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

June 28, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SIOUX LOOKOUT DISTRICT HEALTH CENTRE ACT, 1990

TOWNSHIP OF PLYMPTON ACT, 1990

TOWNSHIP OF FRONT OF LEEDS AND LANSDOWNE ACT, 1990

HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1990

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT, 1990

EMPIRE CLUB FOUNDATION ACT, 1990

TOWN OF NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE ACT, 1990

ST GEORGE’S SOCIETY OF TORONTO ACT, 1990

CITY OF THUNDER BAY ACT, 1990

DINORWIC METIS CORPORATION ACT, 1990

CITY OF KINGSTON AND TOWNSHIPS OF KINGSTON, PITTSBURGH AND ERNESTOWN ACT, 1990

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOTIVE

CIVIL SERVICE

MORNING GLORY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

PLANT CLOSURE

SOCIAL SERVICES

LAYOFFS

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

VISITORS

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR BEACHES-WOODBINE AND MEMBER FOR WELLINGTON

RETIREMENT OF EDITOR OF DEBATES

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR SIMCOE WEST

VISITOR

TRUDY NIEZEN

ALEX MCFEDRIES

CANADA DAY / FÊTE DU CANADA

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE / GARDE D’ENFANTS

RESPONSES

CHILD CARE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

TIRE TAX

FOOD BANKS

GREATER TORONTO AREA

NUCLEAR POWER

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

LABOUR DISPUTE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE SERVICES ACT, 1990

LEGAL PROFESSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT. 1989

THIRD READINGS

THIRD READINGS

POLICE SERVICES ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

POLICE SERVICES ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

THIRD READING

ROYAL ASSENT

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING STAFF

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SIOUX LOOKOUT DISTRICT HEALTH CENTRE ACT, 1990

Ms Oddie Munro, on behalf of Mr Miclash, moved second reading of Bill Pr59,

An Act respecting Sioux Lookout District Health Centre.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF PLYMPTON ACT, 1990

Mr D. W. Smith moved second reading of Bill Pr65,

An Act respecting the Township of Plympton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF FRONT OF LEEDS AND LANSDOWNE ACT, 1990

Mr Runciman moved second reading of Bill Pr68,

An Act respecting the Township of Front of Leeds and Lansdowne.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1990

Mr McGuigan, on behalf of Mrs Cunningham, moved second reading of Bill Pr70,

An Act respecting the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT, 1990

Mr Runciman, on behalf of Mrs Marland, moved second reading of Bill Pr78,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

EMPIRE CLUB FOUNDATION ACT, 1990

Mr Miller, on behalf of Mr Polsinelli, moved second reading of Bill Pr87,

An Act to revive The Empire Club Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE ACT, 1990

Mr Dietsch moved second reading of Bill Pr88,

An Act respecting the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ST GEORGE’S SOCIETY OF TORONTO ACT, 1990

Mr Reville moved second reading of Bill Pr90,

An Act respecting St George’s Society of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF THUNDER BAY ACT, 1990

Mrs E. J. Smith, on behalf of Mr Kozyra, moved second reading of Bill Pr92,

An Act respecting the City of Thunder Bay.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

DINORWIC METIS CORPORATION ACT, 1990

Ms Oddie Munro, on behalf of Mr Miclash, moved second reading of Bill Pr93,

An Act to revive Dinorwic Metis Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF KINGSTON AND TOWNSHIPS OF KINGSTON, PITTSBURGH AND ERNESTOWN ACT, 1990

Mr Keyes moved second reading of Bill Pr97,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston and the townships of Kingston, Pittsburgh and Ernestown.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Daigeler, on behalf of Mr Mancini, moved second reading of Bill 160,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Mr Daigeler: This bill, entitled

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, implements two major initiatives announced in the Treasurer’s budgets of April 1988 and April 1990.

The first is the tobacco marking program, which is designed to reduce and eliminate the sale of illicit, untaxed cigarettes in this province. The marking program places strict guidelines on those who import and export cigarettes and on retailers. Under this program, cigarette packages, cartons and cases available for sale in Ontario will now be required to display the Ontario tax identification mark. The only exceptions are cigarettes sold to status Indians on reserves, to diplomats or for export. All others must include a special indicator showing that the tax has been paid on the product.

This bill outlines the regulations and guidelines for the marking initiative. The program itself was put into practice on 1 March 1990, when manufacturers began marking cigarettes, and will reach full implementation at the retail level by 1 November 1990.

The tobacco marking program requires all Ontario manufacturers, importers, exporters and wholesalers to be registered in order to deal in tobacco products. Failure to register will result in strict penalties.

This bill will also simplify and streamline the reporting system for tobacco wholesalers and manufacturers.

In the April 1990 budget the Treasurer announced a second initiative, a rate increase on cigarettes and cut tobacco. The estimated revenue increase in 1990-91 due to the new tobacco tax rate is $158 million. The introduction of the cigarette marking program should also generate additional revenues.

I look forward to comments from my colleagues and passage of the bill.

Mr Laughren: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I do wish to express the opposition view on this, and I appreciate the parliamentary assistant’s comments and the fact that he is acting out his role as an extension of the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Revenue.

Hon Mr Sorbara: That’s not fair and untrue; you know that, Floyd.

Mr Laughren: I think we all know that there is a very effective bureaucracy in the Ministry of Revenue and their political role is played out in here by the minister and his parliamentary assistant. I think that is perfectly normal. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I were just talking about that and how that seems to be the case in this government. However, I do not want to be petty and that has got nothing to do with the bill that is before us.

This bill, as the parliamentary assistant indicated, raises the tax on cigarettes and of course, subsequently, the price.

There is something unusual about this bill, because it is not simply an increase in the price of cigarettes. It does one other thing as well. It increases the price of cut tobacco more than it increases the price of the cigarettes that you buy, a much more substantial increase in the price of cut tobacco, which is the tobacco that comes in the package or the can and which people then roll their own cigarettes from. I found it interesting that people who want to save money on cigarettes and use the cut tobacco now save no money at all when they buy cut tobacco in terms of taxes because the taxes are the same on the two products.

I was comparing the rate of taxes in Ontario with other provinces. If you look at the tax on a package of cigarettes, Ontario is the second lowest in Canada for tax per cigarette. In Prince Edward Island, the provincial tax is 7 cents per cigarette; in Nova Scotia, 6.8 cents; in New Brunswick, 6.79 cents; in Saskatchewan, 6.68 cents; in the Northwest Territories, 6.6 cents; in Manitoba, 6.5 cents; in British Columbia, 6.2 cents; in Alberta, 5.6 cents; in Quebec, 5.52 cents; in Newfoundland, 5.28 cents; in Ontario, 4.83 cents, with this legislation; and in the Yukon, 3.2 cents. So Ontario is the second from the bottom in the taxation of cigarettes.

If you turn now to cut tobacco, you will see that Ontario, with this very substantial increase in the tax on cut tobacco, is the second highest. Why would the government see it as being fair to have a tax per cigarette being the second lowest in the land and on cut tobacco the second highest? It is as though they are out to punish those people who try to save some money to roll their cigarettes rather than buying the finished product, the finished cigarette.

I am not opposed to this bill. I support the principle of this bill, which is to increase the tax on cigarettes. I want to make that clear. But I do find it passing strange the way the government has decided to increase substantially the tax on cut tobacco and to move itself up to second place.

Just as an example -- I will not read all the numbers -- the highest tax per gram of cut tobacco in the land is in Nova Scotia at 5.25 cents, then comes Ontario at 4.83 cents,

whereas the bottom of the scale, Yukon, has 1.14 cents. So there is a very substantial difference in the taxes that are applied to both cut tobacco and to finished cigarettes. I hope that when the parliamentary assistant responds at the conclusion of the debate, he will tell us what prompted that increase.

I know it equalizes the tax on the cigarettes. If you have a 4.83 cent tax on a cigarette, then 4.83 cent per gram is what it takes to make a cigarette when you roll your cigarette. That is how I understand the tax so that it is equal, that for the same number of cigarettes you pay the same amount of tax. But historically it has been the case that there was a nod towards those people who felt they could save some money if they rolled their own cigarettes. This is no longer the case and the government has decided that whether you roll your own or buy the finished product, you should pay an identical tax. I would be interested in knowing what the government’s thinking on that was.

I would be interested in hearing from the member for Norfolk as well, who I know has an abiding interest in the taxation of tobacco products: he is a member who has represented his constituency remarkably well over the years in making representation to government.

As I said earlier, we are going to support this bill because I think most people regard it as a legitimate source of taxation. The only other thing I would comment on, and it is not precisely in this bill, has to do with the assistance to tobacco farmers who want to get into some other business. Society is frowning on smoking because of health reasons, and if smoking does decline in the years ahead, and most of us hope it does, then I think we have to be more aware of the problems of the tobacco farmers.

It is not as easy as simply saying, “Switch to peanuts in your growing, or switch to some other crop.” It is much more complex than that. You cannot just turn one kind of soil over to another crop with the snap of your fingers. I think this government has not been fair in aiding tobacco farmers in switching to another product on their land. The last number I saw was in the 1987 budget. A commitment of $15 million to the tobacco assistance program was announced. That was back in 1987 and it became a joint program with the federal government.

Then in the 1989 budget it talked about a $40-million joint extension of the tobacco exit assistance program. So there has been some growth in the assistance to tobacco farmers.

I do not think it is enough. I think this is one of those examples where if a government wanted to put a surtax on cigarettes and apply that surtax to the assistance of tobacco farmers, the public at large would accept that. But it has not done that. It has simply put another tax on cigarettes and thrown the revenues into the consolidated revenue fund and then it expects the tobacco farmers somehow to switch to another product with virtually no assistance from government.

Governments are part of a program out there to discourage people from smoking. I think they then have an obligation to encourage and assist tobacco farmers to switch to another product. I do not see the government doing that in a very serious way. I would be interested in knowing what the government’s plans are in that regard. I do not think it is fair to separate the taxation of the product and the publicity against smoking from the problems of tobacco farmers. I think the government has an obligation to do that.

The last numbers I saw in that program to help tobacco farmers switch were that 573 farmers had been paid some kind of assistance, 50 applications for assistance were pending and were somewhere in the process, and 550 were still on the waiting list. I would ask the parliamentary assistant how he justifies hanging those 550 people out to dry, as it were, if we have a program. Either the government wants people to switch to other products or it does not. I do not think it is appropriate where we have as many people on the waiting list as have been provided with assistance under the program for tobacco farmers. I think that is inappropriate.

I believe over 7,000 acres have been taken out of production. I do not know what proportion of the total amount of land dedicated to tobacco growing that represents but, if the parliamentary assistant has that information, I would be interested in that as well.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that we do indeed intend to support this bill, but I would appreciate some of those answers from the parliamentary assistant, who is a very able extension of his bureaucracy.

