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

November 18, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

CASINO GAMBLING

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE JOUR DU PATRIMOINE

CASINO GAMBLING

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE JOUR DU PATRIMOINE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

LANDFILL

JOSEPH LABELLE

TIMISKAMING LAND DISPUTE

PLAINS ROAD CHILD CARE CENTRE

BUSINESS AWARDS

WCB PREMIUMS

MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

ONTARIO LEAD INVESTMENT FUND

HEALTH CARE REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ROBIN SEARS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

CONDUCT OF POLICE SERVICES BOARD MEMBER

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

LONG-TERM CARE

CASINO GAMBLING

LANDFILL

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARINGS

LANDFILL

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

LANDFILL

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

POLICE SERVICES

MEMBERS' PENSIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

TOWNSHIP OF GLANBROOK ACT, 1993

CASINO LEGISLATION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Kwinter moved private member's notice of motion number 30:

That, in the opinion of this House, given that the government has decided to create legalized casino gambling in Ontario; and

Given that the government of Ontario has decided to contract out the operations of its legalized casino to a private operator, to be selected by tender; and

Given that this decision has been made solely on the basis of the government's need for increased revenues; and

Given that the taxpayers of Ontario have been given no assurance that they will not be forced to pay for any revenue shortfall experienced by the private casino operator;

This House requests the government of Ontario to introduce an amendment to its casino legislation that will ensure that the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator; and

That in no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall and debt.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation, and following that, members of the other parties will have 15 minutes to debate this resolution.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I rise on this issue with some regret. The regret that I have is that it would even be necessary for a member to resort to this particular vehicle in order to bring to attention a basic financial principle that is really at the basis of what I think we are here to do, to protect the interests of the taxpayers.

What is the issue basically? The government has decided that it is going to enter into a scheme with private developers and private operators to run a casino in Windsor. I don't want to debate the whole issue as to whether or not they should be in this business. They have made the decision and I accept it.

Where I have some concern is that there seems to be a feeling, certainly among government representatives and certainly among some of the bureaucrats, that this is a licence to print money and that the only benefits that will accrue to the people of Ontario are beneficial because it's going to generate a great deal of money. I hope that it does. I wish them well and I hope that it's successful and that all of the things they hoped would happen will happen. But there is no guarantee.

Over the years, we have watched various government endeavours that started out with the best of intentions, with the intentions that all of these things would happen and they would happen to the benefit of the citizens of Ontario. But unfortunately -- and I'm not condemning anyone for it; it's just the vagaries of doing business -- there is an opportunity occasionally for things not to work out. I remember well Mayor Jean Drapeau of Montreal when he proposed the Olympic Stadium. He said, "This project can no more lose money than the prospects of me giving birth to a child." We all know that not only did it lose money; it lost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Again, without trying to be partisan, without trying to point the finger at any particular party, we in Ontario have many examples: Minaki Lodge, Suncor, SkyDome. All of these projects were started out with the best of intentions, with everyone feeling that they would have no reason for these things not to be successful, but because again of the vagaries of business and the vagaries of investment they have not achieved those particular goals.

What we are saying is, not necessarily gambling but gambling if necessary; if you're going to do it, at least build into the legislation provisions that the taxpayers will not be left so-called holding the bag and having to take

part in a gamble when I am sure that if a referendum were held, they may or may not like the idea of casino gambling, but I don't think there would be any support if taxpayers were told, "If it loses money, it's your problem." That is what the intent of this particular resolution is: to get enshrined in the legislation the principle that under no circumstances will the taxpayers have to pay, that it will be the sole responsibility of the operators.

When we were in committee we tried to get an amendment to this effect. We had assurances from the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that of course there is no, as she underlined, intent that the taxpayers will ever have to pick up or that they should pick up any shortfall.

When we talked to members of the government side, some of them spoke in favour of our amendment. To our surprise, when we put it to a vote, they voted against it. It was the most bizarre exercise I've ever seen, where five minutes after saying, "Yes, we agree that should be what it is," they voted against it.

I want to read into the record a couple of articles that I think are critical and important to this discussion. One of them appeared in Business Week, a highly respected publication in the United States, dated October 18, 1993, exactly one month ago today. The headline says, "Will Too Many Players Spoil the Game?"

It says: "Few industries are as hot these days as the gaming and casino business. Hungry for the tax revenues from gambling, state and local governments are allowing new casinos in South Dakota mining towns, up and down the Mississippi River, and on Indian lands in Connecticut, California, and points in between. The casino industry took in $10.2 billion in 1992, and the gambling experts think that will double by the year 2000. 'Gambling will be the biggest form of entertainment in the country,' says Fort Worth investor Richard E. Rainwater, who holds options to buy a 14% stake in slot machine operator United Gaming Inc. 'Bigger than movies, sports, even eating out.'"

Then the

article goes on to say: "As any all-night blackjack player will tell you, though, there's no such thing as a sure bet. With dozens of companies spending hundreds of millions to jump into gaming -- not to mention veteran investors such as Marvin Davis and even celebrities such as Debbie Reynolds and Kevin Costner -- someone is bound to get hurt. 'There's going to be a shakeout and a consolidation, just like any other boom industry,' predicts Charles Avonsino, president of Hilton Corp, a veteran operator of casinos.

"Nowhere are the risks greater than in Las Vegas. Just two weeks before Treasure Island opens, Circus Circus Enterprises Inc will open its $390-million pyramid-shaped Luxor casino. And in mid-December, Kirk Kerkorian's MGM Grand Inc will open a new 5,000-room hotel and casino. Kerkorian is pouring $1 billion into the project, which includes a 33-acre theme park. His goal is to lure families, preferably with parents who are slot machine enthusiasts. 'Our studies show that only 15% of Americans have ever been to Las Vegas.'" Then he goes on to say, "'We have plenty of room to grow.'"

But I think it's important that you understand this: "Perhaps. When new casinos thrive in Las Vegas, however, it is usually at the expense of existing players. The glittery Mirage and the Excalibur have been luring new tourists since they opened in 1989. But in the same period, five other stalwarts, including the Dunes and the Riviera, have gone bankrupt. Indeed, average pre-tax profits along the Vegas strip last year were only slightly higher than 1987, according to casino analyst Saul F. Leonard. With all the development, Leonard says the town will have a serious excess capacity problem for the next two years.

"Outside the oasis of Las Vegas, gambling is becoming even more dicey. In Atlantic City, for example, bus traffic has dropped 10% in 1993, while overall wagering is up a paltry 2.4%, according to the industry newsletter....The reason? Foxwoods, a new casino operated by native Americans in Ledyard, Connecticut, is siphoning off business....And if Philadelphia legalizes gambling, a move the city government is considering, Atlantic City could be even more grievously hurt, says Atlantic City Action editor Al Glasgow.

"Newly opened territories are vulnerable to overbuilding as well. Since 1991, Colorado has permitted gambling in only three counties. But 75 gambling operations had sprung up by the beginning of this year. Already, 12 have closed their doors. Just two years after riverboat gambling was allowed on the Mississippi, there are nine floating casinos in Mississippi and 15 in Louisiana. Promus Cos recently cancelled plans to launch a boat in Biloxi, Mississippi, because it feared there were too many players in that market.

"The shakeout could speed up as the behemoths move in with their well-heeled marketing operations. Hilton, Circus Circus, and the Mirage are among those competing for riverboat licences. And several companies are clamouring to launch still more boats if Chicago votes to allow waterway gambling.

"But while sheer muscle can overwhelm smaller players, size alone doesn't guarantee success. Bally Manufacturing Corp's Las Vegas casino operation only recently emerged from bankruptcy and is still considered a weak operator. The jury is also out on ITT Sheraton Corp, which spent $160 million in June to buy the fabled, if somewhat dowdy, Desert Inn.

"With development proceeding at such a blistering pace, some players are hedging their bets."

It goes on to say that even Silverman, who is a major player in this issue, "is preparing for a shakeout, which he figures is about three years away." That three years is exactly the timing pretty well when the permanent casino will come on stream in Windsor.

So we have a situation where the experts in the field --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Kwinter: -- have concerns and I have concerns, and I think it's absolutely critical that we put in this legislation to protect the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further speakers?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution that has been brought to our attention today by the member for Wilson Heights. The resolution:

"That, in the opinion of this House, given that the government has decided to create legalized casino gambling in Ontario; and

"Given that the government of Ontario has decided to contract out the operations of its legalized casino to a private operator, to be selected by tender; and

"Given that this decision has been made solely on the basis of the government's need for increased revenues; and

"Given that the taxpayers of Ontario have been given no assurance that they will not be forced to pay for any revenue shortfall experienced by the private casino operator;

"This House requests the government of Ontario to introduce an amendment to its casino legislation that will ensure that the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator; and

"That in no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall and debt."

I support this resolution in principle because I do not believe there should be any casino gambling in the province of Ontario in the first place, and, number two, since the NDP is determined to ram this through, I believe there should be assurances that the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator. Under no circumstances should the hard-pressed taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall or debt.

You're all no doubt aware of the concerns I raised in the past about gambling casinos, concerns like the lack of any kind of public consultation process before the government went off half-cocked and announced the pilot project in Windsor; concerns like my belief that state-operated gambling casinos are nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; concerns like the potential for the growth of crime and the economic hardship and loss of jobs they will impose on Ontario's racing industry and some 28,000 employees in that industry.

Bill 8, the Ontario Casino Corporation Act, is another example of this government bringing forward legislation that divides Ontarians against each other. The split has occurred in my own riding of Simcoe East, where some people indicate they are adamantly opposed to casino gambling and others support it in principle. I asked my constituents about their opinions on casino gambling and video slot machines. Approximately 1,000 people took the time to give me their views on this controversial issue. Some 47% indicated they opposed casino gambling, while 30% said they supported casino gambling and 23% were undecided.

With respect to video slot machines, 59% were opposed, 6% were in favour and 35% were undecided, so there's quite a variation between the slot machines and with regard to the other.

Supporters of casino gambling claim these facilities will boost tourism in border communities that are feeling the impact of cross-border shopping. They suggest casinos will create employment opportunities and claim the Windsor casino will generate $150 million in revenue annually for the provincial coffers. The opponents of casino gambling say the government has not studied the social and economic consequences of casino gambling. They are concerned that casinos will attract organized crime and result in an increase in the number of gambling addictions.

