he had the temerity to say: “God help them if they don’t carry out what they promised.”

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s taken out of context. It referred to minors and quite a few others. You are utterly incapable of quoting anything in context.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Later that day the minister was seen running around the hallways at Queen’s Park, waving around the Liquor Licence Act and flashing to anyone who would be interested in seeing it the precise reference to

section 10(1) --

Mr. Nixon: It worked.

Mr. M. N. Davison: -- of the Liquor Licence Act with which he was somehow going to threaten these operators in order to put clothes back on their waitresses. That didn’t work, either.

Mr. Nixon: We will support you, Frank; we will make you an honest man.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister then said he would have these owners of the premises cover up their topless waitresses or he’d have them hauled before the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. Further conditions were going to be attached. There was talk and talk and talk and talk, and no action.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You know, they are going to think I paid you to do this, honestly. Nobody’s ever going to believe this.

Mr. M. N. Davison: There was no action from this ministry. It seemed to go on endlessly. Day after day, the minister was in the paper with some other bizarre statement about what he was going to do, but there was no follow-up on doing anything. Finally, the government shirked its responsibility totally and passed it on to the municipality.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s what they wanted.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You put the onus on the municipalities. There was an effective solution right from the first day. That’s the one put forward by my colleague, the member for Hamilton East in his private member’s bill. That was a real and sensible solution. There didn’t have to be a lot of talk, there could have been immediate action. That’s the kind of bill that could have passed in this House very quickly.

The issue remains before us. The question is, as I said earlier, one of fundamental human dignity. I can’t help but in some way resent the side show the minister managed to create.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You created most of it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister managed to create it all by himself.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You were waving your ad. Then you were coming over and giving me a private message.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What’s that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: You and your side were waving your ad out of the Globe and Mail, and then coming over and giving me a private message.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Does the member for Hamilton Centre have anything further?

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’m afraid I do. Frankly, I can’t object too strenuously to the minister looking silly. I suppose politically I should be able to extract some good feelings from that.

Mr. Hennessy: You are past that stage.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I should be pleased about it, but you see his antics managed to turn the issue into a joke and that was wrong. I certainly would suggest to the minister that is not an exercise he should repeat in the future. That’s not the way you go about protecting consumers or anybody else in the province of Ontario.

The topless issue served to hide another promise or another commitment made that same day by the minister. This was in terms of consumer protection, and was a much more significant commitment. He committed himself to beefing up the investigative capacities of his ministry; and quite rightly so, that was something which was in need of doing, that’s a promise I would like to see the minister keep.

That same day I wrote to him and congratulated him. I’m sure the minister will recall receiving that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I never got it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Sure you got it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I didn’t. I wouldn’t say that if I had.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I wrote you the same day. It was in the letter I wrote you about condominiums and the commitments of the former minister before the committee.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, no.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s no doubt buried in your office somewhere. I’ll make sure you get another copy of the letter.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, for my scrapbook; especially the congratulations letter.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s right. It was the same day I wrote to you and congratulated you in that regard. I assumed at the time what the minister meant by beefing up was a synonym for increase, make greater. Am I right so far? Yes. However, yesterday when my office contacted your ministry to measure your performance in this regard, the performance was not particularly spectacular.

The personnel people in your ministry said since October 19 there had been only two changes made in terms of direction. One was the result of consolidation and a person moving to the business practices enforcement and investigating branch. The second change was the pooling of a group of 12 people dealing with inspection and complaint handling.

I also understand that between October 19 and December 13 your Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations staff has increased by 37 and decreased by 26. I would very much like to know how many of those 11 people were hired on as investigators. I’d like you to be able to tell me you’ve created one or two or 10 or 20 new investigative jobs at the ministry.

If my information is correct, as I said earlier it is hardly a spectacular way to start keeping that commitment, that promise to increase the investigative capacities of the ministry. I would suggest that the minister go about increasing the investigative capacity by the simple expediency of hiring some more investigators. I think that would be a useful thing for the minister to do.

The minister announced on October 24 that the certificate of Bestline Products of Canada Limited would be lifted. He took that action for good reasons. I’m sure he was involved in some of the cases.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Oh he wasn’t involved in some of the cases? Many members of the assembly were, and I know of some members on the government side of the House who were involved in cases where that company had ripped off constituents.

This matter has been before the ministry at least as complaints from MPPs for the past several years. It was good to see the ministry take action to do something about that company. However, the ministry seems to have run into some roadblocks before the commercial registration appeal tribunal. It was originally suggested that action be taken in the early part of November.

Hon. Mr. Drea: December.

Mr. M. N. Davison: There were later reports that it would start on December 7. If I’m not mistaken, the hearing is now postponed until sometime in the middle of February, subject, I suppose, to further delays. Unfortunately, the initiative has been temporarily lost in that regard.

The minister announced, though, in the second week of November -- I believe November 8, possibly November 7 -- that he would be moving to revoke the Pyramidic Sales Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Same day, October 24.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It wasn’t reported until much later.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is in Hansard.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The member for Kitchener referred to some possible action in this regard. We’re now at the last part of our session with the important occupational health and safety bill coming up almost immediately I would hope. I don’t think the Bestline issue is a matter of controversy in terms of what actions the minister will be taking. I don’t intend to participate in the debate. My party will support the minister’s position. I think the time would be better spent on Bill 70.

I would take this opportunity, during my contribution to the estimates debate, to make a couple of remarks and observations. They really are in the form of notice of questions. If one of your staff can make note of these concerns, you could respond to them during the debate on the bill to revoke the Pyramidic Sales Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Do you want it responded to then or do you want it responded to now?

Mr. M. N. Davison: If you can do it now that’s fine, but if you would like the time between now and the debate on the Pyramidic Sales Act to check out the facts or the answers, that’s fine also.

Could you tell me how it was that Bestline ever managed to get registered in the province of Ontario, with its absolutely horrid record in the United States of America? Can you also tell me how Bestline ever managed to get registered in the province of Ontario under this act because of the actions of a company by the name of Golden Canada Products Limited? In November of 1972 that company was raided by the Metro fraud squad. Fifty people were charged, 35 people were arrested; there were a large number of convictions. There are still outstanding warrants against certain people involved in that shambles.

Almost overnight, Bestline came in with the same people, to the same address in Toronto, with the same line of products; in fact the same company. With a record such as those people brought from Golden Canada Products Limited, why on earth were they allowed to operate under the name of Bestline Ltd., a different name doing exactly the same thing?

[10:00]

The other question I have is in regard to the necessity of corporations filing information with your ministry. There was a period, I believe it was 1974-75-76, in which Bestline failed to file with the ministry. I’d like you to look into that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m sorry, failed to file what?

Mr. M. N. Davison: In 1974, 1975 and 1976 they failed to file the --

Hon. Mr. Drea: The annual return under the Pyramidic Sales Act?

Mr. M. N. Davison: I think it’s the annual return under the Corporate Information Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh okay; fine.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why was no investigation of the company launched or no action taken against the company at that time?

Finally, Mr. Minister, have you investigated the accidental destruction of the Bestline records on file in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations? If so, could you report back to the assembly on that matter?

I’ll be brief. There are just a couple of other points I wanted to touch on. One is the question of booze, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Breaugh: You know that, Frank.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Booze, b-o-o-z-e; the minister, shortly after coming to this appointment, suggested the liquor industry in the province should be allowed to police itself. The Globe and Mail, I’ll quote it exactly.

Mr. Haggerty: Do you write for the Globe and Mall, Frank?