Mr Villeneuve: I will only participate for a few moments. I know time is of the essence today.

It is always interesting to see the government going after tobacco farmers and charging consumers more for the product they use. I realize that using tobacco is considered to be a sin, and of course the sin taxes get piled on, but I find it amazing that in one year this government goes after more than $180 million from one sector of agriculture and then makes a big to-do about the fact that it is supporting interest rates to the tune of $48 million over one year. We still do not know how this particular program is going to be put forth, but we do know there was a great deal of fanfare made of $48 million.

The other side of the equation is that they are going to a small sector of the agricultural community and collecting $182 million over a full year through this particular bill, with the increase in cost of tobacco and tobacco products.

The particular area of concern was touched on by my colleague who spoke immediately before me in that we have to find alternative crops for our tobacco-producing sector of the economy in southwestern Ontario. Tobacco rights have been reduced very considerably over the past number of years. We can grow the crop; we just do not have the demand. We have to be exporting the product and I believe we are looking into that.

However, it is always of great concern to me when $48 million is added with a great deal of fanfare, noise and announcements while on the other side they go after $182 million a year from one of the sectors in the agricultural spectrum that is having a great deal of difficulty surviving.

In conclusion, I say this government should be ashamed when on the one hand all it can provide is interest relief to the tune of $48 million and on the other hand it is going after $182 million from a small sector of the agricultural economy.

Mr Miller: I am pleased to rise this morning and participate in the debate on Bill 160,

an act to increase the tobacco tax for the province of Ontario. As one who represents the riding of Norfolk, and perhaps 80% of the tobacco that is grown in Ontario and Canada, I feel very strongly that I should speak out on behalf of that part of our agricultural economy.

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry says it is a sin to smoke. Well, I smoke. I do not know if I am sinning or not, but I do not think it is a sin. It is a legal product and I think it is a matter of choice if we get satisfaction from utilizing tobacco. It has been utilized for thousands of years by the choice of each individual.

The thing that really concerns me, and has been expressed to me many times by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council and the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, is that we are competing with our friends to the south under the free trade agreement that has been brought forward. We either can produce what we utilize here ourselves or we can wipe our farmers out and import it from across the border.

The thing that really bothers them is the fact that our tax has put us in a position where cigarettes and tobacco are twice as expensive in Canada, and I am speaking of Canada now because I know the member for Nickel Belt indicated that we have the second-lowest tax in Canada. I am pleased to know that, but the thing is the difference between Canada and the United States.

Free trade is here, our border is long and the level of Canadian taxes on tobacco products versus those of the United States, our major competitor, lends itself to smuggling, which is costing the government substantial losses each year. A criminal element is being born which will eventually have to be dealt with by the governments involved. I think this bill is trying to deal with that element. That is the concern that has been expressed to me by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board and by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, and I want to make sure that all members of this Legislature are aware of that.

I see our friend the member for Carleton has just come into the House, and I know he wants to enter into the debate because he would like to tell me if I can or cannot smoke. The member for Carleton is not going to be able to do that, I am sorry. I think I am able to make that judgement myself, and I think that people around the province should be able to make that judgement. I am not promoting, but I feel strongly in that regard. We have too many people indicating that we should do this and do that. I think we have to make those choices.

Education plays an important role, and it is being done within the education system. I think that is good for health, and the Ministry of Health is carrying that out at the present time for a healthier lifestyle. I support that principle. But again, the tax itself, where we are doubling the price of our Canadian product versus that of our American friends to the south, lends itself to smuggling. Big money can be made from it very easily and I think we have to take those things into consideration.

Mr Sterling: I would be remiss if I did not make a few comments on something like this. I have been talking about the use of tobacco and particularly the addictive nature of tobacco, and therefore I disagree very strongly with the statement of the member for Nortolk with regard to my concern about telling other people whether they should smoke or not.

I have never suggested in this Legislature that anybody should not be permitted to take tobacco if they so desire. I do very much object to the right of other people to pollute the environment for non-smokers by the use of tobacco. I believe this is a principle which has now been embodied in some way in legislation and certainly has been accepted by society as not being fair to people who do not want to inhale second-hand smoke, which not only causes discomfort but also causes disease.

We are still losing about 35 people every day in this province because of smoking, both firsthand and secondhand smoke. In other words, 35 people are dying directly because of that, and they are dying prematurely by seven or eight years. That is the unfortunate part of tobacco. It is a proven scientific fact that this is resulting from that habit.

As I have travelled this road in dealing with this whole issue, I have asked the Treasurer for higher tobacco taxes because it is also a proven fact that with higher tobacco taxes you discourage young people from smoking; they have less disposable income. Therefore, it has been proven time and time again that as you increase the price of cigarettes, fewer young people take up the habit.

One of the fallacies, of course, and one of the things that we must teach our young people, is that while they may choose to smoke the first, second, third or maybe even the 25th time, it eventually becomes a very heavy addiction, an addiction which, according to the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, is even more addictive than the addiction to alcohol by people who are addicted to that particular habit.

I have also said, during the last five years in which I have talked on this particular subject, that this government has done precious little to protect those who have been involved in the production of tobacco and tobacco products. I believe that at this time they are providing something like $3 million in the buyout program,

whereas our federal government, the government that this Liberal provincial government dumps on, is providing three, four, five times that amount of money to help buy out tobacco producers in southwestern Ontario. While the member for Norfolk is very sensitive to the issue of tobacco producers, his government has done nothing, effectively nothing, to help out the situation, even though this very tax is going to raise significant amounts of money.

I have said that we should impose a tax of 10 cents per package and give it all to the producers. Let’s buy them out once and for all, even if we have to pay them two times the market value of their farms, in order to buy off that particular concern.

I understand it is a way of life as well but, unfortunately, the product of that way of life provides disease and death as a result of the use of that particular matter.

This government has said before that it is not only the producers who must be protected but also the communities that have relied on the wealth that the tobacco industry has enjoyed in the past. We must give those communities some help from the substantial tobacco revenue which we collect in this province. We should also provide retraining, not only for tobacco farmers but also for people who work in the plants that produce tobacco products.

I have no qualms in supporting this particular tobacco tax. I do have qualms about how they are spending the revenues they are collecting. They are not helping out the people who are being affected by the drop in the use of tobacco in Canada. They are not helping out the tobacco farmers, which they should be, and they should be ashamed of their efforts in this regard. They have done precious little to address the real problem and the plight of the tobacco farmers in southwestern Ontario.

My party, if we were given the privilege of governing in this province again, would be certain to deal with that in a direct, forthright and fair manner, which this government has not done.

Mr Tatham: I would just like to say that some people enjoy a smoke and, unless you are going to make tobacco illegal, I would like to think the people who supply the tobacco should be growing it in Ontario.

I would like to point out that under the tobacco assistance program since 1987 up to 7 February 1990, 474 growers have exited tobacco production, representing 38 million pounds in quota. The federal and Ontario governments cost-shared a $30-million, three-year program beginning in the 1986-87 fiscal year and expiring 31 March 1989.

I have dealt with some of these people and assisted them where possible, and I understand there is no help for the tobacco industry, but certainly our government is endeavouring to look after the tobacco farmers.

Mr Laughren: Very briefly, the one addition I would make to the member for Carleton’s comments, and the member for Oxford touched on it, would be that it is not simply the farmers who can be badly hurt when there is dislocation in the industry but also the producers, the ones who actually manufacture the cigarettes, and there are lots of people in that industry. That is why I think there needs to be a substantial increase in the amount of assistance, not just to farmers but to people in the manufacturing end of the tobacco business as well if they go out of that business.

Mr Miller: I would like to make a couple of comments on the remarks of the member for Carleton. There is a program that has been put in place to assist the farmers, as the member for Oxford pointed out, plus the alternative crop team that was established to do exactly what the member was indicating.

There are other programs to re-educate and to retrain, and many of the people in the industry have taken advantage of it, both husbands and wives, and they have been able to start afresh, but it has not been easy. I will be the first one to acknowledge that. But our government has been responsive in trying to assist, along with our federal friends. I am not saying that there has not been co-operation. It takes both areas of government.

As the member pointed out, $30 million was put into a fund from 1986 to 1989. Another $10 million was put in this last year to give assistance if there are more farmers who should and want to exit the trade. I think the bottom line is that if the production gets down too low, then the buyers will not come to do the buying. You do not have enough choices and that has to be a concern.

Do we want to really have an industry long term? The strategy we have been utilizing in trying to assist is to maintain a long-term industry which has been so important, not only to the economy of my area but to Canada generally. It is one of the third or fourth crops that produces the most dollar return of any crop in Canada. So it is important.

Again, I do not think that we want to import, that this is the intention of the third party, to say we should knock it off and import everything. That is fine, but I am going to support my farmers in what we can grow here and in what we can make a dollar on.

Mr Villeneuve: Just a very short comment is that the present amount of money taken in by the total taxes on tobacco and tobacco products in Ontario is well above double the entire budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that of operating the ministry, paying all the salaries and the support programs for agriculture. It is an absolute disgrace when the tax that is taken in on tobacco is literally double the entire budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I want to put that on the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member wish to respond?

Mr Sterling: Yes, I would like to respond very briefly. I noticed that two Liberal government backbenchers who talked on this subject studiously avoided telling this Legislative Assembly how much in actual dollars this government has given to the tobacco buyout program. Why? Because they would be embarrassed to compare their share of that program with the federal government’s share of this program.

Mr Furlong: Oh, come on.

Mr Sterling: It is true. The provincial government has been a penny-pincher in terms of helping out the tobacco industry in this province. It has done nothing to help them out in effect. It is the federal government that has helped out the tobacco farmers in this province.

We feel that if we are setting a goal to reduce the smokers in this province by one half -- that is what the Liberal Minister of Health has said -- if we are going to cut down the market for the tobacco farmers and for the people who are working in the tobacco industry in the plants, then we should be darned well willing to go out and help those people.

We are today voting for a bill where we are going to increase revenue substantially, I believe by some $180 million. I am just asking that the Treasurer give at least 10% of that back to the tobacco farmers so we can buy up the many farms. There are more farmers wanting to get out and, because the program has not been funded by this government, they cannot be bought out.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to point out that the member for High Park-Swansea was heckling from a seat other than his own.

The Deputy Speaker: Interjections are never in order no matter which seat they are from.

Do other members want to participate in the debate? If not, does the parliamentary assistant wish to wind up?

Mr Daigeler: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for what I thought was a rather philosophical debate at times on a bill that is essentially a revenue bill.