Many charitable organizations, service clubs and the horse racing industry fear they will suffer from competition with government-run casinos. Supporters of video slot machines suggest they will provide a greater potential for revenue than any other form of gambling. Opponents say video slot machines are the most addictive form of gambling. These are some of the statistics that have come out in the questionnaires I sent out.

Since this government appears willing to gamble with the economic future of Ontario by forcing through a time allocation motion on Bill 8 -- yesterday we dealt with it -- and cutting off public discussion, I want this government to put some protection in place for Ontario's hard-pressed taxpayers. That's why I'll be supporting the member for Wilson Heights in demanding that the government amend Bill 8 to ensure the financial responsibility for any revenue shortfall and debt will be that of the casino operator and that under no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall or debt.

When we look over the record of some of the issues that government gets into, we look at the debt that we have in the SkyDome. We read about Bob White, who is leading a consortium to sell that facility. It's been some two years and they haven't done it yet. We're paying on that major debt.

We look here in this Legislature at when the member for Victoria-Haliburton had a crusade and petitions opposing casino gambling. Many, many petitions were presented in this Legislature. I often wonder. When the committee was having hearings on this very issue, it was the agenda of the government that brought forth the people, and the majority of the people that they wanted, to look at their agenda, to make sure it was the people that they wanted to have before that committee.

We look at the Agenda for People and what the Premier had to say about casino gambling. Do we remember what the Premier said about casino gambling? Do we remember the Premier speaking about it? Do you know that yesterday the Premier's government brought in a closure motion to introduce the very issue about which he said there could be nothing worse in Ontario than to be having casinos? Do you remember that? We remember that. That was the Agenda for People.

The people from the arts council in Windsor have spoken to me about the facility that they're planning on using in the interim. They've said, and the government has said: "Well, we are going to be fixing up this building. We're going to be putting money in after we're finished with it." But those people have told me that they are not fully committed, nor do they feel that they'll be given fair treatment. That's what they're telling me. They may be telling somebody other stories.

On this whole issue of casino gambling and video slot machines, the government in my estimation is gambling on casinos to pay off our deficit. I don't think it will happen, because when we look at the statistics, it's shown to me that it won't happen.

The very issue that is brought before us today by the member for Wilson Heights with regard to the debt is a good one and I will be supporting it, because the taxpayers are the ones we don't want to have to pick up the burden of what this government has done.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It gives me great pleasure to speak to this resolution here this morning, a resolution which I will not be supporting.

It's actually great to listen to the previous two speakers talk about incurring debt. I believe what we're witnessing here in this chamber this morning is a historic day in Ontario political history, because we have two of the greatest conversions since Saul walked the road to Damascus.

The Tory party across from us: Here's the party of Minaki Lodge and Suncor and dozens of other debt-incurring situations they have put the people of this province into. And the Liberal Party, which has given us SkyDome and which during the last election told the people of this province that they had a $23-million surplus, which in fact turned out to be a $3-billion debt. Now they have the nerve to lecture us about the evils of government incurring debt.

Where on earth was the member for Wilson Heights when David Peterson's cabinet inked the SkyDome deal? Where was he? Was he sitting on his hands? He was, as I recall, a very influential member of the cabinet at that time. Why did the SkyDome deal not contain the words from his resolution?

I'd like to repeat the words again: "That in no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall and debt." Why was that not included in the SkyDome deal? Why not? It's cost the taxpayers of this province some $350 million to this date. Why did the member for Wilson Heights not speak up and suggest an equally clever method for SkyDome to cover its costs? No. He sat on his hands while the taxpayers of this province picked up the tab.

These members opposite would have the people of Ontario believe they are protecting the public purse, the very same purse they drained while they were in government.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. It's impossible to hear the member who has the floor. I hope that each one of you will have the chance to express your opinion. It's the member's time.

Mr Duignan: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has repeated that the taxpayers of this province will not pick up a cent if there's any debt incurred. The minister has also agreed that 25 new Windsor police officers and their equipment will be financed from casino revenues. The minister has also said that extensive background checks on would-be casino operators are being financed from the $300,000 each submitted with their bid.

The government even wholeheartedly agreed with an opposition amendment to Bill 8 which will establish an independent committee to monitor the effects of the casino. The amendment compels the casino corporation to pay for the expenses associated with that committee.

Where will the Ontario Casino Corp get its operating funds? From casino revenues.

The minister has made a commitment that when the contract is signed with the successful proponent, it will have the provisions which will ensure that the concerns of the member for Wilson Heights will be addressed. I'm confident that she will do a better job than he and his colleagues did with the SkyDome deal.

Never in the history of this province has there been a job creation project, a tourism enhancement project or an economic development initiative of the scale of the Windsor casino, which is completely self-financing. More important than the jobs created in the casino is the effect such a catalyst will have on the economy of the Windsor area and indeed the province.

I remind this House why we are proceeding with the casino initiative. I think this will be useful since the

preamble to the resolution misrepresents the rationale for the casino initiative.

The gaming industry is a large and growing form of entertainment in North America. Gaming exists in some form in every province, and virtually every state south of the border has gaming of one kind or another. I want to put into context how large this industry indeed is. In the United States, some $330 billion is waged annually. That is five times more than the box-office receipts from the movie industry. The gaming dollars are so big because the industry has experienced such rapid growth in recent years.

I suspect some members of the opposition would like to ignore this growth; they would like to cling to the notion that casinos exist only in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. That was true about 10 years ago but certainly is not the case today. Casinos are now a feature of gaming landscapes in some 20 American states, and that's growing every year.

We're also seeing similar growth in Canada. There are more than a dozen casinos, for example, in British Columbia. They operate along the lines that our bingo halls do here. These casinos are rented each day by different charities for fund-raising purposes. Similar casinos exist in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg. The Manitoba government has opened two more gaming centres, essentially large bingo halls surrounded by hundreds of slot machines. Also, the government of Quebec has recently opened one casino and is in the process of planning another. We're seeing the same issue debated in Atlantic provinces.

Casinos surround our province in every direction: to the west, to the south, to the east, and indeed the Yukon has a casino. As a result of this enormous growth in the casino market, the province of Ontario is forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars every year to other jurisdictions, and last year that was in the range of some $600 million. We can no longer afford this. Talk to the hotel owners, talk to the people who run restaurants, talk to the operators of other tourist attractions.

We have a beautiful province. Accordingly, millions of tourists come here every year. What we want is new tourists arriving with new dollars and new jobs. If we're going to remain competitive as a tourist destination, we must be able to offer the forms of entertainment that tourists want.

The government estimates that every day some 10,000 out-of-province tourists will visit Windsor. The Windsor hospitality industry wants this to happen and indeed needs it to happen. They know what a shot in the arm this would be for the Windsor economy.

I know, Madam Speaker, that you travelled with the committee to a number of other destinations in this province. We were in Sault Ste Marie, we were in Ottawa, we were in Niagara Falls. They all want casinos, because they all know what jobs they are going to bring to their particular community and they all know what type of dollars they'll bring in.

In conclusion, it's clear that this government has chosen the correct course of action in proceeding with the Windsor casino. It would help keep dollars in Ontario that would otherwise flow to the United States. In addition, we would help attract new dollars from our American neighbours by introducing the casino to Windsor, Ontario's largest border city.

The government is helping our tourist industry keep pace with the competition. I believe that is good news for everyone in the tourism sector, but also it's good news for the people of this province.

I quote from the minister: "I'm glad the Liberals and the Tories in particular, who have incurred billions of dollars of debt on different projects over the years, have finally seen the light. I want to make sure that this doesn't happen to the taxpayers of the future."

We are doing that by making sure in our contractual arrangements with proponents that they will be responsible for any debt incurred in the operation of the Windsor casino. That's a commitment of our government and was never the commitment of the two previous governments in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Now it's the turn of the member for Oriole.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I really am pleased to participate in the debate today. As I begin, I'd like to remind members what private members' hour is really all about. It's not a partisan debate; it's supposed to be an opportunity for private members to put forward good ideas. In this case, my colleague the member for Wilson Heights has put forward a proposal that wasn't listened to or accepted by the government at committee and this is his opportunity to make his case openly and publicly here in the Legislature and appeal to all members to understand the rationale for his resolution.

What he is proposing this morning is simple and clear and something I believe the provincial government under Bob Rae, which is introducing casino gambling into Ontario, should do. The reason I think they should do it is that what Mr Kwinter is proposing is protection of the public interest and protection of the taxpayer as we begin this new venture in casino gambling in the province of Ontario. It's that simple: protection of the public interest and protection of the taxpayer.

The previous speaker went on in defence of casino gambling. This debate is not about the pros or cons of casino gambling. Bob Rae and his government, the NDP, are bringing casino gambling into Ontario. That is a reality. The question now is, how do we bring it in in a way which protects the public interest?

Mr Kwinter tried at committee to put forward this amendment, which would say -- I say to the member who spoke before me that I wish the NDP would listen to some of the good ideas that are brought forward from members of the opposition when we're clearly just trying to help and also, as members, understand our obligation to act in the public interest and put that argument before the government -- that's number one. They're always saying to us, "So, what's your good idea?" When we give it to them, in a partisan way they reject it because it wasn't their idea.

The member who spoke before me referred to history. He referred to Suncor and SkyDome and some of those other projects the previous governments had entered into and he went into a harangue about the mistakes. I want to agree with him. I'm not going to say that everything we did in government from 1985 to 1990 was perfect; it wasn't. We made mistakes, but the difference between us and obviously the NDP is that we are prepared to learn from our mistakes, to learn from history and what we could have done better.

I would say to Mr Duignan, the NDP and to Bob Rae: Learn from what previous governments have done that could have been done better; don't repeat the mistakes. Here's an opportunity to do something better. Here is an opportunity to write into the legislation public protection, protection of the taxpayers, and say very clearly that under no circumstances will the taxpayers of Ontario bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any such shortfall or debt incurred from the NDP casino gambling initiative.

That's thoughtful; that is reasonable; that is good public policy; that is looking at previous projects and saying, how could we have implemented those better? I don't understand why the NDP, why Mr Duignan, would get into such a harangue over this proposal, because it is a good idea.

I'm concerned that frequently what we see from Bob Rae and the NDP is, if they didn't think of it, it's not going to happen. I commend Mr Kwinter for being persistent in bringing this forward to private members' hour to give the NDP a second chance, because if the private members of the NDP caucus will support this, because it is in the taxpayers' interest and it is in the public interest, there is still time for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, for the cabinet and for Bob Rae himself to say, "We're going to amend the legislation to protect the taxpayers of Ontario." It's that simple.