Hon. Mr. Drea: If I did I would get better quotes than that.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You can blame Barbara Yaffe and not myself if you’ve been misquoted. The minister said: “The liquor industry has come of age and it’s time the province began treating it just like any other business. The minister said the move would be politically dicey for any government, and so far is untried in any other province, but added: ‘Let’s forget about the past. It’s a new time. Today the liquor licence holders are business people. Everybody’s going to say oh no, not self-regulation for liquor; but I’m saying look, it’s a business like any other business.

I want to get rid of all this idea that it’s unlike ... that is, this is something very special here that you have to watch over; you don’t.’”

The

article goes on at some length. I don’t much mind, Mr. Minister, exploratory thinking, and on occasion --

Hon. Mr. Drea: What’s your problem with that?

Mr. M. N. Davison: -- I don’t mind it out loud, but it will perhaps be better if, on such issues, you might feel out some people privately first.

Mr. Haggerty: You are thinking but not out loud.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’m thinking of people on the liquor licence board or people in the industry.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The bartenders’ union likes it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Frankly, I don’t think it’s a very good idea. I don’t think that will be a particularly useful direction to take.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Ontario Federation of Labour likes it.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I think it is not wise, overnight, to deregulate totally, the liquor industry.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Nobody is going to; it is perfectly clear in that article.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would ask you to proceed with a bit more caution on issues such as that.

The other matter with booze is this: If that’s a subject that attracts you strongly and you’re going to be spending a fair amount of time talking about it, could I suggest an issue you might pick up on that would be particularly useful? If you want to do something about it, why don’t you crack down on these bars and pubs in Ontario that still function on a men-only basis and don’t serve women? We have laws against that.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Ottawa “men only.”

Mr. M. N. Davison: I think that’s something you can do to help women in the province. It’s something fairly non-controversial but something that would be useful. I think you should try your hand at that to see that women are able to go into the bars of Ontario and be served on the same basis as men.

There is another matter that concerns me. One of my favourite group of companies are not insurance companies, Mr. Minister. We will, no doubt, be working together for some short time yet and you should be aware of my biases.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Are you retiring?

Mr. Breithaupt: He doesn’t like insurance companies.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The particular aspect that disturbs me is that, as you know, the Anti-Inflation Board looks into insurance companies each year and makes its comments. This year, 21 insurance companies are going to have to pay back $37.5 million, which is a pretty hefty sum of money.

The insurance companies -- auto insurance companies, by and large -- use a neat gimmick. I don’t know if the minister is aware of this. Last year, Allstate was ordered to pay back about $15 million. You really are in good hands with Allstate. Do you know what they did? They wouldn’t give you the rebate unless you renewed your auto insurance policy with them. So you had to go back to the people who ripped you off and renew your policy in order to get the money they had overcharged you, as set forth by the AIB. Insurance companies in this province come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and I think there is a role for you to play here.

The list has been published in the newspapers; I am sure there are copies of it in the ministry’s files. I am not going to read all of them now, but I have taken the trouble to check with a few of the insurance companies and perhaps I can share some of that information with you.

Albion Insurance Company, one of the 21 companies, will offer rate reductions to its auto policyholders only upon renewal of a contract; there will be no money given to those who don’t renew.

The Guardian Insurance Company of Toronto is pulling something really interesting. What they are doing is giving the rebate only to a select group of customers, five-year policyholders who were still holding policies as of December 1977. They are doing that because they would like to give out greater chunks of money individually than just $1 or $2 bills, and I am not at all sure that is a terribly fair action on their part.

Another insurance company that caught my eye was State Farm. They are one of the big ones: they ripped off $14.2 million from their purchasers.

Mr. Haggerty: Oh, I get quite a rebate back from State Farm.

Mr. M. N. Davison: They are going to use the mechanism of rate reductions and discounts, and they say that is going to include non-renewable contracts. You can’t have a rate reduction discount on a non-renewable contract, because the person has gone.

If the minister wants to do something to help consumers, here is a really good place for him to go to work. These insurance companies ripped off consumers to the tune of $37.5 million, the AIB caught them with their hands in the pockets of the consumers and the insurance companies then run a fiddle that supplies only the people who renew with them with a rebate. I think the minister should take a look at that and do something about that.

The whole area of food costs cries out for attention. It cries out for more than talking turkey, I guess. It requires action also.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Did you notice the price of turkey? You could even have it upstairs in the gallery last night. You can even afford to have it in Queen’s Park.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It doesn’t scan just to stand up in the House and show an ad saying that turkey prices have gone down 10 cents on the pound. That is an area that is new to the ministry, and it is an area I would like to see the ministry expand its work in. But I would like to see the minister do more than use moral suasion to try to convince some profiteers in the food industry to reduce their prices.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Why ruin a good act? It worked so well with turkeys, you never know.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I will give the minister time on that because, as I say, it is new and it is probably going to take him time for his people to adjust to that area.

There is a whole slew of individual consumer ripoffs. They go from the poor newspaper boy who is chiselled by the newspaper companies in this province --

Mr. Haggerty: He’s right on that, Frank. That’s one I agree on.

Mr. M. N. Davison: -- gypsies telling fortunes and palm readers to all varieties of door-to-door salesmen. I think that is something the minister can usefully involve himself in. All the minister has to do is pick up the newspaper every day and he will see all kinds of stories like that about consumers in need.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Do you want me to bust gypsy fortune tellers? Witchcraft is under the criminal code.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I didn’t say bust. We are talking about consumer ripoffs. People who rip off consumers are not necessarily stupid, frequently they are quite clever. The ministry is going to have to be sharp to catch them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Would you say that again?

Mr. M. N. Davison: Say what again?

Hon. Mr. Drea: People who rip off consumers --

Mr. M. N. Davison: Are not necessarily stupid people.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, they are very smart.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s right. They are usually very clever. That means the ministry is going to have to be clever to work on behalf of consumers. But this is how you can restore consumer confidence, or create consumer confidence in your ministry, by following up on concerns you can pick out of the newspaper. You don’t even have to go beyond your office to find them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You weren’t serious about gypsies?

Mr. Breaugh: Frank, if you thought there was a headline in attacking gypsies you would be all over them with a wet cloth.

Mr. M. N. Davison: That’s right, you would be there.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Witchcraft is under the criminal code.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister shows very little reluctance to jump outside of his jurisdiction. He seems to spend half his time jumping back and forth over the fence.

Mr. Makarchuk: It is giving him a star --

Mr. Breaugh: Frank Drea attacks gypsy caravan.

Mr. M. N. Davison: If you want to tramp on some federal toes -- because my goodness the federal Liberals are just as bad as you guys are in terms of consumer protection -- why don’t you start looking at hazardous products and articles? You have everything front stuffed toys to cosmetics. That would keep you busy for a long time, Mr. Minister; there’s lots of room for action there and you won’t get in so much trouble.

Another issue that really disturbs me is the whole question of smoke detectors. I raised that with your ministry some time ago. I am concerned about the possible dangers of radiation exposure from certain kinds of smoke detectors on the market. That is a more immediate problem now that certain townships, and I suppose municipalities eventually, are making them compulsory.

The Consumers’ Association of Canada said that in a test they conducted only three of 19 smoke detectors responded approximately. Three out of 19; 16 out of 19 flunked; and those are going into homes. I think that’s another issue you should go after and take a look at, both from the question of hazards to health from certain kinds of smoke detectors, as well as just how good these smoke detectors are in responding to blazes.

I have gone on at some length. If I had 20 hours I would have done it differently. It’s unfortunate we don’t have time to deal with all of the aspects of the ministry, but I do think that consumer protection is the critical area. It’s an important issue for us. I believe there is a pivotal role that the government could play. The government, as a public steward, should act the part of a player, not a cheerleader.