I was a bit disappointed that no one made mention of the other aspect of this bill relating to the cigarette marketing program, which is a very important initiative. In fact, it implements a recommendation from one of our standing committees, the standing committee on public accounts, which very strongly urged us to make sure there is no smuggling and no unfair taking advantage of a tax benefit by certain people in the province.

However, with regard to the increase in the tax rate, the member for Nickel Belt to a certain extent answered his own question as to why the cut tobacco prices rose quite a bit more than the price on cigarettes. If he wants the philosophical reason, I think it is quite clear that it would be relatively easy, especially for young people, to switch from the packaged cigarettes to rolling their own cigarettes if the uncut tobacco were not at the same price as the packaged cigarettes. I think that is the main reason why the Treasurer felt, and I think rightly so, that the price of the uncut tobacco should be the same as that of the cut tobacco or packaged cigarettes.

With regard to the tobacco farmers, the member for Carleton was indicating that he is so proud of the contribution of the federal government. He was talking about three, four or five times the amount that is being put in by the Ontario government. The reality is that it is less than two times. I acknowledge that but, after all, it is the federal government; it has so much more money than we have in the province.

During 1988-89 the government of Ontario provided $3.5 million in assistance to tobacco growers and, as he indicated, a further $6.5 million was provided by the federal government. That is not anywhere near three, four or five times the amount that the member for Carleton was talking about.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Daigeler: The member for Carleton probably will advocate in future an even higher tax increase, but I should also indicate that, in comparison to the other provinces, we are still at the relatively lower end of taxation for tobacco products; so there is certainly room in that regard to move.

I am aware that there is assistance for tobacco farmers. We agree with the members who have spoken that we support an orderly transition for tobacco farmers into another product. In fact, in the last year, the tobacco farmers in the province were producing to the limit of their ability. We are working with the tobacco industry and with the tobacco farmers to initiate a smooth transition to other products by the farmers and we have been very successful in this regard.

Finally, I wish to thank the member for Nickel Belt for his good comments about the Ministry of Revenue. I think he appreciates the briefings we have provided to him and I am glad he used the information that we gave him.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the 16th report (1988) of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

Mr Velshi: I am pleased to participate in this debate as chairman of the standing committee on the Ombudsman. This report was tabled by me for adoption some time ago, some weeks back in this House. After long and thorough discussions by two standing committees and three ombudsmen, the report was finally prepared and approved unanimously by my committee.

I would like to thank all committee members, the Ombudsman and her staff, the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the staff of my committee for all their co-operation and support in this very long and trying affair of Farm Q Ltd.

Mr Charlton: Just very briefly, as the Chairman has implied, the issue of Farm Q has been outstanding now for some six or seven years. The committee’s recommendation will allow a mechanism to kick in to finally resolve this issue one way or the other. I would urge all members to support this report so that the gentleman in question can finally get some resolution to this issue.

Mr Sterling: I have had personal contact with the owner of Farm Q, who I think has been diddled around by this government for the past five years. Before that time, there was indecision on the part of the former government in dealing with this issue. I make no excuses for the former government. I do not make any excuses, of course, for this government as I am not a member of it.

I hope they will deal with this person in a fair and equal manner, that he will not be charged excessive amounts of money to go through the process and that the report will provide him with a recourse for what I feel was a great injustice on the part of government officials some time ago. We are fully supportive of setting up this arbitration process.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Consideration of Bill 105,

An Act to amend the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act, 1988.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, I wonder whether I may be permitted to move further down to the floor.

The Chair: Please go ahead. Will you require some staff? Staff will come forward.

Mr Laughren: I have no objection to the parliamentary assistant moving to another seat and having some officials assist him. It provides further evidence that this parliamentary assistant is not just an extension of his bureaucracy but indeed is indistinguishable from it.

The Chair: To recap, I have a list of three proposed government amendments, to

section 5,

section 12 and the change to the

long title of the bill. Are there any other proposed amendments from anybody else?

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 5:

Mr Daigeler: Again I am subject to your ruling, Mr Chairman, but the minister already read that amendment into the record.

The Chair: I think you might want to do it again. The member for Carleton has a comment.

Mr Sterling: Yes. I was involved in the debate on this

section last time on this matter and I had a question of the minister. The amendment to

section 5, I believe, was put there basically in response to a concern by the New Democratic Party with regard to the conversion of rental property contrary to the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, or the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986.

This act gives certain rights or benefits to prospective purchasers of real estate property. My concern here was, whom are we penalizing by putting this kind of

section in place? It is my understanding from discussions with some of the staff from the Ministry of Revenue that in fact what we would be doing is penalizing a young couple who may have entered into an agreement of purchase and sale in order to buy a unit on the basis that they were going to receive the benefits of the program. Then they would be excluded from that right because something had taken place two years prior to their taking on this agreement and they would be left out in the cold as far as the benefits are concerned.

It would be nothing to do with their participation in the act of illegally converting a rental unit to a co-op unit or whatever might be the case. I had asked the minister to reconsider putting forward this amendment. The minister is not here today, but perhaps the parliamentary assistant could respond to that concern, because I am certain he is aware of it.

The Chair: Does the parliamentary assistant wish to respond?

Mr Daigeler: Yes, in fact I do have some comments on the remarks that were made the last time, but I would just like to be clear. Am I supposed to read the amendment again?

The Chair: I have on the record that we have read it.

Mr Daigeler: I am pleased to respond to some of the concerns that were raised the last time the bill was debated in the House. I understand first of all that the member for Nickel Belt had a few comments and he raised some questions with regard to this amendment to

section 5. I personally feel it is the very intent that the member is putting forward which is being addressed by the amendment to

section 5, because it ensures that only the homes which comply with the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act will be recognized for Ontario home ownership savings plan purposes.

The member for Nickel Belt really is concerned, not so much I think with the amendment but with clause 1(1)(ga) of the bill before the introduction of this amendment, because it does recognize a partial ownership in a multiresidential unit as an eligible home. However, this particular amendment does make sure that only such units as qualify and respect the Rental Housing Protection Act are recognized as eligible for OHOSP.

The Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, protects the supply of rental housing in the province by setting stringent controls on conversions. I am sure the member will agree with this particular provision. All legal conversions require the approval process provided for by the Rental Housing Protection Act. This process involves, of course, application to municipal council, notices to tenants, public hearings on the application and possible appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. Therefore, I think it is highly unlikely -- I think this is the member’s fear -- that individuals would seek out and make application to convert an existing rental property simply to take advantage of OHOSP.

The member did ask also why Bill 105 refers to these conversion units at all. We feel that not to refer to these units would be ignoring reality. This type of ownership does exist and in many instances this type of ownership is found in some of the least costly types of housing. Again, I do think the member representing the official opposition should be supportive of that, which of course would be very attractive to first-time home buyers who might otherwise be unable to afford a home.

In addition, if we were not recognizing these ownership co-operatives under the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act, it would mean that individuals who presently own these units would not be considered to own a home for OHOSP purposes. In other words, this would mean that they could go to their financial institution and open an OHOSP to save towards the purchase of a first home when in fact they already own one. We feel that this would create a very inequitable situation and that is why we have included the partial ownership in condominiums in this bill.

The member for Carleton was wondering whether the amendment would penalize the first-time buyer or the converter, and obviously he is rightly concerned to protect the interests of the first-time buyer. But being a lawyer himself, the member for Carleton would know that we do hire lawyers, often at a considerable price, to ensure that the interests of the individuals are protected and that they would advise against a purchase which would be in contravention of any legislation. Any lawyer dealing with a purchase of this type should therefore be asking for evidence from the vendor that the creation of the unit complies with rental housing protection legislation.

If a purchaser does unknowingly enter into a purchase of a possibly illegally converted unit, he or she has the option of voiding the transaction and obtaining the return of any amount paid under the transaction. In addition, the Minister of Revenue has the discretion to not recover tax credits where OHOSP funds were used for the purchase of an illegally converted unit in special cases of hardship.

In addition, the member for Carleton raised the question of how the Ministry of Revenue would become aware of illegal conversions. First of all, I would like to inform the member that the OHOSP application form will be amended to include a consent for the Ministry of Revenue to release information on the application to the Ministry of Housing. We will then be able to provide Housing, which administers the Rental Housing Protection Act, with the details of any purchase which seems to be in contravention of that act.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Housing has provided us with a list of legal conversions which we can use to determine whether an OHOSP purchase involves an illegal conversion or not. Any purchase which appears to contravene the Rental Housing Protection Act will again be referred back to the Ministry of Housing. Where it is determined that the property has been illegally converted, the plan holder will be subject to tax credit recovery, plus interest.

I trust that at least in part these comments will answer the questions that were raised by the member of the opposition.

Mr Sterling: As I listened to the response, I do not know how many of these applications there are each year, but I imagine the number would be substantial. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can tell me what he is expecting -- 10,000, 20,000?

Mr Daigeler: There are 40,000 plans opened a year.

Mr Sterling: There are 40,000 plans opened a year. Let’s say there would be less than that, but it seems to me that it would be not unreasonable to think that there might be 10,000 a year coming in. Let’s say there were 10,000 a year. That means the ministry is going to check the location of each of these particular applications, the unit they are buying, as against another list to determine whether they are buying a legally or illegally converted unit.

I know the intent of these two sections. The intent is to not allow someone who has illegally converted a unit to go out and tout these illegally converted units and use the government program as part of an additional sales tool. I think that is a noble goal to try to achieve. My concern, however, is that innocent purchasers are going to be caught by this rule and that no person who has illegally converted a unit is going to be caught in terms of a penalty that this is intended to provide.

The fact of the matter is that most lawyers practising real estate probably will not be involved in this process. First of all, usually the real estate agreement is signed without consultation with a lawyer. Second, the lawyers themselves will not have a list of illegally converted units in their offices. In other words, they will have no idea whether or not they comply with this legislation, even if a purchaser went to their offices and posed that question. Often a lawyer does not have any idea as to how the financing is going to take place in terms of tax relief and that kind of thing until well into the transaction.

I just think that, while the intent is well placed, it causes a bit of an administrative nightmare and it also is going to penalize some young couples who are going to be buying what would be termed an illegally converted unit without any real avenue for them to go down. I think you are just creating more problems than you are really solving here, that is all.

Mr Laughren: My problem with the argument of the member for Carleton is that the alternative to this is to leave it, which would allow, indeed, people who were purchasing an illegal conversion to receive government assistance. I do not think we can have it both ways in this.