That's what private members' hour is all about, and I am concerned and genuinely distressed when I see members of the NDP caucus standing up in private members' hour in defence of NDP partisan policy without keeping an open mind to consider the good ideas and suggestions that are put forward by other members.

I repeat: This debate is not about the pros and cons of casino gambling. Mr Kwinter says he accepts and recognizes the fact that the NDP are doing that. That's their right. They are the government and they have a majority government. But they can protect the taxpayers, they can protect the public interest as they go about doing this if they will take Mr Kwinter's good advice and amend the legislation as is suggested by this resolution. I would hope as we hear from other members of the NDP caucus that they will consider doing that today to show that they too share with us the desire to protect the public and the public interest.

Nothing is for sure. As we're talking gambling, there is no sure bet. Nobody should take anything for granted. All the nice words from the minister, from the Premier, from the cabinet and from Mr Duignan about the protection of the public by contract is not as strong and powerful a protection as protection of the public by law.

If the NDP, the Premier and the Minister of Commercial and Consumer Relations, the cabinet and the NDP caucus are sincere about protecting the public interest, here is an opportunity to take a good suggestion, a good idea from a member of the official opposition and incorporate that, first by resolution in this House and secondly into the legislation before it receives third reading and royal assent, and show the public that in fact they are open to good ideas and suggestions, they are willing to listen and they're willing to listen to a member of the opposition who has put forward a thoughtful and reasonable proposal that won't cost them a dime, won't cost them a nickel and potentially could save the taxpayers of this province a lot of money.

I want to thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate and I urge the members of the NDP caucus to support this very reasonable and thoughtful resolution.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This Bill 8 and the resolution that has been brought in subject to that by the member for Wilson Heights certainly are giving me cause to say a few words in support of the member's resolution this morning.

Although I hadn't planned to make a presentation this morning, I have been moved to do so by the remarks made recently by the member for Halton North. I don't understand how he can continue on with this silly gobbledegook about what's happened in the past if he's not prepared to learn from the situations that he's referring to in the past and agree with this resolution as put forward by the member for Wilson Heights that will in fact protect the people of Ontario from being caught in a similar financial bind that we have seen our taxpayers have to face from other decisions made on larger projects by other governments.

I recall the member for Grey-Owen Sound heavily debating with the member for Halton North on this one issue: Why would he not concede to put the protection in the bill? This is a bill for the province of Ontario; it's not a bill for the city of Windsor. He's parliamentary assistant to the minister, so I can understand how the minister has had so much difficulty in getting this bill in front of the House and getting it through the House, because there's been considerable --

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Mismanagement.

Mr Jordan: -- mismanagement, thank you, of the whole bill, from start to now. Now, under this resolution, we are attempting to give the minister and the parliamentary assistant a chance to make that small amendment. It's not a large amendment relative to the paperwork of the bill, but it is a very large amendment relative to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

When the member for Halton North rants and raves about the mistakes of the past and how the taxpayer had to carry the load, we still can't get him to understand that Bill 8 is a bill for the province of Ontario, not a bill for the Windsor casino. He's saying, "Oh well, we don't have to worry about that because we can write it in as a clause in the contract."

What are you going to do then? We've made it legal to have casinos in the province of Ontario, and every time someone applies to have a casino, whether it be in Ottawa or elsewhere, we are going to be faced with that same possibility of the taxpayer facing a financial loss that could be created by that casino.

The member has put forward this resolution which very clearly demonstrates the need for this protection in the bill, not in individual contracts. I find it difficult that the member for Halton North can't understand that he's leaving the province and its people wide open for every contract that comes up. We don't know what government will be in power, but it leaves it open for a government to go ahead and allow a casino to be opened without having that protective clause in the contract.

I urge the parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton North, to go back to his minister and plead with her to review this legislation for that point alone. I'm not going to get into the fact that we're shocked that the New Democratic Party has brought forward such a bill in the first place. It's disgraceful. You can put out an Agenda for People, like you did, and get elected on it, and then, in your three years to date, you've broken every promise. The only reason that the Agenda for People is there, it seems to me, is to give you a list of things you can do that you said you wouldn't do.

That's been the whole program of your government, breaking the assurances that you gave the people in that Agenda for People. We've seen that over the three years, so we're not alarmed any more.

The government has had a spending spree since it came into power, never thinking about where the revenue would come from. Now they find themselves in this financial squeeze and they're desperately trying to bring in some money in the form of new taxes -- they call them user fees -- in the form of photo-radar, which I find is almost like spying on a driver on the highway, and they're spending $80 million to install it.

Mr McLean: Putting the racing industry out of business.

Mr Jordan: Yes, putting the racing industry out of business, a sport that has been enjoyed in Ontario for years.

Madam Speaker, take it that the bill is passed now, has received third reading under closure, certainly not with any adherence to the many points that were made by the opposition. They were just so bent on getting this into law so that the casino could be opened in Windsor, so that the revenue could come here to try to help them get through their financial crisis. But I'm afraid that it's going to take more than Bill 8 to save this government, because what it may gain financially from Bill 8, it's going to lose in confidence with the people.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): As the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member representing the area where the interim casino will be located in Windsor, I appreciate the opportunity to partake in this debate this morning.

It is certainly a pleasure to speak to the concerns of my honourable friends in the opposition, and the question placed before this House certainly is fundamental. It gets to the very heart of the relationship between this government and the people of Ontario. It becomes a question of trust and integrity.

The government brings the following promise forward: The taxpayers of this province will not bear any responsibility, financial or otherwise, for any shortfall or debt that could be incurred by the Windsor casino. That is the government's promise, and naturally it comes with a guarantee.

We were very careful in structuring the casino initiative to ensure that the guarantee is a contract between the government and the successful proponent. This contract will ensure that in the unlikely event of an operating loss, the loss will be the responsibility of the operator, not the taxpayers of Ontario.

This promise is illustrative of the relationship between this government and the people of this province. Throughout the course of this initiative, I've been struck by the integrity, the sensitivity this government has demonstrated in its work to introduce the casino to the city of Windsor.

I want to tell you now about one of the most interesting, yet little-known aspects of the casino initiative. I'm speaking about the relationship that has developed between the people of Windsor and the government of Ontario, a relationship comprised, as we said, of trust and cooperation. I know of few other examples where the government and a municipality have worked so closely and so productively on one project. This partnership is the reason the initiative to bring a casino to Windsor has been so successful.

This casino is being introduced properly and carefully, and both the municipality and the province continue to believe it will be a tremendous boost to Windsor's economy. There are over 160 businesses in the immediate downtown area in Windsor which are closed, an area which has been ravaged by cross-border shopping and the recession.

The government chose Windsor for the province's first casino because it is the largest of Ontario's hard-hit border communities. These communities, of course, require special attention. They have suffered because of their closeness to the American marketplace and the insensitivity of the federal government. The GST and free trade have hammered these cities and towns. Because of the casino, Windsor will now benefit from its border location instead of suffering.

The city is very well positioned to attract American tourists to a year-round casino. The infusion of new dollars into the Windsor economy will help create new jobs and stimulate economic growth, especially in the tourism and hospitality industries. It will be a great pleasure to see many of these dollars coming into our city.

The government announced on October 6, 1992, that Windsor would be the site of the province's first casino and naturally this announcement triggered many questions. The city wondered where the casino might go, how big it should be, who should own it, who should run it. Most of all, the city wondered if the government would listen to the wishes and the concerns. After all, it is the province that has the ultimate responsibility for the casino.

The province was asking many of the same questions. The province's goal, however, was very clear. It wanted to ensure the casino fit comfortably into the community. That obviously meant that many of the answers to these questions would need to come from Windsor and the residents. The project could not succeed without the help of the city and the community. By working together, both Windsor and the province knew they could get the job done better and smarter.

As the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations promised on the day Windsor was selected, "starting immediately, our casino project team will begin detailed discussions with municipalities in the Windsor area to finalize the best approach and structure." A little over a month later, the provincial government and municipal officials held workshops in Windsor with more than 60 representatives of organizations right across Windsor. These included representatives of industry, business and labour, and charity, religious, arts and social service groups.

The diversity of views and perspectives brought forward in those meetings helped form the core objectives of the casino initiative: that the project reflect and respect community values while providing maximum benefits for all those concerned.

One of the concerns raised in those workshops was the casino's impact on charitable fund-raising. A month later, members of the casino project team met with the members of two dozen local groups involved in charitable gaming in Windsor. Many were of the view that more people visiting the city would ultimately benefit their fund-raising efforts. These people also asked that bingo not be played in the new casino. I'm pleased to note that it will not.

In closing, this House should applaud the bold and innovative approach taken by the civic leaders in Windsor and the bureaucrats of the casino project team. I can't tell you how pleasantly shocked I was when I read stories in the Windsor Star about bureaucrats operating at breakneck speed and making lickety-split progress. As the project continues, so will the team. The team will work between the province and the municipality.

From the day Windsor was chosen for the casino, the people of Windsor relied on the government to listen to their concerns. They trusted the government to act upon those wishes, and that is what we did, time and time again. We, here at Queen's Park, want to build on the enthusiasm in Windsor for this initiative. That's understandable when one starts to add up the number of new jobs created, when one considers the potential for renewal in the downtown core of Windsor.

I'd like to congratulate the mayor of Windsor, the city councillors, the Downtown Business Association of Windsor, those from the minister's office, the project team and all those people in Windsor who want this initiative, somewhere in the area of 80%. The sooner this important piece of legislation is in place, the sooner the Windsor casino initiative can become a reality.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this very thoughtful resolution put forward by the member for Wilson Heights. As you will know, Madam Speaker, and as members opposite will know, the resolution before us today is really an extension of an amendment brought to this place, in committee of the whole and prior to that at the finance and economic affairs committee, basically a product of Mr Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and the member for Wilson Heights.

Through deliberations in committee, they began to have some concerns with respect to the economic modelling that was being put forward in response to questions about the economic viability and potential for not only the Windsor casino but subsequent casinos across the province of Ontario. It became abundantly clear that at best the economic modelling was questionable and that at worst they may fall off the table, so to speak, and put the taxpayers of the province, not necessarily only with Windsor but with subsequent casinos, in some jeopardy with respect to the financial obligations incurred as a result of the construction and/or operation of those casinos.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich gave a very thoughtful speech, I thought. Initially, he talked briefly about relationships between governments and the people of the province. He subsequently went on and talked about the merits of the casino project in Windsor. A good speech, not necessarily on the resolution per se, but I understand where he's coming from. If I was living where he is living, I would use this opportunity to do the very same thing and speak to the cooperative spirit and the element of cooperation that I think has been evidenced in many respects.