When the day comes, in the not-too-distant future, that the New Democratic Party is the government in the province of Ontario, that’s a role this party will fulfil. This party will be serious about providing real protection to consumers in Ontario. While we remain temporarily in the opposition, I would like the minister to know that he has our assurance we will continue to push, drag and bully this government into doing something about consumer protection and adopting a more useful role.

Mr. Breithaupt: I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the minister did wish to discuss two of the particular points raised by the member for Hamilton Centre. The one about the Quebec insurance situation and the other one with respect to the liquor matter concerning the “men only” pubs in Ottawa. Do you prefer to discuss those two items when we actually get to the votes or shall we do that now?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am rather surprised -- I guess the member isn’t here too often -- since I promised to deliver a full statement on the Ontario-Quebec insurance matter to the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) this Friday; I will do it then.

Mr. Breithaupt: I was just wondering what the minister’s intentions were, with the point having been raised.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will do it then.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will table as much as is available. I made a commitment to the member for Cornwall some time ago. I am rather surprised that somebody’s asking me to break it now.

On vote 1401, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Chairman: Any questions on item 1, vote 1401?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) made some comments and I didn’t hear them.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview didn’t have the floor.

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh I am sorry, I thought he had.

Mr. M. N. Davison: On a point of order: Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to discuss everything under the first vote so we can range broadly with the short amount of time we have, rather than having members hang around for some votes that may or may not come up later on.

Mr. Chairman: As the honourable members are aware the House passed a motion, I believe it was last April, setting out the order. If it’s the wish of the committee by unanimous consent because of the limited amount of time, to open it up under the first vote, it’s entirely up to the committee. Agreed?

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I just ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the minister intending to make comments on the Bestline situation now or are you more likely to wait until the bill comes forward?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In light of the fact that a bill will be introduced this afternoon and will be before the House, I really think, as a minister, I should make those replies then. I don’t mind taking the questions in an effort to save some time, but I think it would be much more proper at that time, when members have the bill before them.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would agree.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On the question of the pubs, I am blissfully unaware of the situation, but I presume there may still be some beverage rooms, although not very many, that have rooms specifically licensed men only, ladies, and escorts and ladies. I have not heard lately of segregation in any lounge or dining lounge or other places, but I am prepared to look into it.

I think the proper vehicle for that is the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Obviously they would have some concerns on the matter, because it’s not just a question of association, it’s a question of discrimination in the ability to obtain service that is generally applicable to the public. I didn’t know anything about it, but I will be very glad to look into the matter.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s the Grads Hotel on Somerset in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t really think that would have been one of my spots in Ottawa, but I will be very glad to look at it.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to speak on the first vote dealing with the minister’s remarks concerning administration. I was interested in his opening remarks concerning consumer education and the consumer protection bureau, I am wondering, in the program you are going to put forward informing the public of some useful information that may assist them in any of their transactions with the purchasing of goods or buying almost anything, will the 512 investigators be enough if you are going to get into a massive program of educating the consumer in Ontario?

I have a few other things I want to deal with so the minister may answer afterward. I was concerned, too, about the provincial fire code. This is a major improvement in that we are going to have some standardization in fire codes in the province of Ontario. I am sure the minister is well aware of the new provincial building code relating to fire prevention and smoke detectors. Particularly, it says that any building above 45 feet or three floors is compelled to have smoke detectors, but any apartment dwelling below that is not required to have them.

Hopefully, the minister will be looking at that particular area to ensure that smoke detectors are installed in any apartment building or high-rise from the ground floor up.

Another matter he mentioned was older buildings in certain communities where new fire standards need to be brought in for rented premises. I think this is a good step and is something that was neglected over the years. Many persons are renting some premises that are not suitable for habitation. I commend the minister for moving in this area.

One important thing that the minister had not touched upon is the AIB guidelines, the winding down and deregulation of the legislation presently before us. I am concerned about this particular area. If you look at wage increases. particularly this year, they have been held down, certainly from the years 1973, 1975 and 1976. In that area, they are down about an average of six per cent, but we also see that consumer prices are increasing considerably.

I feel you are going to have to have more investigation into this particular area to see that the consumer is not being taken on it. We see the profit increase in certain consumer products. We see it in shelter costs, we see it in home heating oil, we see it in gas, we see it in gasoline prices and we see a high increase in hydro costs. We see it in almost everything, and yet nobody seems to be moving in this direction to see if it is necessary for them to have this substantial increase. The telephone is another area where we have had a substantial increase in the cost of services.

If you are out buying gas, for example, although the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta have arrived at an agreement now that there will be no price increase in crude oil for the next six months or perhaps a year, you notice that the price of gasoline at the pump has increased substantially. Just recently I bought a new car. I believe you could run it on regular no-lead gas, but now I find that you almost have to go to a new product which they call super no-lead gas, and there is quite a price increase in this particular fuel.

I suggest to the minister that perhaps there should be an investigation in this particular area to see if this price increase is justified. I know he is frowning over there, thinking about this particular thing, but it is an area that we should be looking at because I think the consumer in this particular area could be well ripped off in the new gimmick that they have. If they could not get the price increase through the federal government’s allowing it, they are going to get it in some other manner, and this is perhaps one way.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There are four grades of gas.

Mr. Haggerty: There are four grades of gas. That is right. But when you buy the car, it says unleaded gas. It does not say anything about super. It just says standard gas. Then you find out now that the person who purchased that car is having difficulties. Whether they reduced the octane in the common non-lead and increased it in the super non-lead, I do not know. I suggest that the minister have an inquiry into this particular area. Perhaps it might be price fixing with the oil industry today. I suggest that it may be in violation of the Combines Investigation Act, which is a federal legislation, but the minister should be moving in this particular area.

Too often, because of wage increases, labour has been criticized as the area that causes the increase in inflation. But they cannot be blamed for it now because there has been some stability in wage increases in Ontario and industry itself has increased the prices substantially.

We can see it in the price of bread that is coming along now. They say it is going to be an increase of 12 cents a loaf, but who knows what it is going to be. I think in this particular area you are going to have more investigation into the particular area of consumer pricing.

I commend the minister for what action he has taken on the matter of pricing of turkeys. All it took was for a member of the House to raise that issue and for some dialogue across the chamber. The message came through to the suppliers and they have dropped the price of turkeys. I think we need some investigations in this area. Let them know they are wrong, that is the most important thing. Let’s not have labour being the scapegoats of this price increase and almost everything else today. If not, you are going to have to come in with further controls.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, replying in order, the first question dealt with the ability to provide more consumer education. That is why I am so interested in what will be going on in Cornwall. First of all, effective consumer education, I think everybody agrees, is the key to the individual being effective and being able to cope in the marketplace. On the negative side, it is not just a question of avoiding all the pitfalls that may come along. On the positive side, it is feeling confident in the marketplace that you are somewhat in control of your destiny, and you can refuse to buy at this particular time or choose to buy. There is no question that consumer education is the key to that.

One of the difficulties, of course, is you cannot reach all of society, particularly in all age brackets, at one time. In the past few years one of the great improvements that has come along is the consumer education in the schools, both primary and secondary. As a matter of fact, while it did come from the Ministry of Education in the past, a great deal of the spark for that was provided in the very original days of this ministry, which is only 11 or 12 years old, when it was called the Ministry of Financial and Commercial Affairs. At that time, the late Mr.

Rowntree was the minister and he was fully acquainted with the corporate world. This was Mr. Rowntree’s approach. There had to be a stimulant provided for consumer education, and not just in terms of being able to buy bread or milk or clothes or what have you, but indeed all the way up through the intricacies of buying stocks and bonds and annuities and life insurance and so on and so forth.