I was concerned about this as well and I went to an acknowledged expert in this matter, David Warner, the former MPP for Scarborough-Ellesmere, who has always put the interests of tenants and taxpayers first in any of the judgements he has made. He tells me that we are better off with this amendment than we would be without it. When David Warner speaks on a matter of housing, I listen to him very carefully. As a matter of fact, I thought he was going to be here this morning in the gallery, but I gather he is out canvassing and knocking on doors and could not be here. But I did want to express my appreciation to the parliamentary assistant for bringing in this amendment. We shall support it.

Mr Daigeler: I would respond very briefly to the member for Carleton just to say that most of the applications we receive under OHOSP do come through the legal process and that most of the people do employ the services of a lawyer, so there should at least be that professional assistance.

The Chair: Are we ready for the vote?

Mr Laughren: As long as it is agreed that this is from now on to be known as the Dave Warner amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 12:

The Chair: Mr Daigeler moves that subsection 12(2) of the bill be amended by adding after “5(1)” in the second line “(1a).”

Mr Daigeler: Very quickly, the purpose of this amendment is simply to make the amendment that we have just adopted effective as of 8 June 1988.

Mr Laughren: This does make sense and I have no hesitation in supporting the Warner II amendment.

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant how many people will be asked for money back as a result of this amendment, in that it is retroactive. You are obviously going to go back if this is a problem. There are maybe 100 young couples who now are going to be asked for a considerable amount of money that has been paid to them by the Minister of Revenue, and I would just like to know what this is going to do to affect those young people.

Mr Daigeler: As the member for Nickel Belt has said earlier in the debate on a different item, the Ministry of Revenue, despite what some people might feel, does have an open heart and is sympathetic towards all taxpayers. Certainly there is no attempt to penalize people, especially young people, who through no fault of their own may be in a situation where they might have to pay something back.

So I am sure that, in his usual discretion, the Minister of Revenue will look at cases of that nature that may come up in a sympathetic fashion and one that is responsive to the interests of the whole province.

Mr Laughren: Once again, I would just like to say that I thought about that too. What if a couple had inadvertently got into a mess and it was through no fault of their own. They had already spent the money that they got through the program. Because I was concerned about that, I went and I asked David Warner what he thought about that and he said he thought that perhaps the Ministry of Revenue would use discretion in this matter and not try and penalize people who through no fault of their own purchased an illegally converted unit.

Mr Sterling: If the Minister of Revenue is as kind as he is, why would he make it retroactive? I mean, what is the purpose of making it retroactive? The people have bought these units now on the basis of the old rules. The old rules were that if you bought a unit, you were entitled to the program. Now we are saying, if you bought a year ago, you are not entitled to the program under these two conditions that, somehow somebody prior to your buying the unit had converted, not illegally but contrary to these other particular matters.

If there is goodness and kindness in the heart of the Minister of Revenue, why on earth make it retroactive? Why would we not put this in place as to when the people might at least have some chance of knowing what the law was? I find it very, very retrogressive in terms of the whole idea of saying to somebody, “You are entitled to a benefit, but the Legislature has now decided that you are not entitled to the benefit and we are going to go back and collect it from you.” We cannot support that kind of amendment.

Mr Daigeler: There is not only goodness in the heart of the Minister of Revenue; there is also fairness in the heart of the Minister of Revenue. Quite frankly, if we were to disregard the ownership of people up to now, they could apply for another Ontario home ownership savings plan and therefore would defeat the purpose of the program, so that is why this amendment will be retroactive.

Mr Sterling: People who have made the decision prior to this Legislature’s making this decision have made it on the basis of what the law was, and the law was that they were entitled to the program. So why should we in this Legislature say we have this idea now that we are going to make the law and therefore the plans of these young couples who have bought are dashed by this Legislature? I find that repulsive and, as I have said, we will not support that.

The Chair: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

The Chair: Is there a motion for the

long title?

Mr Daigeler: This may be known as the Laughren amendment rather than the Warner amendment.

The Chair: Mr Daigeler moves that the

long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“An Act to amend Certain Acts in relation to Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plans.”

Mr Daigeler: Again, in the goodness of our hearts, we are responding to a concern that has been expressed, this time not by Mr Warner but by the member for Nickel Belt, and I trust that will address his concern.

Mr Laughren: I do have a problem with this amendment. It only refers to one other act and that is the Sucession Law Reform Act. I wonder if there was some reason why the ministry did not name that other act and call it

An Act to amend the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan and the Succession Law Reform Act.” At that point, it would seem to me those who are interested in these matters -- that does not include most of my constituents, but lots of people are -- when they read the bill, they would know exactly what two acts this piece of legislation was amending, namely, the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act and the Succession Law Reform Act.

Having said that, I do appreciate the way in which the ministry responded after only very gentle prodding from the Chair.

Motion agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 175,

An Act to revise the Liquor Licence Act and to amend the law relating to Liquor.

Section 7:

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, with the indulgence of members of the committee, I would like to invite officials to join me and ask your permission to join them down in the front row.

The Chair: Please. All gather together at the front.

Ms Bryden: While we are waiting for the officials to appear, I would like to make a request to make a few general comments on the debate and on the amendments we seek, to refresh members’ memories as to what Bill 175 is all about.

Members will recall that second reading debate on Bill 175 started on 12 June and was continued on 18 June, and committee of the whole was just started on 12 June --

The Chair: Order, please. We were specifically discussing subsection 7(1) at this point.

Ms Bryden: That is right. That is what I wanted to say.

The Chair: That we were on subsection 7(1)?

Ms Bryden: No, I wanted to make an overview of what we were doing when we got to start at subsection 7(1), the reason being that this occurred on a most important day of the Legislature, the visit of Nelson Mandela. As a result, the committee of the whole stage was interrupted before it really got started. I would like to do maybe a five-minute overview of where we are at in the committee of the whole and what we are trying to do.

Hon Mr Sorbara: On a point of order. Mr Chairman: I think we have heard from the member for Beaches-Woodbine on the general thrust of the bill, both in second reading debate and when we began consideration. I would just point out to you, Mr Chairman, that her views are recorded in Hansard. They are eloquent and to the point of the bill. As we are on this final day of this session, I am not sure it is appropriate or in order that we have a general overview of the bill again. I just point out to you that we are considering an amendment to

section 7, and I think it is appropriate to carry on with that amendment.

The Chair: I agree.

Ms Bryden: On a point of order --

The Chair: No, please. Usually, when members want to make a general statement they do it on

section 1. Considering where we are at, this has had a chance to be done. We have already started discussion on amendments to

section 7. I rule that we leave it to discuss

section 7 and continue with the specifics. I am sorry but, with the time frame and whatever, we have lots of things to cover in committee of the whole. You had a chance to do it when we called for comments and questions on

section 1. We are now on

section 7.

Ms Bryden : Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There have been developments since 12 June on the Liquor Licence Act, and one of them is a decision by the tribunal on the application for a licensed premises in a provincial park. We have not discussed that at all. The printed decision of the tribunal was not available at that time. I think that is a relevant thing to discuss among the amendments I would like to see before our party can decide whether to vote for third reading on this.

Therefore, I wanted to list just a few amendments that I would like to see come in committee of the whole before we can decide whether to support third reading. It would not be a really lengthy overview, but a listing of the amendments we would like to see which have not been discussed and on which time did not permit discussion in the previous proceedings.

The Chair: Do you have some proposed amendments that you want to bring forward?

Ms Bryden: I do, but I am hoping the government will bring forward some of the others or will indicate a commitment.

The Chair: You cannot work on anticipation like that. I have asked, and I am ready to ask again, if any members, government or opposition, want to bring forward proposed amendments. If there are none, then we deal with the list that I have right now. I do have a list. Since we have already started debate on

section 7, we will deal with

section 7. If you want to make some general comments, then all members are invited at third reading to make those general comments.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, on the point of order and the request from the member for Beaches-Woodbine: I understand her desire to put some further thoughts before this committee, and I think probably that is possible. She is suggesting about five minutes of comments. I have no problem with that. Probably, as an experienced parliamentarian, she can craft those remarks within the context of the amendment that is before the House.

I want to reiterate that I look forward to hearing from her. I hope, as this is our last day and there is a lot of work to cover, she will restrict herself to the

section generally that we are considering, but I would not want to interfere with her ability to make a point or two while she is considering that section.

The Chair: If you are saying that restricting herself to the

section we are discussing -- we are discussing amendments to

section 7. I have asked the member before if it was to

section 7; it was to be general. Now, this is not compatible with what we have decided.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am in your hands, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Let’s discuss

section 7 and continue the discussion we had started on

section 7, the proposed amendments that you, Minister, had already moved. Any further discussion on

section 7?

Ms Bryden: The amendment to

section 7 put forward by the government is to elaborate the point about public notice of an application for a liquor licence. I think the minister or the government was recognizing that on second reading there were a considerable number of complaints that under the act as proposed, it was all to be done by prescription; that is, under the regulations

section the government was to set forth all the requirements for public hearings and all the requirements for advertising, notifying the public, clarifying the legislation and telling the public what its rights to be consulted would be on applications for liquor licences.

This is certainly one of the very substantive sections of the bill and one of the amendments that we will use as a criterion whether to support this bill on third reading or not. In my opinion, the government’s proposal is a completely inadequate response to the comments we made about the need for involving the public in the future in being able to discuss and appear at public hearings for applications for liquor licences.

The reason it is completely inadequate is that it simply adds one little phrase that says that when an application is received, the board shall advertise the application “(

a) in the prescribed manner in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, and (

b) in any other manner that is prescribed.” So virtually the whole thing is still left to prescription by regulation.

One of my main complaints about this act is that the regulations

section is so sweeping and all-encompassing; that is,

section 62, which is the regulations section, enumerates 35 areas which may be decided by regulations, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, namely, the cabinet, is given almost unlimited power to rewrite the act, make exemptions and issue advertising guidelines.

With this kind of regulations section, this becomes government not by legislation but by a provincially appointed special purpose board, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, which will be able to completely control the licensing of liquor outlets and the regulation, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in this province. The liquor licence board is not really accountable to anyone except through the minister to whom it reports in the Legislature. But I do not recall very many times when we had hearings on the activities of the liquor licence board.

This is one of the reasons I wanted to say that there are several amendments we are looking for in this process of committee of the whole, and one of them is to limit the regulatory power. But another one is to spell out more precisely what the terms are under which the public will be notified of public hearings, because under the act it simply says that when a hearing is requested, a member of the board, a single member of the board, may decide to issue a licence, or if he receives at least one objection. may decide to hold a hearing or may request a review.

There is nothing in the act that says what happens when he requests a review, nothing that says whom he has to notify, nothing that says anything about further advertisements, nothing that mentions, actually, that in a big city like Toronto there should be at least two newspapers used for an ad. There is nothing spelled out about what the member of the board who has this application before him will do when he conducts a review. This, it seems to me, is a complete destruction of the whole system of public hearings that we have had and leaves the public completely in the dark as to what will actually happen when a liquor application is received.