I think there have been -- and the member for Windsor-Sandwich would admit this, I think, being a reasonably thoughtful and objective person -- some deficiencies, as there would be in any undertaking where people are involved, because after all, at the end of the day, we're all fallible and we make mistakes. I think there has been some considerable cooperation. At the same time, I think it fair to say that there have been some grave concerns raised by this party and my friends in opposition that, privately, other members acknowledge, in terms of the management and the time lines that have been set and some of the difficulties relating thereto.

In the result, of course, the government found itself in sort of a happy position that we had brought forward this amendment, because it gave it an opportunity to dig in its heels and say, "On the one hand, we support the concept and we're very much in favour of it, but we're not going to support the amendment," thereby providing them with an opportunity to set the table to say, "The opposition is delaying this bill; they're holding it up, so we can bring in a time allocation motion," as it did yesterday, to curtail debate, using this particular resolution, or the amendment that was the genesis of this resolution, to provide some rationale.

It's interesting that the member for Halton North, my friend Mr Duignan, stands in his place and sort of puts on his contrived outrage and indignation. I want to say to him that I think it takes a great deal of character for somebody to stand anywhere, and particularly in this place, and say, "Hey, mistakes were made." The member for Wilson Heights has done that.

Let me quote from a great philosopher to the south, Will Rogers. He said: "There's nothing as easy as denouncing. It don't take much to see that something is wrong, but it takes some good eyesight to see what will put it right again." It's a sort of folksy way of saying what the member for Wilson Heights has done. He said, "You know, there were some mistakes made in the past." The government member, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Halton North, rants and raves about mistakes in the past. So be it.

Who of us in this place has not made mistakes or been party to mistakes made by organizations? People, being what we are, have participated in mistakes. "Placing the blame" said Dr Battista "is a bad habit, but taking the blame is a sure builder of character."

I think implicitly the member for Wilson Heights has said: "Look, we've made mistakes. I'm prepared to take some of the blame. I'm willing to say I was part of a less than perfect process, and having done that, I want to learn from that and contribute to this bill specifically, and perhaps bring to focus a principle of the way government should operate from here on in, that we should be more careful, more precise in terms of the demands that we put upon ourselves to protect the interests of the taxpayers of this province."

I think it is a very thoughtful resolution, not only with reference to this specific bill but perhaps a model for other enterprises that the government of this particular stripe and future governments will enter into. I think it's abundantly clear that, as governments begin to operate into this decade and into the decades ahead, there will be more of an interchange of relationship with the private sector, with joint venture type operations and a coupling of the resources in the community.

Indeed, the Premier has said, even with respect to my own community, that maybe the courthouse will be built after all, with the private sector. I want to use that by way of an example about relationships that the member is talking about.

There is nobody in the New Democratic Party who is honest -- and I suppose and presume that all members are honest and have that degree of personal integrity -- who would not stand before the mirror or stand before themselves and say, "There were promises made by my government and for whatever reasons, without casting blame, they were not fulfilled." You know them all. There is a litany of them. Every government has from time to time done that.

I think it is important for us to say, "Okay, that can happen." I don't think it's something that we need necessarily be defensive about. I think we should be accountable for it in this place and be prepared to acknowledge that those things have happened and say, "How can we prevent that from happening in the future?"

There is no doubt that the member for Windsor-Sandwich stands in his place with absolute confidence and says, "There have been assurances made by this government," and he's willing to go to the bank on them, so to speak.

But there were assurances made by other governments and mistakes were made. There were assurances made by the opposition party, as it then was -- it now sits in the place of government -- and I say this with the greatest respect, assurances made by the Premier and others that have not been able to be fulfilled. The Premier and others in the government will say: "There are extraneous factors or things that have changed. Circumstances have changed."

Is it not fair to say with respect to Bill 8, the legislation that will govern operation of casinos, that notwithstanding the promises, the assurances, the relational aspect that the member for Windsor-Sandwich rightly speaks about, things might change, things perhaps beyond the control of this government, perhaps not intended but certainly putting it, if you will, without casting a great pall upon it, as a government being a victim of changing circumstances? Any reasonable woman or man would say, "Yes, that could happen."

That is not to say that the government is being dishonest or disingenuous in terms of its commitments being made. I think perhaps the member for Halton North protests a little bit too much.

What this resolution says is: "Put it in writing. Make it a part of the law that adds substance to your declaration." It is not a great deal to ask for; in fact, something that I think my friends opposite would be proud to support. I can only urge them to get away from this rather partisan narrow-mindedness that has apparently emerged today and think about it in those terms. I think it's a thoughtful, good resolution, and I'm proud to be associated in support of the resolution brought forward by the member for Wilson Heights.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The mover of the motion, Mr Kwinter, has two minutes to reply.

Mr Kwinter: I want to thank the members for Simcoe East, Oriole, Lanark-Renfrew and Brampton North for speaking in support of my resolution. I also want to make a very brief comment to the other members of the government side.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich started out, and in fact paraphrased my resolution, saying that he was absolutely in support of it, it was going to be included in the regulations. It begs the question that if you're in support of it, why are you opposed to including it in the bill?

The member for Halton North, and I say this with some respect, ranted on about all these horrible things that other governments had done and as much as implied: "How dare you not let us make the same kind of mistakes that you made? You made them and we want to make our mistakes." I'm saying that we acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the past and that we want to make sure they don't happen again.

The other concern I have is that we are not debating Bill 8. That has been done. It was passed yesterday and is a fait accompli.

The government members today spent most of their time defending casino gambling. I'm not debating that; I'm debating the fact that it's going to be but that surely there isn't anybody who would object to the fact that the citizens of Ontario should not be put at any financial risk as a result of the potential problems that could develop. I hope this is a roaring success and, as I said earlier in my opening statement, that it generates an incredible amount of money for the citizens of Ontario.

All I'm saying is that there should be some safeguards, and it begs the question, if the government is not prepared to include it, why not? Why, if they support it, and why, if they say there's no problem with it, would they not include it in the legislation? The only answer could be that there has to be a problem with having it. If it's a problem for the government, potentially it's going to be a very serious problem for the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE JOUR DU PATRIMOINE

Mr McLean moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act respecting Heritage Day / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant le jour du Patrimoine.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr McLean, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide some comments on private member's Bill 2,

An Act respecting Heritage Day. You are no doubt aware that the purpose of this bill is to establish a new holiday on the third Monday of the month of February to celebrate Heritage Day.

Ontario's heritage is about our past, our present and our future. It is about the kind of province and the quality of life we can expect to have in the future.

We are a community in the province of Ontario. It is a community of people from many generations, many countries and many cultures. It is a community of people we have grown to appreciate and should celebrate on the third Monday of February each year. It is a legacy we must improve and enhance for the future.

When I speak of the community of people who make up this great province, I am referring to people whose roots lie in virtually every country on the face of the globe. For all of our diverse origins, we have learned to act as a unified community, as a multicultural society where different people from different cultures live, work and play together.

You are no doubt aware that Canadians have celebrated Heritage Day unofficially on the third Monday of February across the country since 1974. To give these celebrations a higher profile and a greater visibility, Ontario Heritage Week was introduced in Ontario in 1986, and this event has grown steadily in popularity over the past seven years.

Designating the third Monday in February as a heritage holiday would increase awareness and appreciation of the social and economic importance of Ontario's multifaceted heritage resources.

This day could be used to encourage a broad public participation in heritage preservation, protection and promotion. It could also be a day to support and recognize the efforts of groups, individuals and the many organizations involved in heritage activities in Ontario.

The current Heritage Week is largely a community-based celebration with the majority of events and activities organized by local groups like historical societies, architectural conservation advisory committees, community museums, archives, heritage organizations, schools and libraries, to name but a few. These groups deserve our appreciation, support and recognition for their efforts to keep our heritage in the public eye, for giving our heritage a higher profile and for making us all aware of our roots.

The fair and equitable climate we now know in Ontario is a direct result of the sincerity and common decency of the citizens of this province. But it would certainly be naïve of me to suggest that a multicultural society has progressed in constant harmony or to ignore the blemishes that exist today.

Heritage Day would provide our citizens with an ideal opportunity to learn about their brothers and sisters who live next door, in a nearby municipality or an adjoining township, who may have a different culture or heritage than themselves.

I cannot think of a better way or a better method of improving the multicultural composition of our society, of ending discrimination in employment practices or in renting affordable housing. Heritage Day would make each and every one of us more sensitive to the different traditions and values of our immigrant, ethnic and native neighbours.

The Toronto Star recently asked the question, "Should Canada have a public holiday in February?" There were 862 callers, of whom 93% said yes and only 7% said no. Here are some of the responses to this Star poll: "Yes. Please. Tomorrow." "The whole month should be a holiday." "Call it Heritage Day." "I think the benefits would outweigh any economic losses; companies would see less sick time and absenteeism."

Opponents argued that the country's economy doesn't need another day where employees are paid for not coming to work. But I would suggest the recreational, tourism, cultural and hospitality sectors would stand to benefit from the extra spending the Heritage Day would likely encourage.

As a point of interest, Canadians currently have nine statutory holidays a year while Americans have 12, the British have 11 and the Spanish and Australians have 10. We have a fewer number of holidays than any other major western country.

The people of Simcoe county have a unique heritage to celebrate. This marks the 150th anniversary of the incorporation of the county of Simcoe. The county is named after Upper Canada's first Lieutenant Governor, John Graves Simcoe, who first explored the region 200 years ago.

There are more than 100 historical sites in the county that are located in the riding of Simcoe East and are marked with distinctive blue and bronze plaques. In September 1814, the Royal Navy captured the United States ships of war Tigress and Scorpion, and they were later sunk in Penetanguishene Bay.

Taking advantage of the rapids at what is now the village of Coldwater, members of the Ojibwa band constructed a grist mill in 1833 to serve the residents of the Coldwater reserve. By 1831, native black veterans of the war of 1812 accepted lands granted in Oro township to form the only government-sponsored black settlement in Upper Canada. The community grew to 100 settlers and flourished briefly until it was abandoned due to poor soil and harsh climate. That was in 1831. My ancestors came to Oro township in 1832.

So we talk here about our heritage. Pressure by land-hungry settlers in the vicinity of present-day Orillia forced the relocation, in 1838-39, of a band of Ojibwa led by Chief William Yellowhead to a new reserve in Rama township, which saw residents transformed from a nomadic to a settled lifestyle.