We did provide a stimulus and did help the Ministry of Education which in turn spilled out to the boards of education. Consumer education is there; it’s not perfect. It probably isn’t as much as it should be, but within the spectrum of the curricula and the time frames and so forth the education system has to work within, it is there. That is for young people. That is fine. I suppose in 20 years or so you eventually permeate most of your society, but the problem is what you are going to do for the consumer today. There have been attempts by both the private and public sectors in television and radio to do this.

I think it is very significant that one of the highest-rated Canadian programs is one that essentially deals with consumer education: Marketplace. I don’t suppose it gets great headlines or great reviews in the entertainment columns. It isn’t something that features entertainers and performers. Nonetheless, it consistently has a very high rating. I think that is very significant. It means that coast to coast in this country, even on something which is basically an entertainment or a family night -- it appears on Sunday -- there is a thirst and a desire for this. The people are willing to sacrifice the movies, et cetera, that appear on TV, for this program.

Of course, there have been specialty things from time to time. Quite frankly, I think they work and they play a role. There is the continuing role, and I would be very remiss if I didn’t say this, of the consumers’ association. Probably of all three of those, the consumers’ association locally, provincially and nationally, has probably had the most impact. They have always had to do it on a shoestring. It seems to me now is the time to try to nip them altogether.

[10:30]

Maybe you can do it in the community, if you can take the interest that is generated in the home by virtue of the child taking this in school and bringing it back, if you can take the various groups that have now to be extremely concerned with the person economically -- such as the social worker, or the debt counsellor or the family service person -- and you give them some tools to work with in the consumer education field, and you tie in also various volunteer community groups -- which is what I said from the start was the kind of thing we’re going to be doing. That’s why I’m really looking forward to the experience in Cornwall.

Some 14 months ago when the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I first announced the community service order program, a lot of people were extremely sceptical. They said the community wouldn’t respond; it wanted hands off. People are telling me now that when we go into this type of thing out in the community the community will be sceptical and will have other things to do. I don’t think so. I think this is the vehicle of the future. It involves the entire community, not just consumers. It involves the very reputable business community.

Remember, all kinds of things like credit counselling -- indeed the thrust for consumer protection -- was instituted by business. The original funding for credit counselling in this province, which is very successful today, came from business. The government was a very reluctant late starter in all of this.

So in terms of consumer education, I don’t think it’s a matter of how many people we can put into it; I think there are enough people in it today. Many of them are in the education system, some of them are in the social sphere, some of them are working out of the courts, some of them are working out of volunteer agencies. I think the thrust upon us is to try to bring them all together -- not to dictate but to try and provide them with the tools whereby they can do the job almost on a one-to-one basis. So in terms of staff yes, I think we’re all right there.

But if that fails -- and I haven’t the slightest qualm that it will fail -- but if it does, then you’re absolutely right: The whole thrust in the education thing is going to have to come back on the government. But I think the experience is encouraging that everybody is having today with the community approach -- not the approach that says “here is some money; go out and do something” but an organized thrust within the community. These programs have been successful and I think this one will be.

On your second one -- the fire code and smoke detectors and so forth -- you’re quite right. There is a cost benefit from the detectors being made mandatory in apartments. You also run into the question, what about the newer apartment? How many do you really need in the newer compared to the one across the street that’s maybe 10 years old? These are problems we are looking at in terms of fire code for new buildings. Regarding older buildings or existing buildings, I said the whole report of the fire code committee will be out in the Gazette on January 13.

They have recommended detectors -- they’re coming in very heavy on that. There’s no question the detectors should be labelled under Underwriters Laboratories and so forth because it is an indication of the product quality.

On your third question regarding the producer, I agree with you that controls affected the farmers much more significantly than it did any other group. I will be quite frank with you, I go through supermarkets and I know something about wage scales in this province, I know something about take-home pay. I am talking about average prices. I go through supermarkets, and I say to the honourable members that quite often I just shake my head; I don’t know how families make it.

I often wonder what it would be like if I were in the position I was in perhaps 15 years ago, with a young family of three, which makes it a Canadian family of five and which is neither large nor small. When I see those prices, even with today’s wages and all the other things that are there, quite frankly, I just shake my head. I am convinced there are a great number of mothers and fathers in this province making extraordinary sacrifices to raise their families. And we’re just talking about the basics.

I think it is very unfair to suggest that labour, whether we mean a farmer, a salaried or an hourly paid worker, should not have the right to respond to that. If it continues, there is only one logical response: You have to get more money to cope.

I realize the thrust at this particular time, when people are making up their minds and the AIB is being phased out. People like myself are very sceptical. All the way through I heard about the AIB that, if you take it off, there will be more investment et cetera. I have never known when controls came off, that prices didn’t go up. I’m prepared to accept that perhaps they won’t go up. I don’t know. But this is certainly a time when a great number of people in this country are looking for some positive action so that they are not going to start up and that they will always be trying to react.

Mr. Haggerty: Does your ministry have any constant monitoring of this?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s what I was just coming to: what we will be doing.

One of the reassurances in this is the question of monitoring the prices, certainly in regard to something as basic as food. It also comes at a very critical time because of the demise of the Canadian dollar. Look at the price of oranges. I was absolutely appalled the other night when I saw a dozen oranges priced at $1.98. They now sell oranges by the pound -- I am being very serious; they sell them by the pound. They used to sell them by the dozen or the half dozen; now it is by the pound. But a dozen oranges -- and not spectacular oranges -- were priced at $1.98; and that was almost a special price. Of course, you have got the Canadian dollar in that, which again compounds that problem.

What we intend to do with the monitoring of food prices is to be able to take the producer, through his marketing board or whatever organization he sells through -- and most do sell through a board of some kind, with the largest exception probably being beef. The marketing board knows the price that has been set; it also knows the wholesale price. That’s how it comes to take its fair share. It knows what the wholesale price is going to be. No marketing board is going to take a larger share of the dollar than the wholesaler is going to be able to pay. Otherwise, you would just waste it all. So they know.

Second, we will look at the retail price and bring it to the attention of the public. I think the greatest change there has been since people began monitoring prices is related to the question of turkeys. The reason the turkey question was handled in such an expeditious manner was that the turkey growers’ marketing board blew the whistle. It pointed out that the producers only got an additional three cents per pound at the wholesale level but that the price already was 20 to 30 cents more -- and this was three or four weeks ago.

They stood up and were counted; they blew the whistle. They gave the prices; there was no fooling around: “Here’s what they receive, and here’s the gap.” My friend will have noticed there wasn’t a single complaint in the Legislature, and I didn’t even get a letter on it, when I said the processors were taking the lion’s share of it. Once it knows, it’s up to the public I think that works out very successfully.

The difficulty in the past has been that neither the marketing board nor the producer has ever really been asked to get involved in terms of pricing. This was raised last night in the debate on the omnibus agriculture bill. I find it very interesting that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture likes this approach because, for the first time, they are going to be, through the marketing board, involved in an integrated pricing situation. That is: “Here’s what it is.” It’s not the farmer.

Of course, if it is the producer, which is highly unlikely, all right. Then he is nailed and the public makes up its mind. What does the public want to do about it? I think it’s a very crucial situation at this time in this country. Certainly there are factors beyond our control. But by the same token, if the public does have confidence and feels it is informed, then this is real trust in a marketplace. Indeed, that trust in the marketplace may lead to vastly increased employment and agricultural opportunity in this county.