There is a further item that I think I mentioned in my second reading speech, but which is not dealt with at all in this act, and that is where we would also like a further amendment saying that applications for transfers of licences should be notified to the public, and public hearings held if requested. Where it is a substantial transfer of the licence, the public should know about it.

I know that they are supposed to be notified under the present act if there is a substantial increase in the number of seats requested, but this act is even silent on that subject and just simply ignores the whole question of transfers of licences. So that would be another amendment that would be part of our criteria for supporting or voting against this bill, that there should be a guarantee that transfers of licences will be subject to notice and public hearings.

As a criterion for deciding on whether to grant applications, the act does retain the statement that the board or the member of the board will decide whether the application is “in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located.”

There is no definition in the act of that term. It is presumably left entirely up to the board member deciding on the application whether that has been met. There is not even a requirement that they should consult the municipality or the public as to what their wishes and needs are. I think that is really the crux of the whole abdication of public consultation and the concern of the public about the effects of liquor licences in their neighbourhood, in their area, on their lifestyle. So that is another area where I would like to see an amendment in committee of the whole as we proceed.

I would also like to get a commitment somewhere in the act that the advertising guidelines that have been issued already, in the spring, should be subject to public review by a standing or select committee to ensure that they do not condone sexist advertising or lifestyle advertising that puts liquor consumption as part of all activities -- recreational, leisure and sports activities.

Instead, we should have advertising of liquor which accepts the use of liquor by responsible adults, but which does not indicate that your lifestyle is incomplete if you do not include the consumption of liquor in all activities. That is a fourth amendment I would like to see included in the committee of the whole report. If I do not see any indication from the minister that he might be committed to having a review by a standing or select committee of those advertising guidelines before they are finally adopted under the new act, then we will be very reluctant to support this bill.

A fifth one is in regard to the regulations and the regulatory power, which is so great. It is that the government should adopt a notice and comment policy regarding regulations. This means that all regulations should be published in advance of adoption by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and there should be an opportunity for the public to comment on those regulations.

This procedure is carried out with a great many other regulations, particularly ones affecting the environment, where the public is invited to comment on the effects of liquor. At the moment there is nothing in this act that would suggest that the literally thousands of regulations that are authorized under this act will have any prepublication or notice and comment opportunities.

Those are the amendments that I am particularly looking for. There is one final one. There is nothing in the act that recognizes that abuse of alcohol and alcoholic beverages is the cause of many serious health, social and family problems. Alcoholism is often the cause of wife battering and child abuse. It is the cause of many auto accidents, as we all know, and it is the cause of boating accidents and some drownings.

There is no recognition in the act that the proliferation of outlets leads to increases in consumption of alcohol. There is no recognition that it leads to increases in all of the health, social and transportation problems we face. There is no recognition that the fallout from abuse of alcohol or alcoholism leads to tremendous extra costs in our OHIP system, hospitals, courts, policing and our welfare system.

I think it is irresponsible of this Legislature to adopt a new system for regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages without recognizing those very serious costs that may arise from the proliferation of outlets and without including in its legislation some steps to study the effects of proliferation and to make an in-depth study of the extra costs arising from the proliferation of outlets. That is another area where we would have liked to have seen further legislation.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for giving me the time to make this comment on subsection 7(1). I would still like to ask the minister, where are the draft regulations that will go with this bill? That is part of my point, that we have not seen them yet. With regard to subsection 7(1), we will vote for it as a first and timid step in the direction of public notice, but we consider it completely inadequate and we have an amendment of our own that is much more comprehensive, which I think and hope the government will also adopt.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Polsinelli): The Chair has been given notice of another amendment to

section 7 from the New Democratic Party.

Ms Bryden moves that subsections la and lb be added to

section 7 as follows:

“la. The board shall distribute written notice to all residential and business premises within a 500-metre radius of the site of the premises seeking such a 1icence at least three weeks prior to consideration of the application.

“lb. Such notice shall specify the type of licence sought, the number of spaces applied for and the maximum hours of operation allowed under such licence. It shall also specify whether patio, boulevard café or adult entertainment licences are being applied for by the applicant. It shall also clearly indicate that if at least one written objection is received from a resident of the municipality, a public meeting shall be held.

At least three weeks prior to the date of the meeting, the time and place shall be advertised in at least two newspapers in the municipality if it has more than one newspaper; and written notice shall be sent to all residential and business premises within a 500-metre radius of the site of the premises.”

Ms Bryden: Members will notice that this requires notice at least three weeks prior to consideration of the applicant. I think that should be an essential part of the bill so that the residents concerned and affected by any liquor licence application in their neighbourhood will have adequate time to become aware of the application, to learn about the details of the application and to possibly organize with their neighbours a lobby group or a group of people to demand a public hearing, to start with, and then to attend it, but you need at least three weeks prior to consideration of the application.

A similar notice should apply to a decision of the board to hold a review of the application, and the nature of the review should be advertised, as well as the time at which the public would have an opportunity to discuss the application and what is being requested.

Members will notice also that under clause 7(1)(

b) the notices should specify the type of licence sought, the number of spaces applied for and the maximum hours of operation. These hours of operation are really crucial to the neighbourhood, because when you have licensed premises that close at the normal closing hour under the present law of 1 am, you do have great disruption of the neighbourhood at the time when the patrons come out between 1 and 2, often somewhat noisy, often starting cars up at that late hour and generally waking people up.

In my opinion, the hours of operation of any licensed premises adjacent to a residential neighbourhood, particularly along commercial strips that abut right on residential neighbourhoods, should be limited to 11 pm so that the sleep of the residents is not disturbed.

Patio licences, boulevard cafés and adult entertainment licences should also be notified to the residents, because they can change the nature of the neighbourhood considerably. I certainly think that adult entertainment licences should be confined to commercial streets not abutting on residential neighbourhoods and should be limited in their number because of the problems that arise from them in the way of parking and noise from the actual entertainment, as well as noise from the patrons when they come out.

Also, members have to remember that some of the patrons misbehave when they do come out, leave litter, use the neighbouring lawns for other purposes and generally can create a very substantial nuisance to the neighbourhood unless they are controlled.

In my own area, patio licences on the premises of the restaurant are outlawed in a certain area unless they are limited. They are completely outlawed in the area between Woodbine and Victoria Park. This was due to a city hall bylaw being passed to say that new patios were really completely incompatible with a residential neighbourhood and made too much noise and disturbance in the summer particularly.

The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario has in the past been licensing patios for applications in this area and then saying, “Let the city turn them down, because they are outlawed by this bylaw.” I think the liquor licence board should not license the patios in the first place, because it can easily ascertain that there is a bylaw forbidding such patios and therefore it is simply wasting the time of people inviting them to come to a public hearing about a patio when the patio is illegal from the start. They should wait until the city has changed that bylaw and allowed patios before they would even consider licensing a patio in the area.

Boulevard cafés can also cause nuisance and noise, and maybe the sidewalks are not big enough to accommodate them, but again I think you should leave it to the municipality to license such cafés. Then the applicant should have to come to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario for licensing as well, but it should not license it in advance of the decision by the city.

If this amendment is adopted. we would have a more streamlined system of public consultation, but it would be one in which the public has an opportunity to make its concerns known to the liquor board and there would be adequate advertising.

In the past, the liquor board had adopted the practice of posting on the premises a notice that a liquor licence had been applied for. This actually stems from the days when Frank Drea was the chairman; a group of citizens in my area got from him an agreement that such posting would be required, but it was never written into the law. It is not a very good way of indicating to the local residents that a liquor application has been made. It does not usually give many details about the type of application, the number of seats and so on, but also it is not always noticeable. Even if it is posted, sometimes it is put behind a bush.

Under this amendment we would require that all residential and business premises within a 500-metre radius of the site of the premises seeking a licence should receive notice at least three weeks prior to consideration of the application.

This is a perfectly reasonable request. It is done by the municipalities in many cases for zoning bylaw changes and for other city initiatives that may affect the residents. I see no reason why it should not be done by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, which is dealing with a matter which can affect their lifestyle greatly. The neighbours may have reasons why they think it is not in the public interest to have a liquor licence in an area that is close to a school or a child’s park or even in a city park, which was one of the issues in my riding recently.

Actually, that issue was debated before the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. They did get a fair hearing from the tribunal, which they would not get under the amendments that are before us that are to eliminate appeal to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal and rely only on the Divisional Court. It is certainly not fair, and also it puts the residents at a great disadvantage.

The Divisional Court route is much more expensive, has a much longer delay, and it can also only discuss matters of law or procedure and not whether it is in the public interest to have a liquor licence granted. So it is not an adequate trade-off to say the Divisional Court can deal with it. The Divisional Court can deal with almost any public agency or body which makes rules for the public. It is used very little by many of the residents’ associations because they cannot afford it.

This amendment would require at least adequate notice and a chance for the residents to go to or write to the liquor board and tell it why it is not in the public interest.

Mind you, we do object to the fact that the liquor board does not consider parking as part of its concern. In this day and age, to ignore parking or say that the municipalities can manage the parking problems associated with the proliferation of outlets is simply ridiculous. We have had to have a tow-away zone around the racetrack for two or three years, and around some of the liquor establishments in our area, simply because the increased traffic and the increased parking from the proliferation of restaurants and liquor outlets has made it impossible to operate on Queen Street without a tow-away zone.

The liquor board must consider things like parking, lifestyle, the effect on children from the proximity of so many liquor outlets and the general problem of whether proliferation of outlets does increase the use and the abuse of liquor.

I would urge the government to adopt my amendment as a further step simply to fulfil its obligation to give the public an opportunity to be heard and consulted and not to shut that door completely, as it has really done by its present section, even as amended by the amendment we just passed.

Motion negatived.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 8 to 61, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 62:

Mr Sorbara moves that paragraph 24 of subsection 62(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(24) Authorizing the board to approve training courses for the service or delivery of liquor.”

Hon Mr Sorbara: In response to opposition suggestions, we have included that training courses be prescribed for those who apply successfully for a licence to deliver liquor in the province.

Ms Bryden: I appreciate the gesture in the amendment by the minister and the government to recognize that we do need training courses for the people who serve the customers and who will be expected to cut them off if they no longer should be served and who will understand that people who are being served should be urged to have either a designated driver with them or make other plans when they leave to go home by taxi or public transit and not to drive their cars.

I hope that the training courses would improve the appreciation of the servers of their responsibility to see that they do not contribute either to auto accidents or to the increase in alcoholism by serving more drinks than are allowed at one time and things of that sort.