George Cowan, known to his French Canadian employees as Jean Baptiste Constant, established an independent trading post on Matchedash Bay near the village of Coldwater in the late 1770s. His fur-dealing territory probably included most of present-day Muskoka, Simcoe and Haliburton.

The site of an Ojibwa reserve from 1830 to 1838, Orillia subsequently prospered as an agricultural and lumbering community. The transportation links with Toronto and Georgian Bay stimulated Orillia's development as a commercial centre and a summer resort.

The village plot of Penetanguishene had been surveyed as early as 1811, but there were no civilian settlers on the site until the troops and fur traders from Drummond Island began to relocate there in the 1820s. The nearby naval and military establishments helped to sustain the community during its early years.

These are only a few of the many historical figures or cultural groups that we could honour and celebrate on Heritage Day. That's the third Monday in February.

The story of Simcoe County, and all of Ontario for that matter, is one of growth and change. It is a story of the coming together of peoples of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and customs, of the effects of this encounter on them and on the land where they chose to anchor their dream for a better life.

Because the land was here long before the people who came to settle it, it's with the land that the province's story begins, but it is with the people of Ontario that this province's story continues.

Having said that, I believe an annual Heritage Day on the third Monday in February would increase awareness of the scope and value of our heritage, of our culture, resources, and encourage participants to preserve, promote, protect and develop their diverse heritage and cultures. It is a legacy we must enhance for our benefit and for the future of our children.

Over the last several years, I've had the opportunity to participate in putting plaques up honouring such people as the honourable E.C. Drury, who was Premier of this Province from 1919 to 1923, a man who established the highway system and the reforestation. We have many things to celebrate with regard to our heritage. These people who have honoured us with their forthright, superior outlook on this country should not be forgotten.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Simcoe East will have two minutes in response. We will now proceed to every recognized party in the Legislature. They will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm delighted to speak in favour of a Heritage Day holiday for several related reasons.

Firstly, as we all know, February is the worst month of the year and we do need something to counteract the February blahs. Heritage Week is already helping to do that.

Secondly, we do need to underline the importance of heritage, and a holiday is an ideal way to do that, because a holiday gives us a chance to experience our heritage.

In fast-changing times, we need to hold on to our accumulated knowledge of the things that make life worthwhile. Old cities and towns, old buildings and old things like furniture, works of art, clothing, jewellery and furniture, photos and documents contribute to our sense of continuity. We need that for our psychological health.

Less tangible things, like national and family traditions, songs and dances and stories, can delight us and make us feel secure in our world. All these things incarnate values and beliefs; they express relationships; they give us a place to belong and tell us who we are; they remind us that we have much to lose if we lose touch with the past.

They're an important key to social justice and a necessity for healthy communities and they remind us of the delight that unspoiled nature gave our forefathers. The literature and poetry of the past are full of the beauties of nature. They remind us of the physical and mental benefits of having to do things the hard way and, on the other hand, of our good fortune in being so much more physically comfortable than our forefathers were. Canada in particular suffers from a lack of continuity and needs to build on its past, meld its traditions and develop new ones which will bring people together.

Then there is a third reason why we need this holiday. As technology races forward and each worker becomes more productive, there is less that needs to be done. We're looking at rates of unemployment that do not come down as the economy improves. Whole categories of workers are becoming redundant, and yet those who have jobs seem to work harder and have longer hours than ever. The unemployed are too poor and insecure to use their time creatively, while those with jobs -- and MPPs are a case in point -- have no time for their own lives. This makes no sense either in economic terms or in human terms.

We all need and want to work, but we all need time in which to be ourselves and enjoy our heritage. We need to read, to write a diary, to play games and dance and sing, to socialize, cultivate hobbies, produce works of art or enjoy the productions of others. We need time to walk and cycle, canoe and swim, to enjoy the beauties of nature, to pick flowers or tend our garden or raise our children and watch them grow, to enjoy being in this wonderful world and find out to the full who we are.

We only have nine holidays out of the 365 days in the year. People in the Middle Ages did better than that with all the saints' days they used to observe. The member opposite has already pointed out that Canada does not do well from the point of view of holidays. We need to shorten our worklife through shorter workweeks, earlier retirement, and more holidays and sabbaticals. That way there will be more jobs to go around, because they will be shared more widely.

All those people enjoying their leisure will create jobs too, in tourism and entertainment and sales of hobby materials. Wonderful things will be handmade and sold because people have the time to express themselves, thus enriching our lives and the economy. Days off when everyone else has a day off and community and family things can happen are especially rewarding and precious.

Heritage Week is a going concern and is the occasion of many imaginative and valuable community events, something my riding of Peterborough is particularly good at. Heritage Day is another step in the right direction. Let's do it.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I thank the member for Oriole for her strong support in this matter. I am very pleased to rise on my own behalf at the very least, since it's private members' hour, and support Mr McLean's private member's bill, which in effect would create a special holiday in February to celebrate our heritage.

This is certainly not a new idea -- thank you; the cavalry has come to the rescue with a glass of water. This is certainly not a new idea. In fact, it was first raised in 1973 by the Heritage Canada Foundation. They were advancing this idea in our federal Parliament. They gave a very good description of why it would be advantageous to have this special Heritage Day in February. They said:

"Because a holiday makes people sit up and take notice. It also provides a chance for celebration; in this case, a celebration of our history. Our country has a rich cultural past. Our homes, buildings and streetscapes are living history lessons, symbols of the past. Their preservation contributes to the feeling of identity and continuity in this diverse nation. It tells us something about our roots. It reminds us of who we are."

That was 1973, some 20 years ago, yet here we are debating, trying to make that holiday a reality in 1993.

Mr McLean has had a very ongoing interest in this issue and did present a private member's bill in the last Parliament, where it was debated. In fact, one of my former colleagues, David Fleet, the member for High Park-Swansea, on the very same day that Mr McLean presented his bill presented a very similar one which not only would establish a day in February as Heritage Day but would also regularize, if you would like to use that word, Simcoe Day and make that a statutory holiday.

One of the things the Heritage Canada Foundation had suggested was that there be a focal point for the first three years of celebration of Heritage Day. The first, they said, could be the celebration of the Canadian flag, for instance, which was proclaimed on February 15, 1965. In the second year, it was suggested that Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, could be celebrated, since his birthday falls in that month. In the third year, we could celebrate the importance and contributions of Canada's native people, the first citizens of our country.

One of David Fleet's suggestions was that in the fourth year, we could celebrate a very important historic event to our country, the installation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a very important element of our heritage.

I would like to just mention a few general reasons why I support a holiday in February.

The pace that we've undergone in the last decade has been astronomical. I remember reading studies in the early 1980s saying that we were going to become a leisure society and that we should start to prepare ourselves for having more recreational time, more time to devote to our hobbies and our aspirations other than work. In reality, the converse happened, and today the pace is far quicker than it was in the early 1980s. We have far less recreational time, less time to spend with our families, less time to renew ourselves.

I am very supportive of adding a few more holidays to our calendar so that we can as a people renew ourselves, as the member for Peterborough has just talked about, so we can smell the flowers and walk in the park -- well, maybe not in February; walk through the snowfields in the park. But I think it's very important. From a purely pragmatic point of view, productivity suffers when we don't take the pause to renew ourselves.

I'd like to bring up one special issue which is somewhat unique in Canada, and that's our Canadian winters. They are very harsh, they are very long, and at times they are very demanding. I think if you look at the number of suicides in January and February in Canada, there's no doubt that the weather and the climate contribute to a great depression. But think of the mindset when you know there's a holiday coming. Doesn't it lift your spirits?

Doesn't it make you think, "Oh, there's one day I don't have to go into work, that I can spend time with my family, with my friends, that I can go to a concert, that I can walk in the snowbound park," whatever? So it's for very emotional reasons that I think it's important we have that opportunity to renew ourselves.

I could probably go on at great length to explain why I feel holidays are very important, and it isn't because we don't work hard as Canadians. I think we work too hard in some measure. We have to learn to pace ourselves. We have to learn to appreciate that there are other things to life than our work. If we can combine two things, to create this opportunity to renew plus to celebrate our heritage, this is an excellent opportunity. I very much would urge all members of the House from all parties to combine these two worthy aspects and to support Mr McLean's bill. I thank him very much for bringing this issue to the House's attention.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm pleased this morning to rise and speak in support of Bill 2,

An Act respecting Heritage Day. I thank the member for Simcoe East for bringing this legislation forward. I know he is deeply committed to establishing an official holiday that will serve to enhance our understanding and respect for our diverse heritage, especially in the riding that I represent, the riding of Lanark-Renfrew.

I was pleased with the presentation made this morning by the member for Peterborough on the values of our heritage not only in buildings and architecture but in people, and that we should have time to sit back, study it and learn from it.

In this presentation this morning, I would like to illustrate why I believe an official holiday respecting heritage is necessary. In my riding and throughout Ontario, I believe the holiday will instil a deeper understanding of how our past shapes our present and our future. The holiday will serve to educate and to promote the historical values which are the lifeblood of our communities, our municipalities, our counties and our province.

Bill 2 will designate the third Monday in February as Heritage Day. On this day and perhaps during the week, individuals and families across the province will celebrate their heritage background and historical roots in Ontario. In the past, heritage has been seen as a means by which we could preserve and recognize structures and buildings. However, since the Heritage Act was passed in 1974, our understanding of heritage has been transformed into a mode that considers the individual, the family and the community.

While the recognition and protection of great historical buildings is certainly important, this is only one of the aspects of heritage. Heritage is about people. Heritage is about people and the total environment in which they live. It can be more precisely defined as the living context that we have inherited from the past which enriches the present and shapes the future. These are the values which will be expressed by this Legislative Assembly when we create Heritage Day.

We should really look at Heritage Day as sort of a professional development day. We have that now in our education system for the teachers and the students. If we look at Heritage Day not just as a holiday but as a professional development day and a day of education, a day of understanding the history that surrounds us in our own communities, in our own ridings, we become more aware and more knowledgeable of our past and, from that, then we are more prepared to face the future.

In order to demonstrate the importance, I would like to talk about some of the rich heritage that is found in my riding of Lanark-Renfrew and how it has affected the people and the community.

I could start with the town of Almonte, a very historical community. I just want to touch on a couple of items. At Almonte, what's been known as the Auld Kirk Cemetery is a real historical spot in Ramsay township, just outside the town of Almonte. There's considerable history there.