Perhaps, this will happen when they find out the real prices of certain winter vegetables and how much control brokers on the other side of the border have over pricing. Neither we nor the Canadian government has this control.

Indeed, at that time, the public may very well be willing to show the Ontario agricultural community that now is the time to really start an extensive hothouse industry. With it, everybody admits, we could virtually supply our market. At that point we would have certain economic sanctions to use if these things got out of hand. But how long do you want to be dependent upon brokers in Los Angeles or Chicago or Detroit or Buffalo or New York City? I think in that regard a well-informed consumer is important -- and we can do these though the co-operation of the American Department of Agriculture.

I think that this will have some additional spinoff in the marketplace. To answer your final question, yes, I agree with you. I will tell you this -- we are in a very critical time period in this country. The AIB was created at an equally crucial time when it appeared everything was going out of sight. Now that weapon has been used. If things again start to go out of sight, people literally aren’t going to have any confidence on the ability of anything working normally. You wind up with the kind of phenomenon where everybody says: “I would like to be responsible but I am not going to starve to death.

I will take mine and, when somebody else becomes responsible, I’ll take it easy.” I don’t think we want that. Certainly we are prepared to play our role and I think it will be significant.

I don’t want to set prices. I’m not going to set prices. I don't think anybody here in his right mind wants to set prices because then you’re into a totally collectivized society. I don’t think anybody wants to limit competition. Okay. But the thrust in the marketplace is the well-informed consumer and I think we’ll be able to do that, particularly in the food areas

Mr. Haggerty: I want to thank the minister for the information he’s passed on to us this morning. I appreciate that you’re going to do some monitoring in this particular area -- food pricing in Ontario. I noticed that the Ontario Food Council is now under the minister’s administration. Hopefully, they will be, perhaps twice a week in some local newspapers, giving consumers hints of certain things that may be of some assistance to them.

I forgot one other thing that the --

Hon. Mr. Drea: If I could just respond to that for a moment. I don’t want to leave the impression that the food council is coming with us; only their responsibilities. We have to work out a different reporting approach. We are now in the process of doing this in the ministry. My one regret, quite frankly -- and I meant to mention this last night, so I’ll have your indulgence today -- is that the food council had those marvellous women who turn out those marvellous recipes, you know. Occasionally, they used to give members samples. That thing we used to send through the mail really worked.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) is hanging on to them. They will still be keeping the nation nice and plump and well fed.

[10:45]

We should have the council by the middle of January or so and be able to work out a formula. The first attempts may not get the response that we feel they should. We’ll keep moving around and adapting it until it does bring a response that can be communicated. The interesting thing is that this ministry used to have the supermarket prices. When they started appearing in the media, it was great, used in this way. Towards the end, it was away back almost down underneath the comics. Even though it was still coming out people lost interest in it.

We want to have a thing that will be of interest to the public because that’s the point of it. The point of it is not an exercise for the House. The point is for the public. That’s why we have some very skilled people within our own ministry now really working on it. Not an extra dime is being spent.

Mr. Haggerty: I have a point I want to raise with the minister. There was a comment from the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) about the newspaper boys being taken or ripped off on the services they provide for the community. Perhaps the minister isn’t quite aware -- I hope I’m correct in this -- but it’s been brought to my attention where newspaper boys in local communities do provide a service to the community in delivering their nightly newspapers and now they’re being overloaded with flyers and ads put out by large stores such as Simpsons, Sears, or Eaton’s, or any one of them. They’re loading up the small newspaper boy to deliver these ads.

Years ago, that was a special service provided throughout the community by different people who wanted to deliver them door to door. I suggest the services of these newspaper boys are being abused by the local newspaper industry. I suggest maybe that’s an area the minister should be looking into, that these persons delivering newspapers should be paid additional for delivering that service of these flyers to the homes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Are these flyers or are they supplements?

Mr. Breaugh: Supplements.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplements.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’ll look into it. My initial reaction is that really comes under the employment standards, I would think. But I’ll look into it. If it’s within our jurisdiction, we’ll have a look. If it’s not, I would think that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) would.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s not just a question of little boys anymore. Little girls, too.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Females now do the work as well.

Mr. Makarchuk: I would also like to add my voice and encourage the minister to actually look into the situation. Obviously, it’s a complaint the member for Erie is receiving in his community, and I’m getting it in my community, as well. They are overloading the kids and the kids, in effect, are becoming the delivery service. Existing delivery services are phased out because they used to hire people to deliver these packages or flyers around. Now they don’t.

Whereas the delivery services had to more or less pay a minimum wage, the kids have to deliver and they don’t get anywhere near the minimum wage as a result of this and still they perform the work.

The matter I wish to specifically raise with the minister is this tendency of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to continue to persecute veterans’ clubs. I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that you call them off.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I called them off and you have a problem with the borough.

Mr. Makarchuk: I would seriously suggest you call them off from the plethora of regulations and restrictions they’re imposing on them. One point I want to raise with the minister -- and this is a matter of advertising -- is why cannot service clubs advertise they are having an event, or they’re having a dance, and members and guests are welcome? Why can’t they carry this matter in the local paper? It has been done. For years they carried this on, then in the last two or three years the board moved in and prohibited this advertising from continuing.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why are you persecuting the veterans, Frank?

Mr. Makarchuk: In effect, you are persecuting the veterans. Let me read you a letter. It says: “We would be very pleased to have you pursue this further. However,” -- this is in reference to the previous minister -- “the minister’s letter states, ‘providing the information was restricted to indicate that it was a club meeting and that members only be permitted,’ meaning that he does not have the problem at hand of which we are concerned.

“For many years we advertised our Saturday night dances in the ‘Coming Events’ in the local paper. As none of the clubs can run a Saturday night dance every week with having only members attend, we advertised the name of the band playing, followed by ‘members and guests only.’ This was quite all right with the liquor board for many years. Then someone seemed to have found some hidden rule that private clubs could not advertise in the local papers. Now that we are unable to advertise, the guests seem to feel that they are not so welcome in the clubs.

“We, at the Navy Club” -- and listen to this -- “donate quite a lot of money to different organizations in the community, and by not running dances every Saturday night we have to be more restrictive on donations.

“In the city of Brantford, the only regular dances held are those that are run by veterans’ clubs. I’m quite sure that most of the people that come to our dances are not the type that would sit in one of the local beer halls with all the youngsters and their loud so-called music.

“It seems that the veteran is now just some memory and if the hotels complain about the veterans’ clubs, the liquor board will find another little clause in their bible to persecute them.”

That, in effect, is what is happening. I’ve written numerous letters to the previous minister. It’s been a matter that has been raised in questions to the ministers in this House. We receive very evasive answers, but the people out there, your inspectors out there, are still putting the screws to the veterans’ clubs. That’s exactly what they’re doing. For gosh sake, of all of the indecent performances that you could be a party to, I think this is it. Call them off. Allow the clubs to do what they were doing. They’re not asking for any wide-open gate. All they’re asking is the right to advertise the fact.

I’ll give you an example of how another club would like to run the ad. Listen to this. Here’s how they would like to run the ad in the coming events: “Dance at Branch 90, Royal Canadian Legion, 21 Oak Street, Friday, June 12. Doors open 8 p.m., Music by John Doe and Company. Admission $4 per couple. Members and their guests welcome.” Tell me what is so harmful about that ad? Sure, there is a liquor industry up there. Sure, there are some hotels that get annoyed about it. Just a little while ago you announced you don’t want to limit competition.

If the hotels put on a good show and have a good environment, then they have no worries whatsoever. If the clubs put on a lousy dance, no matter whether they advertise or not, people wouldn’t come in the future. They have to do a good show.