As far as extending this amendment also to the taxi firms which will be licensed to deliver alcohol, while we will support the amendment, we think it is entirely the wrong approach to be encouraging consumption of liquor after hours by delivery by taxi. It seems to me that is what that service will be used for mostly, after-hours service. The liquor stores are open a considerable number of hours, in the big metropolitan areas certainly, and in most big cities. People should be able to look after their needs even up to 10 or 11 say or whatever hours they keep.

To encourage taxi drivers to get involved in this side business of delivery of liquor seems to me opening the way for putting the taxi drivers into the liquor sales business and could also lead to some risk for them if people think that they are on liquor deliveries or have liquor on board, and I think it is an entirely wrong move.

It does not mean that I object to the extension of delivery of liquor through agencies, particularly in remote areas where there are insufficient liquor stores or insufficient agency stores. I think special rules need to be made for the underserviced communities in the province. I think they should have the same right to purchase liquor as other people, and to purchase it under conditions where it will not be consumed off the premises of the purchaser, but I think that this regulation about allowing it to all taxis that are approved by the liquor licence board is much too wide.

It would be nice if they were perhaps required to publish a list of which firms are approved and what sort of requirements they make for regulating the deliveries and the terms under which they are delivered and for ensuring the safety of the taxi drivers.

I think this amendment is a useful one, but it does not nearly answer my requests for many other amendments in the act, and I am disappointed that we have already got up to the second last

section without some of the other areas that I have mentioned being considered by the minister. I think he has in effect told us that he is not interested in my amendments, particularly about the study of the effect of the proliferation of outlets on our health costs and on our policing costs and on our highway costs. I wish he would perhaps comment under this

section as to why he has not considered any other amendments along the lines that I have mentioned.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I fully understand where my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine is coming from on the amendments that she proposed, and while I am not proposing to put the kinds of amendments that she would like in the bill, I just want to tell her, on this last day that we are sitting together here, that the kinds of things she is talking about will be reflected not only in the regulations but in the general administration of this act. Some of the studies she is calling for indeed are done; they are not done always by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, but they are done by other organizations within the province.

Ms Bryden: I can see that the minister is bent on getting this bill through as quickly as possible, before we have any studies of the effects of alcohol consumption and the proliferation of outlets on the health and lifestyle of the community. I can see no other reason for it being rammed through today, except the fact that since it gives the liquor industry the opportunity to increase the proliferation of outlets with much less need for consulting the public, the government is presumably hoping to get a grateful industry to reward it with political contributions for the coming election. That seems to be the only reason for it being rammed through without these studies.

The Offer commission made no studies of this sort, and it was entirely an in-house commission. It did have some public hearings, but that was three years ago. We badly need public hearings on this very serious subject of alcoholism and addiction.

We know that the government’s grants for the treatment and rehabilitation of alcohol victims are completely inadequate. People are having to be sent to hospitals in the United States. Others are having to wait months to get an appointment for an addiction treatment centre. If we had some public hearings on these subjects and learned about the cost to society of alcoholism, I think we would be much more ready and willing to set up in the fall a study of the effects of addiction and the need for treatment and programs that will discourage the use of alcoholic beverages as much as possible.

Hon Mr Ward: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Since we are approaching the hour of adjournment, I would seek unanimous consent to continue to sit until the completion of this item or an additional 10 minutes, whichever comes first.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent for this?

Agreed to.

The Chair: Did the member for Beaches-Woodbine complete her statement?

Ms Bryden: I wanted to speak on paragraph 62(1)34.

The Chair: Do you have a comment on paragraph 62(1)34?

Ms Bryden: Yes. Paragraph 62(1)34 is in the regulations

section --

The Chair: Order, please. We have not completed discussion of this proposed amendment here. We should dispose of this first before we go on to something else.

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: The member for Beaches-Woodbine wants to make a specific comment on paragraph 34, right?

Ms Bryden: Yes.

The Chair: Please go ahead.

Ms Bryden: Paragraph 62(1)34 is in the regulations

section and gives the Lieutenant Governor the power of “prohibiting or regulating and controlling the possession of liquor in provincial parks, in a park managed or controlled by the Niagara Parks Commission, the St Lawrence Parks Commission, the St Clair Parkway Commission or on lands owned or controlled by a conservation authority established or continued under the Conservation Authorities Act.”

Members will note that this

section gives the liquor licence board the power to prohibit and control the possession of liquor in all kinds of parks except city of Toronto parks or parks in a municipality. We all know that most people do not like to see liquor either sold or consumed without regulation in all kinds of parks. We know that parks are mainly there for the recreation of families, children, sports people, canoeists, hikers, all kinds of outdoor activities and they should be, as far as possible, liquor-free. In provincial parks we do allow consumption of alcoholic beverages on a person’s own rented campsite.

The same is possibly true on lands owned by conservation authorities. But we do not really want to encourage liquor in those parks and I think the present laws show that.

There is special legislation that does allow the government -- not the liquor licence board but the government -- to control consumption of liquor in stadiums, in the Dome and in specialized sports facilities of that sort. I am not objecting to that special legislation. I think it should be under control and should be adequately regulated so that the consumption does not disturb the other attendees at such stadiums and the Dome, but it is probably best to leave that to the provincial government to control.

However, the omission of any mention of city parks seems to me a serious omission. This spring the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario approved a licence for a restaurant in Woodbine Beach Park, which is a city of Toronto park. No other city of Toronto park has a licensed premise in it. Under LLBO regulations and legislation they are allowed in Metropolitan Toronto parks and stadiums, as I mentioned, but not in a city park. Other city parks throughout the province also are not at the moment allowed to have licensed premises in them.

The LLBO did approve a licence for this restaurant in the city of Toronto park. It was appealed by a number of residents to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal. While the appeal board did give a fair hearing to both sides in the issue, the board finally found in favour of granting the licence on the ground that the city of Toronto had approved it. Now it seems to me this is abdicating the authority of the liquor licence board to consider whether the city council adequately considered the needs and wishes and the public interest of the residents of the municipality.

It creates a very bad precedent to allow a restaurant to be licensed within a city park. An upscale restaurant bistro is incompatible with the recreational activities carried on in parks generally. This restaurant in the Woodbine Beach does not allow users to park their bicycles or strollers or pets. It does not allow park users to bring their own lunches and supplement them with non-alcoholic beverages.

The premises use up valuable space in an already overloaded city park that serves thousands of families, children and singles from all parts of Toronto. It is also part of the Martin Goodman Trail. Its clients occupy parking spaces built for park users. It encourages drinking and driving since there is no close public transit or taxi stands. It opens the door to applications for licensed premises in every family park in the city of Toronto and probably in the province. All the applicant needs is approval by the council of the municipality in which the park is located.

I would have hoped that the minister, in bringing in this act, would have added city parks to the list in which the board may prohibit the possession and sale of liquor. It is really going to change completely the character of our parks. We simply do not have enough park space to allow it to be pre-empted or alienated to private, commercial uses. I think it is a very big issue that the LLBO has opened.

The Chair: Excuse me. Could I remind the member we have only two minutes left? Are you going to use up the time?

Ms Bryden: I would say this is an area the province should have looked at. The lawyer for the residents did point out that actually the Provincial Parks Act does mention city parks as well, but the appeal board ignored that fact.

Section 62, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 63 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.

The Chair: I had received a proposed amendment, an NDP motion, but I have to rule it out of order because it is against standing order 54, as it purports to collect taxes and whatever.

Ms Bryden: May I read it into the record and let you rule it out of order?

The Chair: If you want to read it into the record, fair enough. I will rule it out of order.

Ms Bryden: It is a very short amendment. I move that the following

section be added:

“That the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will allocate 1% of the net profits of the board for the purpose of alcohol rehabilitation programs.”

The Chair: I have to rule it out of order because of standing order 54.

Ms Bryden: I would just like to point out --

The Chair: No, it is out of order.

Ms Bryden: -- that the previous speaker mentioned it in second reading, the member for Cambridge.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Sorbara. the committee of the whole reported two bills with certain amendments.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOTIVE

Mr Kormos: Members will recall that back on 13 June I made a statement in this Legislature about the need for this government, these Liberals, if they are at all serious about the promise -- and we know what Liberal promises are all about -- that was made some time ago that they were going to fight free trade, if they were at all serious, they would have done something in response to that member’s statement I made back on 13 June 1990.

That statement of course, as members recall, was about the need to amend the free trade agreement to increase the North American content requirement from 50% to 60% for automotive products. I told members last time about that urgent need, about how these Liberals ought to get off their butts, off their tails and start working at fulfilling some of their promises instead of working at covering their tracks when it comes down to broken promises, etc.

That request was in response to a plea to me from W. A. Smith, the plant manager at Gencorp Automotive in Welland. They are a significant employer and a significant supplier to the auto parts and auto industry. Now I get a subsequent letter, this one from Reub McArthur, vice-president of sales and marketing at Atlas Specialty Steels. Once again, Atlas Specialty Steels is making the same plea, the same request to what it believes to be its government.

But this government turns a deaf ear to them, just like the Tories in Ottawa have turned a deaf ear to them. These Liberals are no more interested in reinforcing the auto parts industry and its suppliers in Ontario than the Tories in Ottawa are. They are no more interested in the employment that is going to create than the Tories in Ottawa are. Shame on them.

CIVIL SERVICE

Mr Cousens: A quick comparison of the government phone books for the spring of 1985 and the spring of 1990 is all that is required to confirm the massive growth of the government bureaucracy that has been inflicted on the taxpayers by the Liberal government. Compared to its 1985 counterpart, the most recent government phone book, which is printed on longer paper, contains a total of 249 additional pages.

There are 175 additional pages of office listings, indicating that the Grits have been creating new bureaucratic positions and offices at such a clip that it requires, on average, 35 additional pages a year to keep track of them all. There are 38 additional pages of alphabetic staff listings in the Ontario government. Each page contains two columns, with each column listing 70 names, giving a total increase of 5,320, and that is just the increase in staff with their own phone numbers.

After five years of the Grits’ spendthrift ways, the government phone book is half an inch thicker. Some of us maintain, on the basis of what we have seen in this House, that the government, and particularly the cabinet, is a bit thick as well.

Also like the phone book, the government in 1990 may be a lot bigger but it is not any better. Here is what it was in 1985. Here is what it is now in 1990. If this government keeps on growing, we are going to have a government phone book this big in five years. Let’s stop killing the trees.

MORNING GLORY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Mr Ballinger: During the past three years I have been extremely honoured to be the elected representative for the riding of Durham-York. My riding is made up of five municipalities: Uxbridge, Brock, East Gwillimbury, Georgina and the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

During these past three years there have been many times I have been extremely proud of this Liberal government, and yesterday was exactly one of those. I was very pleased yesterday to participate in a press conference in my riding, in the town of Georgina, at the Morning Glory school, where the Minister of Transportation announced the construction of a turning lane for the safety of the children at the Morning Glory public school.