The history of that site known as the Auld Kirk actually includes the location at which the families of our present Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Henry N.R. Jackman, settled. I'd just like to tie that location into our present Lieutenant Governor. When he visited our riding to present the medals, he was pleased to go past this site and see the state of repair. It's been very well maintained.

The structure was built in 1836 by the local congregation of the Established Church of Scotland. The church was attended by Presbyterian settlers from several neighbouring townships. The value of the building and the location, and even the cemetery itself, has been seen for a number of years as a historical point. I'm proud to say that it has been well maintained and attracts a number of people each year during the tourist season.

Almonte was founded and established during the 1850s, along with the development of several woollen mills and the construction of a railway line to Brockville. By 1870, the village of Almonte was one of the leading centres in Ontario for the manufacturing of woollen cloth.

I can mention the Rosamond mill. The leading figures in the Almonte woollen trade were James Rosamond and his sons, Bennett and William. This family was instrumental in the development of the woollen industry along the Mississippi River valley. By 1890, Almonte was reputedly the seat of the woollen trade in all of Canada.

Also, just outside of Almonte, in Ramsay township, we have the heritage centre being developed for Dr James Naismith, the founder of basketball. He was a medical doctor but he also saw the need to establish a game that could be played outdoors and could involve the young in summer or winter. When he started that game it was a soccer ball he used. He took a bushel basket and cut it in two and that was the basket, so the name "basketball," as it was affixed at each end of the playing field. James Naismith was born in Ramsay township in 1891. The committee has been set up now to go ahead and establish a recreation youth centre there in honour of Dr James Naismith.

Moving on over to Carleton Place, Carleton Place was originally called Morphy's Falls. This settlement is on the Mississippi River. It took the name of Carleton Place in 1830 when the post office was officially opened.

In the riding of Lanark-Renfrew we have been very fortunate in many small rivers which, although small, have waterfalls on them to the degree that they were capable of running flour mills, saw mills, electrical generating plants and so on. For instance, we have the Mississippi River starting out with the electrical generating plant at High Falls. This is a heritage plant in itself, and I'm hoping Ontario Hydro will see fit to restore that plant because it always has been a good tourist attraction. It would be nice to see it maintained as a heritage site.

It's very efficiently operated at the present time through automation from the control centre that used to be at Smiths Falls and they have now moved that in to Ottawa at Maryville. But the Mississippi had the plant at High Falls and it had the plant at Morphy's Falls at Carleton Place, also generating electricity, following on through to Galetta, where again we had the falls and another generating plant. Galetta has now gone to private enterprise and has been redeveloped and is generating power very efficiently.

Moving over to the town of Perth, the Scottish immigrants and soldiers discharged from the Glengarry Light Infantry and other regiments formed the majority of early settlers in Perth in 1816. Within six months of its formation the settlement contained some 1,500 people. At Perth the last fatal duel took place in 1833. Participants of the last fatal duel fought in Upper Canada were two law students, John Wilson and Robert Lyon. Some disparaging remarks by Lyon about Miss Elizabeth Hughes prompted the duel in which Lyon was mortally wounded. That was the last fatal duel; it was in 1833.

There's a park named after that historic event and it's another tourist attraction as you visit the town of Perth.

There are many other historical sites in the town of Perth. I think I could safely say that the town of Perth has been the leader in restoring historic buildings in their community. They've done an excellent job and certainly they're an example for other communities who have buildings such as Perth has. The foresight that they have to go ahead and restore the architecture and the history of those locations speaks well of the community, of the council, of the heritage committee and the leaders generally.

Over at Smiths Falls we have the Rideau waterway. It forms a major part of the town's history. It was constructed between 1826 and 1832 for military purposes. The Rideau waterway, together with the lower Ottawa River, formed the first canalized route from Montreal to the Great Lakes.

I could go on for some time on the different events in my riding because it lent itself very well to the early settlers because of the power of the rivers and the timber that was available at that time for the sawmills.

Just to mention, Arnprior was initially settled in 1824 by some 80 Scottish Highlanders under the patriarchal rule of Archibald McNab. This settlement along the Ottawa River later became McNab township and was further developed with the help of Daniel McLaughlin, who recognized the potential of the Madawaska watershed and built the sawmills on the Ottawa River.

I could go on on the history of the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, but in closing I would just like to say once again that by pointing out the many historical and heritage sites, we can surely see the need for one day a year that we could have to sit down and meditate on and talk about and communicate with our families and our neighbours on all these historical heritage values that we have there to enjoy.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I too am very pleased to be able to join in this debate on Bill 2 from the member for Simcoe East. It's a very important subject. While I'm tempted to extol the virtues of the riding I represent -- I think you'll all understand that there is a lot to say about the Kingston and The Islands area -- and if I don't it's not because I don't want to make you people feel badly about not coming from an area so richly blessed that you'd feel second-rate; it's because there are a couple of things I want to mention that I think the member for Simcoe East has brought to bear in this bill.

One thing that won't surprise you to hear is that the Kingston area has considered the idea of a Heritage Day. Back in the late 1970s, the town council named the third Monday in February Sir John A. Macdonald Day and considered that to be at least a city holiday. It was in

part in keeping with the discussion in the federal Parliament that there would be a national holiday the third Monday in February. At that time, it was expected, too, that this would be taken up across the country. So union contracts mention this day as a holiday. Where I worked at Queen's University it still is a holiday, called Heritage Day.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Do they all go to work?

Mr Gary Wilson: Well, everybody doesn't honour it. It did have the advantage of freeing parents at a time when their kids were still in school. It was a special day, partly for that reason.

But the other thing I want to mention about the Kingston area -- somewhat like the member for Lanark-Renfrew mentioned; the communities have valued their heritage and have worked at it -- is that the work that went on in Kingston laid the basis for the Ontario Heritage Act of 1974.

I was pleased to chair a committee that was looking at that act in the past couple of years to see how it could be improved for today's circumstances. I think the thing that we found was, as has been clear in the remarks that have been made to this point, that there's no escaping heritage; heritage is what we are, and unless we understand what we are, where we came from, then we won't know where we're going. Or to put it more positively, if we understand where we've come from, then we have a better idea about where we're going and we can make plans for that. Heritage, as has been suggested, is seen to be in all aspects of our life.

Built heritage is one of the areas where it first gained prominence and was what the communities focused on initially, because buildings crumbled, and these buildings were important in the life of those communities. It was important to find ways to preserve the buildings so that the record of our past would be kept in this visible way.

But heritage goes beyond that, into the natural heritage, for instance. I know we all value the natural beauty and makeup of our ridings, as we do the architectural.

A third is what has been called "intangible" but also is referred to now as "living heritage," the languages, the customs, the traditions that we have all grown up in and value and want to see persist. This is why we're coming together, to make sure that this whole aspect of heritage will survive into the future, again because that is the basis, that is what has defined us as people, and we want to make sure that it stays strong.

I think the thing we want to take from the members who have spoken, justifiably of course, in saying what is so important and valuable in their ridings is that it is the strength of heritage throughout Ontario, in all our communities, that will determine the strength of the province, that will give the life to our province and the direction that we want it to go. Again, this is of course a very important aspect of social justice and why our government values heritage so strongly and has spent so much time in looking at the best way of improving the heritage act. With this high priority, I'm pleased to say that we expect the first reading of new heritage legislation in the spring.

Again, it's the community strength that comes from heritage that we want to strengthen in these aspects. Someone mentioned the idea of work as an example of where heritage isn't always recognized. Of course, the holiday recognizes that in one way; we take some time off work. But again it's the work that has built our province that we want to make sure we recognize, not only in taking it off but in how we have built this province to the extent that we have and how we can continue to strengthen it, and I suggest it is through strong heritage legislation. I'm pleased to say that the member for Simcoe East's bill highlights that, and I support it.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise today and participate in this debate about whether or not we should have a Heritage Day as a statutory holiday in Ontario. This isn't the first time that we've had this debate or this discussion in this Legislature. In fact, there's been discussion going back and support for this back into the 1980s, and I recollect some of that discussion very well.

One of the pieces of information that I don't think has been shared with the House this morning relates to the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues report. That organization was established in 1973 by the former Conservative government, but it was in April 1989 that it made a report regarding the effect of public holidays, not only on women but on families. Their recommendation 29, which was included in that report of April 1989, stated as follows:

"That the number of statutory public holidays in Ontario be increased to 10, adding the August civic holiday and a family day in February to existing public holidays; and

"That the exemptions in" other sections of the act "and all...exclusions by regulation be deleted, so that all employees in Ontario are entitled to a minimum of 10 public holidays per year."

The rationale they presented for this was that at present, and I refer to this 1989 report: "In Ontario, there are eight statutory public holidays over the year.... In 1984, as many as 55.9% private sector employees, and 76.3% unionized employees, had 11 or more paid holidays per year. There is no justifiable reason why 10 public holidays cannot be the minimum standard for all Ontario workers."

They go on to say, "Public holidays are a basic standard which improve working and living conditions, contribute to improved family life, and may lead to increased productivity."

I refer to this report because I would very much like to support the notion of 10 statutory holidays as being the standard for Ontario, and then within that the concept of a holiday for Heritage Day, or as I would like to propose, that we consider that in celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday in January. They would very much come together as a day in the winter when we could celebrate our heritage and when we could also celebrate the history of this country.

In the riding of Oriole -- I often describe it as a riding which really reflects the multicultural nature of this province -- the people I have the honour and the privilege to represent frequently remind me of not only the importance of their heritage to the diversity of this province, but also just how much the cultural nature of the province has changed, to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

It seems to me that we could combine the advice from the Ontario women's advisory committee from 1989, the advice from Mr McLean for a Heritage Day, and the advice from others who have been advocating, and we've seen other private members' bills in this Legislature requesting support for a January holiday on the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald.

It seemed to me that this resolution could be worthy of support, with the caveat that it could go to an all-party committee that would look at all of these recommendations and determine whether or not a Heritage Day/celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday wouldn't be a wonderful opportunity for us to celebrate not only the history of the development of our country, our first Prime Minister, but also a celebration of our cultural diversity and the benefits that Ontario has received because of the hard work and the dedication of the immigrant population who have come to make Ontario their home.

So it's not only the heritage and the culture and the traditions of those of us who had the privilege to be born here, whose parents and grandparents, such as mine, had the good sense to move to Canada, to make Ontario their home, but also a celebration of the diversity which waves of immigration that followed have brought to this province. In the riding of Oriole, I've often said that in the plazas the cultural diversity is evident, but we really don't have a focus for that celebration.