All I’m asking you is to allow them to do exactly what they have been doing for many years, allow them to do this and to continue as they have in the past. I’d like to hear your comments on that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think it’s kind of unfair to say I’m allowing liquor inspectors to put the screws on. You know very well that I have instructed in one case where I don’t know whether it’s accurate to talk about putting the screws on or in, but where in any event -- not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the board -- there was a somewhat narrow view, that these screws did come off.

First of all, on the question of whatever we do in regard to veterans’ clubs, in regard to the Legion, these things are cleared through Central Command.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, you’re absolutely wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m advised right here and now by the executive director of the board that these things are cleared through Central Command of the Legion.

In terms of the advertising, I’m also advised they were never able to do what you have suggested, which really doesn’t make it right or wrong. I could understand the positions that have been taken by the industry. They will argue that it’s a volunteer bartender and a volunteer this and a volunteer that, and that it’s a club licence that is somewhat more accommodating than a conventional liquor licence.

Quite frankly -- and since the executive director of the board is here today, he might as well be the first to know -- I have made up my mind, starting as soon as is practical in the new year because, as you know, I have been tied up in a vast amount of legislation in here, to take a look at all the advertising, what is there now and so on and so forth, not just in terms of the veterans’ club or the special occasion permit, because there is a route that branch 90 could go if they wanted to do this. All they would have to do is get a special occasion permit declared.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are wrong. You are wrong. You are absolutely wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I am not.

Mr. Makarchuk: Of course you are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Have them do it. Have them apply and watch how fast the licence comes out.

Mr. Makarchuk: They’ve got a licence.

Mr. Pope: For fund-raising.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Fund raising. You talked about the money they were giving out to charity. Obviously, they are raising funds, all right? I know they are non-profit, they are giving it all out.

Now I am advised that all they have to do in order to qualify for the right to advertise is obtain a special occasion permit. That is going to cost them additional money. That is not the route they want to go. We can discuss that in just a moment, but let me finish because you wanted to know what I wanted to do about advertising.

I want to look at all the advertising, not just the type of thing you have raised, but some of the other restrictions that we have, some of the other things that have been brought to my attention.

For instance, I want to look at what I see as the inability of the board to deal with violations even of technical matters, where someone uses some technical things in his ads that he is not supposed to. I am going to take a look at those after the first of the year.

It was raised by the member for Hamilton Centre when I talked about the liquor industry. I think it was somewhat taken out of context. What I was talking about is there is a need to do quite a bit of deregulation within the confines of common sense. That is what I was talking about.

This is a mature and I think responsible field. Of course, from time to time there are difficulties in here just as there are in any other endeavour of human life. But I don’t think a regulatory act, which is what the Liquor Licence Act is essentially -- at one time it was a moral act but it has long since ceased to be that -- can earn much respect.

I don’t think it will have the impact it should have, because it is based on trust rather than total enforcement. When they are confronted with this aspect and this is where people are confronted on the advertising and certain other things that attempt to put them into a conflict, they cannot understand. So I will take a look at that.

Although I don’t really wish to pursue it, there have been some improvements in some other licensing aspects of this ministry not involving liquor that have been of great value and will be of great value to the veterans’ clubs. I have done that very deliberately. It is working out well across the province; indeed, not just in Legions but in a number of other veterans’ places.

The addition of that new type of entertainment, that opportunity to have a little bit of an extra draw there has certainly improved their ability to donate to a number of funds.

Mr. Breaugh: What are you talking about, Frank?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t want it in Hansard. I will tell the member about it privately. I think he knows what I am talking about.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to this. The minister, of course, refuses to give a commitment and we have had the same thing from the previous minister and the minister before that. This is a matter that has been raised with that ministry for about three or four years now.

Mr. Martel: Four years, at least.

Mr. Makarchuk: What you are doing, of course, is kowtowing to the commercial liquor industry.

Mr. Martel: When Clement was here it was being raised.

Mr. Makarchuk: The command has nothing to do with the local branch running an ad in the paper. That is not a problem or a matter that has to go to the legion command or the army, navy, air force clubs or the ex-Imperial Club or something like that It is not of concern to them.

What it basically boils down to is that you have your people out there and the sad thing about it is the Granite Club doesn’t get them coming down there. The Albany Club doesn’t get them coming down there and I am sure the Brantford Golf and Country Club doesn’t get the visits from those liquor inspectors the same way the other clubs seem to do. What you are doing is you are picking on the people at the bottom. You continue to do that.

[11:00]

You are quite right, if you look at some of your regulations -- unfortunately, I don’t have the copies with me -- they are a wordmonger’s nightmare, or delight, I should say. I don’t know where you get the people who draft those things, but they are really something to read and then to try to comprehend what is written in them. There is no question about it, they have to be looked at.

What I want from the minister is some commitment that until such time as you look at the whole thing, you are going to allow the service clubs and the veterans’ clubs to advertise events and as I read earlier, the fact they are holding a dance, members and guests are welcome, this is going to be the orchestra and this is when it is going to start. That’s all. It’s something they have been doing forty years. Then you restricted it; you stopped it. I’m asking you whether you are prepared to allow them to do that now.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, because there is a wide-ranging number of clubs, not just veterans’ clubs but service clubs, social clubs and so on. I want to take a look at it. I will be back with something for you before the House resumes. I presume the House is going to resume the last week of February or the first week of March.

Quite frankly, you can’t do it nicely. You see the argument. If the particular veterans’ club has 25 or 30 members or 300 members, and this dance is for members and guests and presumably, each member brings a guest or maybe they bring another couple then why did they need this ad? Surely as a club they must know who their membership is. This goes out -- et cetera, et cetera.

I realize what many of them are saying is the cost of mailing out to find people or to acquaint them with the fact that this week they have a band of some renown rather than last week when it was just an ordinary affair is too high. There is a question of information there. Bear in mind there are restrictions on even commercial enterprises in terms of their advertising. What I said to you before is you can have an SOP, a special occasion permit, for fund raising. You pay extra for it, no question about it, but that gives you the right to advertise just exactly the type of ad you described.

Mr. Worton: I want to express my concerns. I think the minister has indicated he is going to review this whole situation, but we do have old-time dance clubs, modern dance clubs and parents without partners clubs, whose members want to be able to have a libation or two during the course of the evening. Others don’t want to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You can say “drink” in here; it doesn’t break the act.

Mr. Worton: All right. They don’t want to have any association with alcohol at all.

Mr. Martel: But as an abstinence man, Frank.

Mr. Worton: I just noticed in the Sun this morning the Golddiggers are down at the Royal York and you can get a package deal there for entertainment and a dinner.

Mr. Martel: Well packaged.

Mr. Worton: But I tell you when you come to dance, you can’t be much of a swinger because the dance floor is about the size of my kitchen. The hotels are not catering to those who want to dance any more. They are catering to those who want to eat and drink.

I feel there should be some method whereby legitimate organizations, and you have plenty of opportunity to sort them out, should be able to advertise if they wish to have alcoholic beverages and to entertain those people who wish to enjoy dancing in a sociable way. I think the time has come when hotels do not provide that facility any more. There is just room enough for a few who wish to get up. If there does happen to be a good piece of music some of us old people can dance to, then you can’t move on the floor because of its size.

I think the whole area of this type of advertising should be reviewed with the idea of giving legitimate organizations permission to advertise for those who wish to enjoy dancing as a form of entertainment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Perhaps it also might be in order to monitor the noise levels in some of the downtown clubs to see if they are inducing deafness.