At this time, I also want to pay tribute to the parents’ group and especially to Ken Hackenbrook who for the past six years, along with his group, worked extremely hard alongside our government to try to bring this specific turning lane to fruition.

I would just like to say again, Mr Speaker, through the three years I have been here it is always amazing when we listen to the opposition, and more specifically, a few moments ago, to the member for Welland-Thorold, who is so easy in condemning this government. But I can assure you that in my constituency, my constituents are extremely proud and pleased with the performance of this government.

In speaking to some of the parents yesterday at this announcement of the turning lane for the school, they said we are the first government to at least respond to the needs of this community and the concern for the safety of its children.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mrs Grier: Property taxes in the city of Etobicoke rose by 7.8% this year. Approximately 2.6% of the city’s portion of this increase was due to additional costs imposed by the provincial government. I have been a municipal councillor. I know how tightly city councils scrutinize their spending. I know how difficult it is to balance the competing and very critical demands for local services.

I know how easy it is for property tax payers to vent their wrath about increases in taxes on the municipal politicians and how easy it is for the provincial government to get off scot-free when it forces the municipalities to bear the cost of new services. The provincial government boasts about new programs and promises; the municipal taxpayers pay the piper.

In Etobicoke in 1990 direct provincial actions increased the municipal budget by nearly $2 million. Etobicoke, like other municipalities, was not consulted by the province when these programs were imposed upon it. When municipalities pointed out the effect the shifts in responsibility would have, they were ignored.

I suspect that this government will spend a lot of time in 1990 boasting about its achievements and programs. I hope that any such boasts will be followed by an acknowledgement of the additional burden these programs have placed on the level of government with the least progressive tax system, the municipalities.

For many years, New Democrats have been saying that the property tax was an unfair tax and one that should not be used to fund services to people. More and more property taxpayers are starting to agree with us.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Mr Runciman: Last fall, the International Joint Commission held its fifth biennial meeting under the Great Lakes water quality agreement. The commissioner’s report was released on the 18th anniversary of the signing of the first agreement.

Public concern for the Great Lakes ecosystem is now at an all-time high. It is clear the agreement has come of age. At the biennial meeting there were demands for government action to translate the principles, purposes and objectives of the agreement into enforceable laws. If we do not, the commission said, we will continue to mortgage the future of the Great Lakes by poisoning, suffocating and otherwise threatening them because of insufficient knowledge, other priorities and shortsightedness.

The commission made recommendations regarding toxic substances, implementation, remedial action plans, toxic spills and status reports from the parties involved. This last issue is very important as we move towards an election. The government of Ontario is a party to this agreement, yet we have seen no improvement in the quality of Great Lakes water for the last five years. If anything, it is worse.

I am particularly concerned about the St Lawrence River. I know many citizens and government officials are working together on the local remedial action plan to deal with the problems of heavy metals and organic compounds polluting the river from industry and inadequate sewage treatment systems. The St Lawrence RAP will soon be submitted to the commission. When it is, the government of Ontario should act immediately on its recommendations.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Owen: VDO-Yazaki has a manufacturing plant in Barne that produces electrical components for the automotive original equipment market. Recently it was announced that this plant is going to be phased out of operation at the end of the year in favour of transferring operations to a facility in Winchester, Virginia.

In the years leading up to the 1988 federal election, many people warned of the impact the Mulroney free trade deal would have on the branch plant sector of our economy. Without the necessity of maintaining a manufacturing facility in this country in order to do business here, when the urge comes to a multinational company to rationalize its operations, there is no incentive to keep the jobs here.

The closing of VDO-Yazaki in Barrie is more proof of Tory mishandling of our economy. A bad free trade deal, high interest rates and relaxed rules for big business are driving away good jobs in our province and in our country.

This closing has cost 150 jobs along with the pride those workers had in a job well done. The Barrie plant had an excellent track record and had been recording a net profit in its operation. This has made no difference in the final decision to transfer the operation to the United States to a plant that was not doing as well.

It is sad that the real people affected here cannot be seen for the dollar figures in Ottawa’s eyes.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Allen: In 1981 the Pastoral Counselling Centre in Hamilton was established to help individuals, couples and families seeking help with personal and relational problems. Since 1985 this centre has had a purchase-of-service agreement with the region to provide counselling services to people on social assistance.

The centre never refuses service to a client because of inability to pay and has regularly served social assistance clients well beyond the value of the contract with the region, last year to the tune of over $5,500. Sometimes the region has coughed up some additional dollars. Last year the shortfall was still over $2,000 in an operation that runs on a close to break-even basis.

The tight financial straits mean that now clients are waiting eight months for service. This year the centre has already run through its contract money with the region, in a year when the May welfare case load provincially is up almost 20% over May of last year and the FBA case load is up 10%.

As we have seen time and time again this session, Ontario social services more and more are a matter of long waiting lists, even for people in desperate need, overworked and underpaid workers and community agencies with their backs to the wall.

The rich can afford private counselling services, but the Pastoral Counselling Centre is an essential part of social services for the poor in Hamilton. When is the minister going to provide sufficient counselling dollars for the full counselling needs of the social assistance case load?

LAYOFFS

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the uncertain situation of the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre.

It has been brought to my attention that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Correctional Services will be amalgamated within 18 months. I have been told that all contracts are on hold for the Ministry of Government Services. It has also been suggested that there are only 13 residents in some wards at Oak Ridge that normally hold 20 and that the former ratio of six supervisory staff to 300 residents is now 21 supervisory staff to 128 residents.

The minister had recently offered 13 unclassified workers part-time employment at Oak Ridge at a time when current part-timers had been informed that they would be laid off on 27 June. We really have to wonder why the minister would give serious consideration to cutting back staff when there was an equivalent of 509 hours of overtime pay between 28 May and 29 June due to a shortage of staff. We also have to wonder if the minister is giving serious consideration to placing the Oak Ridge division under the jurisdiction of the new superministry.

I think the minister should come clean and tell us exactly what is going on. It is time for him to end the uncertainty and speculation at Oak Ridge. There are several inconsistencies regarding Oak Ridge: less residents, more supervisory staff, more overtime and laying-off of part-time staff. Why would the minister lay off staff and pay overtime?

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

Mr Tatham:

Why plant a tree? Why help a friend?

Why build consensus or relationships mend?

You know the answer.

Because you are you; you’re a builder, constructor.

There really are few.

The platform is lined with passengers all,

Waiting to leave to return in the fall.

But wait. Who can say with certainty now,

Who will return after the draw?

Yes, we do know that some minds are made up.

The uplands of Huron Jack Riddell will hold,

Friend George McCague the same I am told.

The Oshawa man with a fine Irish name,

Mike Breaugh, will he move to Ottawa fame?

Ray Haggerty smiles to the honeymoon home,

Herb Epp and John Eakins are saying so long.

Fine people, hard workers, word pitchers and catchers,

Eggheads and eggbeaters, that’s par for the course.

We’ll miss them I’m sure and we’ll all them endorse.

Now Johnsons are too with Marion gone,

We shall lose their fine talents when they have withdrawn.

We shall always remember the kindnesses shown,

The happiness, sadness of battles long gone.

But the qualities human they have in full measure,

And love for our province we join all together.

VISITORS

Mr J. M. Johnson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I realize I am bending the rules slightly but I would like to acknowledge the presence of some very special visitors in the members’ gallery, my three grandchildren, Andrea, Rachel and Timothy Johnson, my son Cohn and his wife, Ellen. Mr Speaker, this is the children’s first visit to Queen’s Park and likely my last day so I did think you would allow me this slight honour.

Applause

The Speaker: I think by the applause you received unanimous consent.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR BEACHES-WOODBINE AND MEMBER FOR WELLINGTON

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if I might be permitted unanimous consent of the House to say a few words today, which may be the last day -- we do not know, we only know the speculation -- for a number of members. In particular I would like to pay tribute to the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Agreed to.

Mr B. Rae: First of all, let me say that the grandchildren who were just introduced to the House should be very proud of their grandfather. They waved very naturally to all of us here, and I do not think it will be too long before we find there are other candidates in the Johnson family who are going to be seeking election to this place.

Mr D. S. Cooke: As New Democrats no doubt.

Mr B. Rae: They will certainly be New Democrats until they are of voting age anyway.

Since this may be the last day for a number of members before we may have an election -- and none of us knows whether we will or we will not, but all of us have some certain instincts which we respond to from time to time -- I wanted to say a few words today, in addition, to sincerely congratulate the member for Wellington who is retiring, who is a dear friend to all of us in the House and has been certainly to me and to members of our caucus.

I hope members will permit me to say a few words about Marion Bryden, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who is retiring at the end of this Parliament and whose contributions to the House and to our party and our movement have been simply phenomenal.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine, or Marion if I may be permitted to break the rules on this occasion, has been a member of the caucus since 1975. She has been, as members will know, a model of hard work, of perseverance, of dedication to her constituents, and I am proud to inform the members of the House that Marion is the longest-standing, longest-serving woman member of the Legislature in the history of the province of Ontario.

Members from other parties will have an opportunity to reflect on Marion’s contributions to this place, on her dedication to her constituents, the fact that we would not have had legislation on equal pay, for example, if we had not had the pioneer work that Marion did long before it was fashionable and long before it had the support of other parties.

If I can be partisan for just a moment, it is particularly as a member of our movement and our party that I want to pay tribute to Marion Bryden. It is hard to talk about Marion without also mentioning her husband, Ken, who was also a member of this Legislature before going on to return to academic life and to be a very distinguished professor of political science at the University of Toronto. Marion has given so much of herself to our party.

Before she was elected to the Legislature, for 10 years she was the director -- and indeed, when I say “director,” she was the director of research, she was the member of the research department, she was the New Democratic Party research department for the better part of a decade.

It is hard to describe the kind of dedication which Marion Bryden brings to her work and has brought to her work, the kind of dedication which she has shown on behalf of her constituents, the consistent good humour and loyalty which she has shown in our caucus and as well, of course, the many, many efforts that she has made on behalf of working people in this province, which she has expressed with such dignity and such determination in the House.

I can just say personally that few colleagues have been as consistent and as persistently loyal and as determined in terms of serving the party and the movement as Marion Bryden. It has been a remarkable career. I do not happen to think that her career is in any sense over. I know that there are many retirees’ and seniors’ organizations that are going to have now even more efforts made on their behalf by Marion than she has made so far.

She has been a remarkable spokesman for her constituents in the east end of Toronto, a part of the world that I came to know very well as an elected representative from that area, and also as a very distinguished spokesman on behalf of the working people of this province.