It seems to me that a statutory holiday in the middle of our bleak winters -- I commend the member for Eglinton for having pointed out that often we do see a despair that is unrelated to the recession we're presently in, but just to the cold climate, to the time of the year, to the dreariness of our winters. By the time we get to January or February, we need a lift.

If that would increase overall productivity, as we know the experience has been from the other statutory holidays, if we could bring greater fairness by having a standard that said 10 is the number of statutory holidays for everyone in the province, not just those in unionized workplaces and those who work for the government, we could couple those desires for that kind of a lift in the middle of the winter with a celebration of our heritage and our history in the celebration, as I cite, of the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald.

This debate goes back prior to 1981. I have some news clips of advocates for a statutory holiday to celebrate Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday. A lawyer by the name of Harvey Haber, who lives in my neighbourhood and just outside the riding boundary of Oriole, has been an advocate for many years to recognize Sir John A.'s birthday as a statutory holiday in January. Whether it is in January or in February, it certainly seems to me that it would be an appropriate celebration and a chance to celebrate our cultural diversity.

In January 1983, the Toronto Star called for a Macdonald Day celebration. Whether we call it Macdonald Day, Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday, or Heritage Day -- and I would remind you that we celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday in May and it happens to be very close to my own birthday so I'm always aware of the Queen's birthday; we know that's a good excuse for a celebration in this country -- I support the idea but would like to see it go to committee so it could be discussed further and not just be viewed as a Rae day.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm actually very happy to have the chance to stand up today and talk a little bit about Bill 2. Heritage to this member is very important. Heritage to my family is very important. Heritage to my community is very important. Heritage means a lot. To every person in society, it means something different.

I think that people need to respect heritage. This bill, and I am going to support it, clearly tells me that there are some members across the floor who do respect heritage and who believe there should be some sort of celebration in terms of heritage.

I could never understand why heritage has never been a part of other holidays that we celebrate during the year. While we take other days off in government and other days off in the communities, I could never understand why heritage was never a part of it.

Why aren't we celebrating heritage? Why aren't we celebrating our history? That's what it's all about. Why don't we take that time to reflect upon our roots, our ancestors, our families? Why don't we as a government say, "Enough is enough," and as a House say, "Enough is enough; let's talk about our heritage; let's think about our heritage"?

I'm going to support this bill, but I want the member to remember one thing: There will be a cry out there. There will be people who will say, "No more holidays for government employees." They'll say, "Without pay." I want you to remember that. I don't necessarily agree with it. I think everybody should reflect on heritage, but remember that there will be some flak on this. There will be some people, even in your own caucus, who say: "Don't do this. We don't need another day of rest in government."

I understand that I have a colleague who wants to say a few words. I'll be supporting it.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to bring to your attention very briefly the importance of heritage to tourism. As you know, I represent Niagara Falls, which is a natural resource and natural wonder of the world, but it is also heritage, and very many people don't recognize this. When you think of tourism anywhere, it basically is heritage and natural resource. Those are the two important things.

I think in this House we would all agree that the appreciation of heritage is not just one day but must be appreciated as part of our economy. It must be an economic viability.

I want to point out that Niagara is a very historic area. For instance, the Battle of Lundy's Lane: A new book just came out last week by Don Graves from Ottawa, explaining the battle of Lundy's Lane. I recommend it to you. There is also a historic site called the Chippawa Battlefield which is now being developed by members of our community, by the municipality, by international interests as well as provincial and federal levels of involvement. So it's a very exciting thing.

I want to say that heritage in the future should be more a part of tourism, especially in the Niagara area.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe East has some time to sum up.

Mr McLean: First of all, I want to thank the members for Peterborough, Eglinton, Lanark-Renfrew, Kingston and The Islands, Oriole, Yorkview and Niagara Falls for their comments and support for Bill 2, the Heritage Day Act.

The issues that have been brought out here this morning of the importance of remembering our heritage should never be forgotten. There are probably few families that have done the family tree and gone back and researched, through history, where they have come from. Our family came from England and Scotland in 1832 and settled in Oro township, probably totally bush at that time. In the early 1900s, my father took wood to the then village of Orillia with a team of horses and a sleigh for a $1.25 a cord. This is some of the heritage I have and that I remember. My grandson will be the seventh generation, I hope, that would have farmed in Oro township.

Many of the people who came to this country worked the land and lived off the land. So I say there are a lot of people who have not gone as far back as some of us have, and my family tree goes back to the 1700s. This is just part of a little history of some heritage that we shouldn't forget.

There have been some private members' bills that have passed in this Legislature. I remember when Mr McClellan sat in this seat here some years ago in opposition and brought in a bill that would extend daylight saving time, a very worthwhile bill that did change society in Ontario to a certain extent, that made daylight saving time about a month longer. Dianne Cunningham initiated a bill with regard to bicycle helmets. The government has taken over the thrust of that bill and has made that into law. I think this bill is just as important as any of the other bills that have passed in private members' hour, because of our heritage.

There is one thing we should not forget. From January 1 to Easter, there has been no time off. The member for Niagara Falls made a very important point when she talked about the tourism aspect. The ski resorts that we have, the outdoor sports that we have now and the way people would like to travel now in the winter would be a great boon, I think, to our tourism industry. But not only that, the main importance is that we do not forget our history and our heritage.

I would hope that the members of the government would see fit that this bill could be recommended to go to committee to have a further in-depth look and some input from people across the province. We look at the poll that the Toronto Star did, which indicated over 90% of the people thought that the third Monday in February would be a good time for a heritage holiday. I agree with them, and I will hope that every member would support this. I thank them for that support.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for private members' hour.

CASINO GAMBLING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now be dealing with ballot item number 35, first introduced this morning at 10 o'clock by Mr Kwinter.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Kwinter's motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. We now shall deal with Mr Kwinter's resolution, ballot item number 35, private member's notice of motion number 30. All those in favour of Mr Kwinter's resolution, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Cunningham, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Offer, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Kwinter's motion, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 20; the nays 34. I declare the motion lost.

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE JOUR DU PATRIMOINE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We shall now deal with Mr McLean's ballot item number 26, the second reading of Bill 2. Are there any members opposed to a vote on Mr McLean's private member's motion? Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr McLean's bill carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I ask that the bill go to the standing committee on general government for further consideration.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have consensus that the motion go to the general government committee?

All those in favour of going to general government, please rise and remaining standing. We will get a consensus.

We do not have a consensus, therefore the motion will go to committee of the whole.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I condemn the NDP government of this province for the recent changes to the General Welfare Assistance Act, which have had a serious impact on sponsored immigrants and refugees in my riding and across the province.

People have been placed in dire straits. Their support has been cut without sufficient warning, and in some instances with no warning at all, to only $50. This has left many people with no money to pay rent or buy food.

The devastating impact of this change has been brought to my attention by organizations like Neighbourhood Legal Services and local advocates like Kim Garvin.

The government should withdraw this regulation and redo it properly.

On a better note, I had the pleasure of attending last evening the presentation of the Ontario police medals for bravery and the firefighters medals for bravery. Each of those honoured deserves our commendations.

I wish to applaud in particular one of the recipients, who lives in my riding. Constable Todd Hillhouse received the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery. Mr Hillhouse and other police officers forced their way into a smoke-filled, burning building and rescued the people trapped inside. Constable Hillhouse said he was only doing his job. But he is a hero doing a job in which the police and firefighters put their lives on the line for each of us every day.

The stabbing of Detective Constable Bruce Ward last night is an example of how difficult a job it is. Constable Hillhouse and Constable Ward need the assistance of this government, because as police numbers are reduced in areas like Regent Park in my riding it will only make a dangerous job more so.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it concerns the government's most recent funding for children's services.

Foster parents like Isabel Seguin and Margaret Smit of Orillia and Shirley Black of Brechin have written to me to express their outrage over your government's plan to claw back a portion of the federal children's special allowance. This money is given to parents by Ottawa to offset some of the costs of raising children. This money has been traditionally collected by children's aid societies for the children in their care.

You and your government did not consult with your own staff or with the children's aid society when you were developing this plan to cut budgets. You know from your own directives that the CAS budgets have already been cut to the bone, and now you want to claw back money needed for food, clothing and other basic needs of children in their care.

Your government is penalizing foster parents who are faced with the challenge of fostering emotionally hurt, neglected and abused children daily. How can you justify reducing rates for foster care when foster parents in Simcoe county have not received an increase in three years?

I cannot accept measures which directly hurt children. Your government's move to claw back the special allowance is outrageous, insensitive and irresponsible.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I know that many people in this House are anxious to know my view on the IWA's announcement that it has chosen one of its technically preferred sites in my riding in the town of Pickering.

Some history of this is important. Durham region had five sites identified and walked away from this site process when this government determined that the process for P1 was wrong. The province took over a bad situation and did the best possible, including the 3Rs. I believe it was the right thing to do, to pull the exemption on P1, because it was clearly arbitrary and would have seen Metro's garbage come to Pickering once again.

I am not pleased with the fact that Pickering will be host to yet another dump, even though it will not be host to Metro's garbage. The current dump in my riding, Brock West, is a menace and no community should have to put up with a continual barrage of negative impacts so that people living in other jurisdictions can have a more comfortable lifestyle.

I made all these points to the IWA, as many people have. However, they are at arm's length from politicians, and I believe that politicians should not choose the location of dumps, as the previous government's Premier did.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Wiseman: Where do I go? I don't go anywhere. I continue to do what I did before I was elected and since I was elected and will continue to do. I will work closely with the community, especially Pickering Ajax Citizens Together for the Environment, the mayor's task force and the mayor of Pickering. I will help them in any way I can to ensure that this process is followed fairly and adheres to the Environmental Assessment Act.

I was elected by my community, I respect their rights and I will work to ensure that their rights are protected.

JOSEPH LABELLE

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I join with a number of my colleagues in recognition of individuals who reside in our ridings who have been recognized for their bravery, those firefighters and police officers who have literally stood in harm's way on our behalf.

I note that my friend the member for St George-St David paid tribute to an individual who lives in his riding who, together with Constable Joseph Labelle of the riding of Brampton North, on the night of January 21, 1993, ran into a burning building and in so doing saved the lives of other people.

I think it appropriate that we pay tribute to these individuals and I want to publicly recognize the contribution of Mr Joseph Labelle and the fact that he was a recipient for a medal of bravery, pay tribute to him and in so doing, pay tribute to the many, literally thousands, of women and men who put their lives on the line for us every day. We wish them continued success and God's blessing and care on their lives, and thank them for what they are doing.