Mr. Gaunt: And anything over 45 decibels doesn’t get a liquor licence.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In fact, because of the noise the last time we met, I believe I was stuffed for the bill. So I may do exactly that

In response to the member for Wellington South, one of the reasons why I wasn’t prepared to make a commitment is that I am looking at certain proposals the board has made in the field of special occasion permits. It’s premature to discuss them now, but the thrust there is an attempt to separate the very type of organization that the honourable member and the member for Brantford have been talking about from people who have been deliberately abusing special occasion permits as a vehicle to run virtually a 52-week hotel operation without going to the board and getting a hotel licence. I think that has always been the concern in this area.

With some new proposals that I and my deputy have received from the board, I think we will be in a position to separate that element completely -- they shouldn’t be getting special occasion permits at all -- and to confine special occasion permits in the club field to organizations such as the ones that the honourable member described and to the club licences, which are on a more sustained basis. That’s part of the review I am doing. The two, quite frankly, do blend together.

I haven’t seen anybody from the hotel industry making a presentation since prior to the introduction of the last Liquor Licence Act in 1974 or 1975. They weren’t terribly concerned in regard to club licences and special occasion permits for veterans’ clubs or groups like those mentioned by my friend. They didn’t think the clubs should be operating out of community colleges and so forth, but they were concerned about the vast number of SOPs out there that were really just a rotating thing for a competitor who hadn’t bothered to go through the licensing process.

Mr. Makarchuk: What’s the hangup about permitting veterans’ clubs to advertise? If they are not concerned, who is?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It has been said here earlier that the only reason all of these things were put in was to kowtow to the commercial industry at the expense of the veterans. That is not the case. The reason it’s there today is that it was a package. Part of that package did affect the veterans’ clubs; also there was a deliberate thrust to try to reduce the number of SOPs on the grounds of legitimizing the student clubs and so on and so forth.

As with everything involving liquor, it’s very complicated and takes a long time. But I raise this with the member for Wellington South to say that I think we have a vehicle and I want to look at it. Indeed, if we do have that vehicle, we can take a new, fresh and responsible look at the advertising question. We like non-profit organizations. The honourable member is quite right; why shouldn’t a non-profit organization, if it does have the odd fund-raising function, spread it out? Every one of us does it in his riding.

I presume he does have an annual meeting and he does serve something and so forth; he knows darned well that any money that is raised goes somewhere else. Or if there is a dance sponsored by the association, the money goes somewhere else. We all do that. We don’t want to annoy any non-profit voluntary organizations. Quite frankly, I agree with both honourable members. The time has come for a fresh look, and I think now is the time to do it.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back for a few minutes to the matter we were discussing a few minutes ago before we got on to the liquor and the dances. I refer to the matter of the price spread between the producer and the consumer. One of the reasons for part of this spread at least is coupons. We all remember the green stamp craze of some years ago, where we built up green stamps, saving them in order to get the catalogues and choose the free gifts we got for the stamps.

After a while, we commenced to realize the horrendous cost of this whole process and some of the provinces of the country began to abolish them. Finally Ontario got around to the point where it said no more green stamps. The idea was we were going to save the customer certain amounts of money. Whether it did or not, who knows? We do not know whether the price level went down or not. At least the green stamps went.

Now we have something new. We have the coupons, Mr. Minister; coupons. Not too long ago, there came to my door this beautiful, eye-popping envelope full of goodies, well done, slick, expensive brochures telling us what the manufacturers had in store for us. I’ll just read two or three of the things found in this envelope offering “mysteriously good Sugar Crisps”; “Fleecy with soft stat,” whatever that is; “incredibly new Aunt Jemima’s frozen pancake batter”; holidays in the south, plus $1,000 from Aylmer’s; Libby’s beans can get you dishwashers, and --

Hon. Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. Young: Pillsbury products make your family feel warm all over, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is a good thing I eat in restaurants. That stuff scares me.

Mr. Young: Along with that come the coupons -- coupons for everything under heaven; 10 cents off, 15 cents off, 25, 30 cents off. I will send these over to the minister, perhaps it will save him a bit when he makes purchases at the grocery store. There is a whole bundle of them there for things I don’t need and things I don’t use. Perhaps the minister does. I will let him have that for his information and for his economy.

Let’s turn those over now to the minister so he can see them and go through them and perhaps if he cannot use them, he can pass them on to members of his staff who can.

Hon. Mr. Drea: My daughters will.

Mr. Young: Fine, use them any way you like. They are a free gift as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think the deputy minister will.

Mr. Young: Then you get these other things. I have tucked into my grocery bag from Dominion Stores in this case, Ontario Sweeps $50,000 bonus race.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. Young: Win $50,000. This was back on August 5, one that I just tucked away and did not use, evidently. I never do use these things because somebody is going to win, but it is generally not me. So that sort of thing goes on.

Then we have things like Homemaker’s magazine, Mr. Minister, where you have the same kind of coupons all through that magazine. You can detach them and spend them the next time you go to the grocery store. I will send that over because the minister may possibly want a few of these for his information and guidance.

All these things add to cost and I could make a long speech which I won’t make this morning about it. The minister understands and the House understands what it adds up to, because there is no question that all this artistry, some of those things are fancy and demand skill in designing, costs money.

The printing of them, the distribution of them, the redemption of them, not only add immense cost, but also mean that when I get into the checkout line at the grocery store I am held up five minutes, 10 minutes, whatever it might be, as everybody fiddles through their purse to get the right coupon for the right article, I stand there and fume as I watch this process going on. Then I come along and I have my coupons and I cash them in and somebody behind me fumes while that process is going on. But I save myself 10 cents, 15 cents, 25 cents.

Then, of course, if there is only one to a family, my wife gets one newspaper and I get the other and we cheat the grocery store by that much, I presume, although they don’t seem to mind. As a matter of fact, last week something was on special and she was objecting about this. I heard the girl say to my wife, “Well look, get your husband, you’ve got another coupon so you can have two.” That was nice.

All this is incredible and it adds cost. It adds trouble. It adds worry to the girls at the checkout counter because their accounts have to balance and all of that.

[11:15]

I am calling this to the minister’s attention in the hope that something might be done about this kind of promotion. If we can eliminate it, we could certainly lower price levels quite dramatically, at least we could in theory. I know that when I take the 15-cent coupon in, I am saving 15 cents. But am I really?

First of all, the price level for groceries goes up so that they can absorb all this over- head. In the long run, on average, I am paying for it and I am paying something extra. And for all that skill and for all that paraphernalia -- between when the coupons originate in somebody’s brain and when I finally dispose of them -- there is that tremendous added expense.

So, I am asking the minister whether or not he has given any thought to this whole process and whether or not we might expect some action in this field. In this field, let Ontario do some pioneering. I don’t know whether or not any action has been taken by other provinces in the case of green stamps. Why can’t we start this process in Canada if action has not already been taken in other places?

I have another matter I want to raise with the minister but perhaps he can comment on this whole process.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, there is a very significant difference between coupons and premium stamps. You mention green stamps but I recall that there were pink ones and some other colours, too. At one time stamps certainly played a very significant role for the two largest chains. The type of promotional coupon you are talking about, the green stamp or the premium stamp, added a cost to everything that you bought -- everything, straight through the store. The number of stamps you received was based upon the amount of money or the number of products you had purchased. So it was assignable all the way through.

Mr. Breithaupt: On the total tape.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On the total tape, yes. Okay. In the case of the promotional coupon, that is really only assignable to that one particular product. I realize you are talking about inconvenience at the checkout counter, the cost of redemption, and so on. But the whole point is that these coupons are used basically to introduce new products.