I am sorry that the member is leaving, but I fully understand her reasons for wanting a little bit more free time and spare time with her husband, Ken. I want Marion to know that she goes with all the love and affection of all the members of our party and, I know, from members from all three parties.

Mr Cousens: It is rather sad that we are having to say all these goodbyes, because I would like to see all these people here in the Legislature for another year rather than have to go through this whole process. There is every reason in the world why I would enjoy --

Hon Mr Ward: Actually, Don, we are going to be saying goodbye to you.

Mr Cousens: Never mind that.

An hon member: Goodbye, Don.

Mr Cousens: Yes, “Goodbye, Don.” I will make sure my riding -- or try my best.

But when you see the member for Wellington bringing his grandchildren in on this special day, and then another member from our caucus -- in case we are not back in September, the member for Simcoe West, there is a certain belief out there that he might not be back, and I want to put a word in as we --

Mr McCague: I know what I’m doing.

Mr Cousens: He is too special a person, and I just see these things going on, these politics that we are dealing with in Ontario.

I want to speak of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, but I have two members behind me who keep probing me to do certain things. But today, on behalf of our caucus --

Mr D. S. Cooke: Don’t worry, we’ll say nice things about you.

Mr Cousens: I am not going to leave yet. They will not say it until they are sure I am going.

I have had great pleasure over the last number of years in understanding the political process. Many people in our constituencies have no understanding of the depth of it. Because when you realize that the 130 people who are here representing their constituencies -- each one brings special talents and skills, but especially that desire to serve the community and serve the province.

In dealing with the member for Beaches-Woodbine, Marion Bryden, she has been faithful in ever having a desire to serve people conscientiously and well. I have seen that in the way she goes about her committee work, her House duties, her whole depth of understanding of issues. It is obvious that she is researched in her activity and she brings with it a compassion and love of issues and people. I know the people of Beaches-Woodbine have been well served by a lady who has conscientiously given her best and who has been among the best of any legislators in this place.

I have seen her, as have other members, on the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry, which is a non-partisan committee of this Legislature in which we have tried to fight for the needs of Soviet Jews. I know that all of us have again respected very, very much the leadership the member for Beaches-Woodbine has given. We are just sorry that we did not have a special event through the Soviet Jewry committee before we rose to give special recognition to her. I hope there will be a chance for that because I know, and speaking on behalf of the many people involved there, they respect so much what she has done and has tried to do.

The member for York South has said that he does not think she will just sit back and do nothing. I was talking to Marion the other day, and I can just see her being busier than ever. Now that she has two pensions, one from this place and the other one for being a senior, and there may be a few others we do not know about, she is just going to be able to go out there and do all those things for the people of her riding and the people of the Metropolitan Toronto area, and do them in the same way she has in the past, for love and for making it a better world.

Thank you, Marion, for all you have done.

Hon Mr Ward: On behalf of the government caucus, I am honoured to have this opportunity to pay tribute to two very well-respected and long-standing members of this Legislature.

Mr Speaker, as you know, I have not been here all that long, but I will say this to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that she truly has served as a model for anyone coming into this assembly. The commitment she gives to her duties and responsibilities here as critic, as a committee person and as an advocate for the causes that she believes in, I think all of us could do well to emulate.

I was looking through the Canadian Parliamentary Guide just before coming in today. I know Marion has been here for some 15 years, but I also see that during her free time she is equally as committed as a volunteer to many other noble causes as well. I know that the people of Beaches-Woodbine are deeply grateful for the contribution she has made on their behalf. I want her to know that we all wish her well in her future endeavours.

I did not really come here prepared to acknowledge the contribution made by the member for Wellington, but some years ago I had the opportunity to visit his riding; I think it was to the Highland Games up in Fergus. I guess it was at that point that I first got to know the member for Wellington. I was very much struck by his non-partisan approach, his openness, his friendliness and his sincerity. Jack Johnson has indeed served his community with distinction. I do not think he has an enemy anywhere in this province.

Hon Mr Peterson: Except for Don Cousens.

Hon Mr Ward: Except for Don Cousens perhaps.

I want him to know that we will all miss him. I guess we should have expected that we would find out about his intentions in the manner in which we did. Such a low-key approach that he has as the member for Wellington, but he certainly does speak up on behalf of his community, and he has fulfilled his responsibilities admirably. We wish him well in his future endeavours.

All the best.

Ms Bryden: Since this may be the last sitting of the House which I will attend, unless the Premier is not going ahead with a premature election call, I welcome the opportunity to bid farewell to all members of the House and to make a few comments on my 15 years in this distinguished place.

First, I want to say that I have a very warm feeling about the Ontario Legislature, with its long traditions, its beautiful chamber and its present cast of characters. I use the term “characters” in the best sense of the word, because every one of the 130 members here brings to me an awareness of the diversity of our great province. Every member brings here his own unique personality and his geographic connections. Together, we have a contribution to make to the law-making process in this House.

I would have liked to have seen more women among the faces surrounding me. As has been mentioned, I hold the record for the longest term served by a woman member in the House. I would have liked to have seen a more multicultural House, more visible minorities and some members who could truly call themselves first Canadians. I hope our current struggle against racism, wherever it shows its ugly head, from South Africa to the Arctic Circle to Toronto, will bring us a more representative House of all our Canadian people.

We are all called honourable members, and I hope we consider it important to merit that title. Sometimes I think we are overimpressed by our own importance with all the pomp and circumstance and we separate ourselves from the people we represent. It is humbling to be a member when you think of our responsibility to pass good laws and uphold democratic institutions. But it is only when we listen to those who tell us about their needs for decent housing, for equal educational and employment opportunities and for saving our environment that we can exercise our decision-making power responsibly.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my years in the House. I started out as a member of the official opposition and as Treasury critic, up against Darcy McKeough. Since then I have had just about every portfolio, including Environment, women’s issues, Education, Intergovernmental Affairs and Revenue. Now, perhaps fittingly, I end up as seniors’ advocate. The Legislature and its committees are a great learning process, and that is one of the bonuses. It also teaches you much about human relations in the political arena and where the levers of power are to be found.

I belong to the class of 1975, which brought many new members to the House. Only five now in the House have more service than that class.

You may ask what I plan to do in the future. People like Rosemary Brown, a former MLA in British Columbia, and Pauline Jewett, a former MP, have shown that there is life after the Legislature. Rosemary is director of an organization helping women in the Third World to reach their potential. Pauline Jewett is serving as an adviser to Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman chosen as a party leader in the federal field. They can be models for all of us.

With all the demands for volunteers to work at saving the environment and the Toronto waterfront, or enhancing the rights of women, visible minorities and native people, or getting homes for the homeless and food for the hungry, I am sure that I will find more than enough to do to keep me busy.

I am disturbed by the erosion of democratic rights in the Legislature under majority government. I hope all members will make it a top priority to restore their role as champions for the poor, the oppressed and all the people of this province. Thank you.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I do not want to push my luck. After the tributes paid to the member for Oshawa on Monday, the House recessed. But I would like to just take a minute to thank all the members on both sides of the House for their kindness and friendship for the past 15 years, the clerks and assistants and all the people at Queen’s Park. I will miss this place. This House has become my home. My wife, Marnie, certainly thinks so and that is why I have decided not to return.

I would just like to thank my constituents in my old riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel and the new riding of Wellington for giving me the honour and the privilege to serve for the past 15 years. I will miss this place, I will miss the people in it and I wish them all the best.

Hon Mr Ward: Since we know that today is the last day of this session, I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to acknowledge three long-standing servants of this Legislature.

Agreed to.

RETIREMENT OF EDITOR OF DEBATES

Mr Fulton: The name Hansard comes from Thomas Hansard, who was credited with the first recording of debates in the House of Commons in Westminster around 1811. Used throughout the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth countries and several other parliaments since then, Hansard replaced the Journals of the House here in Ontario in 1944.

Hansard supplies invaluable support and assistance to members and officials of the House as well as to many other interested parties and organizations.

Peter Brannan is chief of Hansard for this assembly and has for the past 30 years served this Legislature and the people of Ontario with distinction and dedication. Tomorrow he retires.

Peter came to this House as a result of an unexpected resignation of his predecessor. William Murdoch, the Speaker, called his daughter in desperation for a replacement. Peter, who happened to be a co-worker at Maclean Hunter just down the street, accepted the position immediately.

In those days, Hansard editors came from a variety of publishing houses and worked in shifts. The evening shift would walk up University Avenue and look at the red light at the top of the building, which would signify an evening session. Many years later, the red light was changed to a white light, not through a sense of moral decorum, but a white light was deemed to be non-partisan.

The Hansard crew moved from its fifth-floor garret shortly after it had transcribed the words of the former leader of the NDP, Donald MacDonald, who said that the fifth floor was a firetrap from which no one could escape.

Mr Brannan has served eight Speakers of this Legislature, from the Honourable William Murdoch to you, sir, and five premiers, from Leslie Frost to David Peterson. It was Leslie Frost who made the complaint that for the price of producing the official record, he could pave nine miles of highway. With that, he cancelled printing for three years. Perhaps my friends from the north might consider that.

Today, Peter oversees a budget of $3.5 million and 47 staff members. He has managed and directed Hansard into the modern electronic age. Hansard can now produce draft transcripts within the hour and a complete, formal printing within one day.

Mr Brannan is the founding president of the Hansard Association of Canada and a member of the Commonwealth Hansard Editors Association.

A veteran of the Royal Air Force, Peter was formerly the editor of the Canadian Aviation publication. Not so well known is his interest in provincial highways. About four years ago, he inquired of the former Minister of Transportation about opening the Don Valley Parkway directly into the 401 eastbound express lanes. That wonderful improvement, that I would like to have named the Brannan bypass, was done as a direct result of his interest.

Peter is also an avid sailor, sailing from Frenchman’s Bay Yacht Club, where he also serves as editor of the club magazine. He is also a racer of little note. He has won few, if any, pennants but he is always at the start line and always finishes the race and always with his great sense of humour intact. He and his wife, Anne, will travel extensively the next few months throughout Great Britain, and winter at Madeira Beach Yacht Club.

It is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity, as Peter’s member, a fellow sailor from FBYC and as a long-time friend, on behalf of my party to wish Peter and Anne many years retirement as you sail off into the sunset.

Mr B. Rae: It is very hard for people who are not members of this place to understand the peculiar obligations all of us have to Peter Brannan and to the extraordinary staff that produce the Ontario Hansard. As bewildering and as outrageous as it may seem. Hansard reports almost every word that is spoken in this place.

They occasionally have to exercise some judicious judgement with respect to which comments will appear and which will not. I have noted t