I pay tribute and offer my personal respect to M. Labelle and his family and trust that he will know that our thoughts are sincere in extending to him every congratulation and best wish on the receipt of this prestigious and well-deserved award.

TIMISKAMING LAND DISPUTE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources. Since 1973, 10,000 square kilometres of land in Temagami have been frozen while negotiations were held between the government and native people who have claimed that land.

Last weekend the Teme-Augama natives rejected the most recent offer of settlement. This band flatly rejected the province's offer of $15 million and 300 square kilometres of land after four years of negotiation and several extensions.

Hundreds if not thousands of jobs rely on the natural resources which are frozen due to this caution. The province has now spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting this process and numerous businesses have already gone bankrupt because of it.

I am pleased to see, according to today's report in the Globe and Mail, that the minister has finally decided to pursue the lifting of the land cautions through the courts. We hope this action on the part of the government provides some optimism for the people who depend upon the resources of the Temagami region, and we look forward to the future creation of resource-based jobs in Temagami right through to Lanark-Renfrew.

PLAINS ROAD CHILD CARE CENTRE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of the Plains Road Child Care Centre incorporated in my riding of York East. This is the first child care facility in Metro Toronto that has converted from a private to a non-profit agency.

The actual conversion occurred September 1, 1993. The new centre, located at the Canadian Martyrs school, employs nine staff and has a licensed capacity for 54 children ranging in age from 18 months to 10 years old.

The conversion of this child care program allowed the East York community to retain child care spaces. If the conversion had not taken place, the former commercial program was going to close. There would then have been a loss of child care spaces for children and families living in East York.

To date, 32 child care operations have converted to non-profit management, which represents more than 2,100 child care spaces. These conversions are the result of our government's commitment to the delivery and accountability of child care services within the non-profit sector.

BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Over the past month business leaders throughout northwestern Ontario have been honoured for their impressive contributions to the economic prosperity of both their individual communities and the province.

On October 28, business leaders of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation gathered in Thunder Bay for the third annual Nishnawbe-Aski Nation business awards banquet. Noreen Peters of Pikangikum was named Business Woman of the Year for her successful business selling yard goods and craft supplies in her community, and Thomas Grey of Cat Lake was honoured as Business Man of the Year for his hotel, taxi, outpost camp and aircraft operations.

On the same night in Kenora, the Kenora Chamber of Commerce held its annual business awards ceremony. Award recipients for 1993 were Woody Linton of Crime Stoppers as Executive of the Year; Charlene Hall of Fusion North as Entrepreneur of the Year; Elizabeth Campbell of the Book Store as Young Entrepreneur of the Year; Bowman Electric Ltd as Company of the Year, 1 to 20 employees; and Devlin Timber as Company of the Year, 20-plus employees.

Finally, it was with great pleasure that I joined my leader, Lyn McLeod, and my northern colleague Mike Brown and over 500 northern business leaders at the northern Ontario business awards dinner on November 4 in Thunder Bay.

This year's top northern Ontario business awards honour was for a business of 20-plus employees and it went to Bearskin Airlines of Sioux Lookout in my riding. This is an operation that started as a very small operation in the small community of Bear Lake and has now progressed significantly.

On behalf of all members of the House, and especially the members of the northern caucus, may I offer my sincere congratulations to all the award nominees and winners for the superior work they have done in their communities throughout the north.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Once again it's necessary to call attention to the ways in which the Ministry of Labour is trying to drive agriculture not only out of the province but out of business. When it isn't minimum wage increases or labour relations, it's massive increases in workers' compensation rates. The 1994 rates are proof that the WCB is certainly out of touch. For the agriculture and food industry, most rate changes run far in excess of inflation.

For farms, there are substantial increases: livestock farms up 8%; fruit and vegetable up 8.5%; mushroom farms up 16.5%; veterinary and agricultural services up 13%; landscaping and related services up 25.5%. On the food processing side: poultry products up 14%; fruit and vegetable products up 7.5%. In retail and wholesale food: retail up 5.5%; specialty food stores up 10%; agricultural product sales up a full whopping 26%. Enough is enough.

Instead of looking at itself and its rulings, the WCB thinks it can keep hiking rates. Just as the Liberals did, the New Democrats think they can keep raising taxes. We all pay: producers, processors, transporters, retailers and of course consumers. We're all consumers. That's not the case with agriculture and the processing of food. The farmer and the producer are not at fault. We have very much bureaucracy and taxes, much to blame for these increases.

MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): We've heard the public and inside this House make statements like: "Politicians are skating on thin ice." "How is the minister going to stick-handle that issue?" "The government is offside on that issue." Even you, Mr Speaker, have given penalties and even ejected members from this House.

Well, MPPs against the NHL Oldtimers will be taking place in the city of Chatham, at the Chatham Memorial Arena, this Saturday evening, where we will have an opportunity to face off and where the politicians will have the ability to use their stick-handling ability and their skating ability on thin ice, to do it in the arena.

We'll be playing people like Paul Henderson, who, we all remember in 1972 against the Russians, got the winning goal. We'll also be playing against members like Andy Bathgate, Billy Harris, Keith McCreary, Mike Pelyk and others. Normie Ullman will be there to be a part of this process.

This process and the proceeds will be going to the Make A Wish Foundation, which is a program that's put together by the Woodstock Institute and Sertoma Health Centre. It is to help young people in our community in the east end and also to revitalize the community itself.

Mr Speaker, I enjoin you, other members and the public to participate in this event by buying tickets in advance for $7 or at the door for $9 for adults, and for children under 12, $5 in advance and $7 at the door. We hope we will see you and other members there. You will also get the opportunity to see the Premier use his stick-handling ability in scoring goals for us.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO LEAD INVESTMENT FUND

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I rise today to tell the House about a unique new partnership between government and the private sector, a new $70-million venture capital initiative called the Ontario lead investment fund, OLIF.

I've just returned from a press conference during which the Premier, the Minister of Finance and I were joined by representatives from our leading financial institutions to officially launch the fund. The fund will be an innovative arrangement between the government and the private sector, working together to promote investment, economic growth and jobs in Ontario.

As the Premier said recently, to renew this province and this country requires a common effort, a clear recognition that no group or institution can do it alone. The development of the fund reflects this recognition.

With the Ontario lead investment fund, our government acted as the catalyst in bringing financial institutions, some of which have had little history of cooperation with one another, together to establish this much-needed source of venture capital and expertise. To quote the chairman and CEO of Bank of Montreal, Matthew Barrett: "This new financial institution will be the first major public-private venture capital initiative in Ontario that includes Canada's major financial institutions. It will be the first 'fund of funds' created in Canada's venture capital market."

I'd like to take a few minutes to give you a history of this initiative, I'd like to explain why we believe its development is crucial to ensuring that Ontario is prepared to meet the demands of the new economy, and I'd like to briefly outline how the fund will operate.

The idea for the fund was first made public when we released our industrial policy framework in 1992. The industrial policy described the need to develop Ontario's innovative growth firms. These firms are typically small or medium-sized companies with a home base in Ontario which have a track record of exceptional growth. They are firms with the potential to provide new jobs and more growth in the years ahead.

These firms realize that to succeed in the 1990s, new ways of doing business are required. They're developing new products, new ways of organizing production processes, innovative management of technology, creative marketing and original design ideas, all of which require capital and expertise.

As a government, we need to encourage the creation and growth of these companies, we need to find ways to meet the challenge of increasing global competition and we need to facilitate the move to a higher value added economy. That is how we are going to create, in the long run, new long-term jobs here in Ontario. We believe that OLIF achieves a very big first step in meeting these objectives by providing expertise and more long-term capital to innovative growth companies.

Last year, a private sector advisory committee was established to help design the fund. Through consultations with business, the financial community and labour, the committee finally agreed on a few key principles.

First, they pinpointed the need to design a vehicle to make long-term equity investments in innovative growth companies, particularly knowledge-based companies. Second, they recognized the need for a structure that would be arm's-length from government and that wouldn't create a big bureaucracy. Third, they highlighted the need for a structure that would maximize strategic partnering in the economy and cooperation among key stakeholders. Fourth, and perhaps most important, a structure was needed that linked specialized expertise with new pools of capital.

This is because many young companies on the threshold of expansion lack the depth and breadth of management to meet all of the challenges involved in growing to meet their full potential. We needed to ensure that specialized expertise and capital went hand in hand. That's where OLIF comes in.

The fundamental objective of the Ontario lead investment fund is to allow capital and expertise to flow to innovative growth firms that have the potential to produce jobs and superior long-term returns. OLIF will pool funds from the Ontario government and major financial investors on a 40%-60% basis. It will be jointly run by all of its investors, with no single institution, including the government, holding a controlling vote.

OLIF will be a fund of funds. It will promote and be the lead investor in a number of individual expert investment corporations, EICs, that will be formed to invest in specific business areas. These EICs will make direct investments and provide specific technological, market and management expertise to the companies in which they invest.

Our fund complements, and does not duplicate, existing private sector financing. That's why it focuses on Ontario's small and medium-sized knowledge-based growth firms. These are the companies that currently do not have readily available access to funds on reasonable terms and in the amounts required. Such firms are found in various sectors of the new economy, including health, biotechnology, energy and environmental technology, telecommunications and information technologies.

OLIF will encourage strategic partnering and cooperation. It will bring together major financial institutions and the Ontario government to jointly make investment decisions, and it will encourage new teams to form EICs, which may involve corporations, venture capital companies, universities and investment managers.

As Gordon Cheesbrough, chairman and CEO of ScotiaMcLeod, said earlier today: "The OLIF will encourage new partnerships that can bring the specialized expertise needed alongside capital to help grow Ontario companies successfully. We expect that it will become a key source of venture capital for Ontario."

When the fund starts making commitments to EICs, it will leverage at least $6 of private funding for every dollar of government money invested. This kind of effort will go a long way to supporting the growth of new jobs and new industries in this province.

This is a long-term investment. It balances the many immediate job creation investments that we have launched over the past months, including Jobs Ontario and our infrastructure initiatives, and it demonstrates that, together with our partners in business, in labour and in communities across the province, by that partnership we are making the investments required to put Ontario back to work.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I welcome the announcement of the minister. I think the investment fund is an idea with some merit, and I think it's important that Ontario channel the province's savings into high-growth, high-tech companie