This one here -- it is Canadian -- saves 10 cents on “Connors Tiny Tender Sea Steaks. A fresh new idea from the sea.” I have no idea what a tiny steak might be but, in any event, it is a product of Canada. I know Connors. I know the company.

They are using this to get you to try Connors Tiny Tender Sea Steaks. Ordinarily, you probably wouldn’t do it. So it is only assignable, quite frankly, to the cost of that one product. Now then. There are other methods of promoting a new product, or current product that is not exactly doing well against its competition. You can go into the print media; you can go on radio; you can go on TV; you can do something door-to-door. You can do demonstrations. You can do all kinds of things.

When you finally come down to it, if you and I are to buy Connors Tiny Tender Sea Steaks, somewhere along the line we are going to have to absorb the money spent on the promotion to attract us initially. This will happen whether or not it is in this form of a coupon offering 10 cents off; whether or not they choose to advertise today in the Toronto Star; whether or not they choose to go on CFRB or on CFTO today; or, indeed, whether or not they choose to come to your next church social; or the next gathering of a women’s group.

Or if Connors comes in and puts on a whole display, showing the people not only this Connors product but others, in the end, sure, I pay. But I think there is a fundamental difference between that and the green stamps.

Let’s expend one more hoax, because I don’t really see anything terribly wrong. From time to time, it may seem inefficient to you and me. There surely must be a better way of doing it. I don’t know how else you would promote it. You’ve got to get the product into somebody’s hand. You’ve got to get them to taste it, wear it, show it, or do something or they’re never going to buy.

I realize that these can get very cumbersome, but there are jobs involved in the printing industry, in the distribution industry, in the advertising industry, in the public relations industry and so forth. So it is of some interest economically to the country.

Mr. M. N. Davison: They can advertise without a phoney saving coupon.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It says 10 cents off whatever the price is. Look at Connors sea steaks.

Mr. Martel: You just jack it up 10 cents more than you want. You put a dime on before and, then when you are done, you reduce it back to the same price.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I would doubt that very much.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is a redemption rate.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, you’ve got a redemption rate here. Unless you’re terribly interested in Connors Tiny Tender Sea Steaks, your redemption rate is not used up. Secondly, I presume it’s an adaptation of the sardine or something like that. It’s a small can; it’s one of the open tin jobs.

Mr. Young: They slice them down and sell them laterally.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Slicing what?

Mr. Mackenzie: They clean the sardines for those who don’t like innards.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In any event, I don’t think this little coupon determines the price. As it’s obviously coming into a competitive field, why would you bother even with your 10 cents off coupon if you could buy something cheaper?

Mr. M. N. Davison: There is steep competition with that product

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is. There are a couple of other ones that most Canadians don’t buy. They prefer the Norwegian brands. The old hammer-down gold can with the red on top is really your best buy. I recommend it very much.

I want to come into it more seriously. This affects the price of the product eventually. It does not affect the entire price of your groceries because you can throw it away. You don’t have to get involved with Connors and their tiny little whatever they are. With the stamps you had to get involved because whether you wanted them or not, they were based upon the total at the base of your tape. It was admitted at the end that this did have a percentage increase in raising the cost of your bill. There is no question about it.

Again, on the question of the horse races or the bonanza, I must admit I was a little bit startled when it went up to $50,000 at one time. I suppose that was a special one. That’s an advertising promotion to get you to come into the store, and if you go into that store, you are going to have to pay for it somewhere along the line.

It could be argued that the more people come into that store, the higher their volume goes up and, therefore, they operate on a much higher supplier discount and everything. The truth of the matter is that in the food business there’s only so much food that can be consumed. There’s only so much disposable income for food, give or take a few million dollars every week, one way or the other. It’s an attraction to get you to come to retail outlet A rather than retail outlet C.

Mr. Breithaupt: They’re trying to increase their share. The market is not increasing.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s right. They’re trying to move around their share of the market. This is the only way that they can do it. I really don’t think we want to ban advertising and it is a form of advertising. Instead of saying get cheap specials, what they’re saying is come in and take a flyer on $50,000. Who are we, in this Legislature above all, to start criticising people for loss leaders and promotions? Have you heard the Wintario and the Provincial commercials lately?

Mr. Young: I don’t like them.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What are you going to do about those?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t ‘buy them either, but have you heard them? Here we’re looking at poor little Connors and his sea steaks and we’re looking at whatever it is in their little filmed horse race from a year ago or so and saying they shouldn’t do that.

Mr. Martel: Talk to the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) then. Tell him it is terrible. Tell him to change the advertisement.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m not saying anything. I don’t disagree with it at all. But I’m not going with a straight face to a supermarket and say to them they mustn’t dare run an operation with a $50,000 horse race that’s predicated on the thing the customer picks up at the counter or that that’s something they should pass off in lower costs, when we do precisely the same thing with instant scratch-offs, and rub-ons. You get it at home through the daily newspaper. That reminds me: One of those little things that was delivered with the newspaper was the Minister of Culture and Recreation’s little game, the numbers.

To come to a very serious matter -- and I want to end on this; I know the member wants to get up again -- there is another thing that I want to say about the food industry: There aren’t going to be any commercial credit cards, period. As the member knows, when John Clement was minister, there was an apparent thrust in this direction. He will recall that Mr. Clement called the industry into his office and said, “We can do it the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is you are not going to do it. The hard way is that we will introduce legislation.” That went on for quite a period of time.

It would be unfair to describe it as significant or a thrust, but there are now some indications, that because of the infinitely more widespread attraction of the commercial credit card -- I am not talking about the in-house cards, which allow you to cash a cheque or anything like that; I am talking about Chargex, Master Charge and so on -- there is no question that this would push the cost of food higher, even for those who chose not to use it and who would be basically low-income people, because that type of card simply doesn’t fit into their economic pattern.

Sure, they pay their bills, but they don’t want to get into $350 or $400 or $500 a month on a card. They prefer to do it the old-fashioned way. They are quite capable of being economically sufficient.

The introduction of credit cards would do to the food industry exactly what the old premium stamps did. The cost would be spread right across every single product. Once again, we are not going to allow it. And it can be done the easy way or the hard way. As far as I am concerned, right now everybody is complying. At least, they had better be complying by Christmas day. Or, quite frankly, if they really want to try these, when we come back in March there will be legislation here that will say, “You will not use a commercial credit card in a supermarket.”

Mr. M. N. Davison: What about food at K-Mart stores?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s a little different matter.

Mr. Martel: What about doctors?

Hon. Mr. Drea: We are talking about increasing the price of food to the particular disadvantage of low-income and some middle-class families, just on the basis of convenience for some people who don’t like to travel around all the time with cash. I know the member for Yorkview wants to say something else; so I will stop here.

Mr. Young: In view of the time factor I don’t want to prolong this, but I am not convinced by the minister’s argument that, since these are zeroed in on specific products being introduced into the market, it doesn’t raise the cost all across the board. I certainly think it does when I have in my hand Planter’s Peanuts -- that’s an old product -- Red Rose Tea, Scottowels and those sorts of things.

I can see the advantage of getting customers in through loss-leaders. And I have no objection to the use of the tapes for charity, as is the case with some of them. But this kind of thing does add to the cost and to the inconvenience. Certainly the sweeps and the kinds of bingo games that these people indulge in does add to the cost across the board. It must add to the cost.

The other thing is, I can’t see the sense of the creating of jobs and printing all these things, because what you are doing is incorporating into the food bill the cost of the jobs, and food should not bear that cost.

I also want to raise the matter of undercoating. I know this matter has been addressed now and we’re getting some place with it. But i